linazelle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-03 09:57 AM
Original message |
|
Some freeper said that "moral clarity is at the heart of the war on Jihadistan" and I lit into him with the following.
What "moral clarity"?
There were so many lies and half-truths from the administration to get into Iraq that clarity is the last thing this war is about.
I guess it's "moral clarity" that prompted the current Justice Department investigation due to the treasonous and vengeful outing of intelligence operatives who disagreed with trumped up intelligence charges by the administration.
Or is the clarity you speak related to the lies about Saddam's attempts to obtain nuclear weapons? Cheney and Bush said there was proof Saddam had actually reconstituted nuclear weapons when there was no such proof.
Last October, Bush lied again--moral clarity again? He said, "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work." Inspectors verified that the missiles could only travel less than 200 miles --- not far enough to hit any of the targets or kill the number of people Bush claimed.
And let's not forget the moral clarity that has led all in the Bush administration to confuse the public to the tune of 70% believing that Saddam did 9/11. Bush, Powell, Cheney and Rice as well as Rumsfeld have continuously mislead the public into the thinking Saddam was connected to 9/11. The administration continues to try to make that misleading allegation ction at every opportunity. Condoliar Rice did it again masterfully on Meet the Press yesterday--repeatedly mentioning the Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence despite seeming attempts by Bush to clarify the confusion.
Maybe It was "moral clarity" that drove Rumsfeld to tie Saddam to 9/11. CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at same time. Not only UBL .... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Surely it was "moral clarity" that led Bush to utter the following lie: "Our intelligence sources tell us that has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Bush said this with the knowledge that the IAEA's assessment that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.
Are you referring to the "moral clarity" that led BushCo to claim an IAEA report indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons? That claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no such report existed.
Perhaps you are thinking of the "moral clarity" that led Bush to claim that on any given day Saddam could provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists on October 7. Yet, declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released by the White House shows that U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely.
Of course we also heard from Bush that Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes. The truth is murdered scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the source of this report. British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source, considered the charge unreliable.
I know it was "moral clarity" that led BushCo to appoint Cheney's former energy-sector employer, Halliburton to rebuild. Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root received $7 billion to tend to oil field fires and (the real purpose) to do any retooling necessary to get the oil pumping at a decent rate, a deal that allows them a cool $500 million in profit. The fact that Dick Cheney's office is still fighting tooth and nail to block any disclosure of the individuals and companies with whom his energy task force consulted to make these appointments tells everything you need to know about moral clarity. Not to mention the fact that Cheney denied financial ties with Halliburton despite currently received deferred pay from the company.
So there you have it. BushCo is the antithesis of moral clarity. I hope that's the point you were trying to make because that's the only logical conclusion one can draw based on their actions.
We have no business trying to establish moral clarity elsewhere when it's sorely lacking in our own government.
|
SnohoDem
(915 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-03 10:16 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I liked that one so much I saved it to my HD. Awesome post, linazelle.
|
Jacobin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-03 10:19 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Have they deleted the post and banned you yet?
Very nicely done, btw.
|
Bunny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-03 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. why would it be deleted and banned? |
|
where are you going with this?
|
RobertSeattle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-03 10:20 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Just like "compassion conservative" I bet "moral clarity" is one of those adjective-noun combinations brainstormed up by an avertising firm working for the GOP. It "sounds good" but is just meaningless.
|
Beam Me Up
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-03 10:23 AM
Response to Original message |
pbeal
(506 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-03 10:23 AM
Response to Original message |
5. its a winger buzz-word it doesnt mean what they think it means |
|
When a winger says he has moral clarity it actually means that he will refuse to even consider evidence that contradicts his world view and never admit he is wrong, They use it to keep a black and white, us vs them world view.
|
salin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-03 10:24 AM
Response to Original message |
6. great list... add this to it |
|
Is it "moral clarity" to compromise an intelligence unit geared to stopping WMDs from falling into terrorists hands, in order to try to make the president look better (by discreding Wilson)? Wasn't the threat of WMDs falling into terrorist hands via Iraq one of the BIG reasons were given as to why we had the "moral imperative" to go to Iraq. How is it then "moral" to put the nation at risk of WMDs in the hands of terrorits, by leaks to the press, and then have NO investigation for two months into a) WHO compromised national security, and/or b) What was the long-term damage inflicted?
|
HFishbine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-03 10:27 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Should be a letter to your local paper!
|
linazelle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-03 03:23 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I just might send it to the local newspaper |
|
Thanks for the compliments.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 07:00 PM
Response to Original message |