".. it all depends upon the meaning of...."

---

Cheney's history needs a revise

By TIM RUTTEN, LA Times

It's amazing, the English language. So many words, and so many meanings to each individual. Apparently what it all comes down to is "perspective".

Perhaps, ironically, it was put best by our former President while dodging the truth about his sex life in the Oval Office... "It all depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is...". Ummm... so twue, so twue.

Revisionist history should be self evident, don't you think? Afterall, in hindsight, we should be able to clearly determine "history". Yet it is all how "history" is presented.

Example... the MSM parrots over and over that Bush stated unequivocally that Saddam had a part in the 911 attacks. If the future generations look back at the press during that period, what will they assume as true?

Yet did Bush do as the press proclaims? Can a quote be found anywhere that Bush even came close to stating that "Saddam worked with Bin Laden to carry out the 911 attacks".

No... no speech quotes. Because it never happened. But if history books are written according to journalistic "history", that fact will be buried forever under a mountain of press op-eds, masquerading as "news".

Thus we address Tim Rutten's version of revisionism in the LA Times article above. This supposedly laden with "proofs" by referencing his peers in newspaper articles.

Cheney see revisionism as those deliberately twisting the 911 intel, available to Congress and the world for examination. And that information was duly examined and all charges of manipulation were exonerated by the oh-so-revered 911 Commissioners. It was information taken, absorbed, considered, and concluded by Congress, the UN, the WH alike as the best intel we had, and likely to be true.

But Rutten and other journalistic revisionists are busy rewriting history daily. And such revisionists see Cheney's reliance on official documentation, such as the 911 Commission Report and foreign intel briefs at the time, as skewed, preferring instead to support charges of intel manipulation by quotes from such historic sources as the NY and LA Times.

Right....

According to the vice president, "any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false" and the product of a "self-defeating pessimism."

Really.

Just 24 hours earlier, The Times' Bob Drogin and John Goetz had described in vivid and convincing detail how the administration exaggerated and recklessly misused intelligence concerning Hussein's alleged manufacture of biological weapons that was provided by the now notorious Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball." (Who says spooks don't have a sense of humor?) As Drogin and Goetz reported, Curveball's handlers in Germany, where he sought political asylum, repeatedly warned their American counterparts that their informant was an unreliable — possibly unstable — fabricator. Still, both Bush and then Secretary of State Colin L. Powell incorporated his fantasies into their arguments for war. Conscientious CIA agents who had tried to blow the whistle on a deceit the administration found deliciously convenient were dispatched to windowless offices without telephones.

Rutten portrays Drogin and Goetz as the sole possessers of "truth" here by interviews after the fact. Really now... where were they back in 2001 and 2002 as the purveyors of truth and justice?

Oh wait... I remember history. We HAD NO American intel sources. That's right... our international intel for terrorism was shatttered and made impotent by the 90s Congress, and supported with Clinton's "yes" on the bills cutting the funding. We were were totally dependent upon foreign intel sources - as was most of the world.

And yet Congress and the our intel community alike wisely believed the "Curveballs" in life because we had no other choice. To assume that this data wasn't viable left dangerous options were it found to be true. The charge of "unreliable" or "fabricator" may be true on occasion. But, like a broken clock that is correct at least twice a day, even an "unreliable" source must be correct on some occasions or he wouldn't have continued to be a "source".

However, if we are to think like Rutten, prior to labeling any intel as acceptable, we should let a couple of roving reporters from the NY or LA Times at them for interviews and procure their blessings of confirmation. Hey... if it doesn't appear in the NY or LA Times, how can it be true?

Rutten then moves to the "torture" issue, and Goss. Torture is a fact, made abundantly true by NYT's articles.

Apparently it does to other people in the CIA. As the New York Times reported Thursday, one of the major reasons the government lessened the charges against alleged terrorist Jose Padilla — who the administration initially said plotted to set off a so-called dirty bomb inside the United States — was that the chief witnesses against him have been tortured. They are two senior two Al Qaeda leaders, Abu Zubeida and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, currently being held in secret by the U.S. government.

Padilla... now here's a guy who's no Boy Scout in life, as demonstrated by his record of gang membership, various assault charges, murder charges stemming back to the 1980s. If they got two AQ leaders to talk, then it's entirely possible that another 911 has been prevented. Note, the method of "torture" is not divulged. Maybe he was forced to listen to Britney Spears for hours on end...

One can only wonder how the NYTs have handled the situation if the dirty bomb was indeed set off. They'd whine about how Bush isn't doing enough to protect the country, of course.

According to the New York Times, the CIA inspector general found Mohammed, reputed mastermind of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, "had been subjected to excessive use of a technique involving near drowning in the first months after his capture."

While the NYT's "stamp of approval" alone is sufficient enough to make most of us skeptical, it evidently doesn't make Rutten skip a beat on his truth meter. But then, for the argument of it all, let's assume the NYT's is the gospel for a change. If so, it all comes down to "what the meaning of..." TORTURE is.

Abu Ghraib's nickers over the head of a Muslim terrorist may be torture to an ACLU lawyer, yet considered coveted porn or S&M pleasure to another. Afterall the world does enjoy a multi-billion dollar porn industry. And such behavior on those sites is embarrassingly tame by comparison.

Mohammed Atta - who not only escaped martydom and vestual virgins in the 911 attacks, but also conveniently slipped under the radar of the 911 Commission along with the ABLE DANGER data system - was subjected to "near drowning". Oh my..... yawn.

It might be pointed out that it's also likely that "near drowning" techniques are experienced by our elite special forces as a part of their basic training. Interesting. It's okay to expose our troops to such treatment so they are less apt to panic under similar circumstances, but it's a definite ACLU-type no no for a terrorist.... a uniform'less enemy combatant not fighting for any State in the world.

Feh... I'd like to suggest water drip torture over long periods of time instead. That'll shut up the likes of the Rutten's in life.

Let's see... more revisionism by the press. There's no proof of WMD. This despite the fact that the UNMOVIC Quarterly Report in May of 2004 proves Saddam actively acquired and tried to hide forbidden missile parts from 1999 thru 2003, acquired illegally thru private trading companies. That little ditty is also supported by the separate-but-related Oil for Food Scandal.

What else have we found? Plenty of sarin nerve gas stashes.

U.S. soldiers found the suspect chemicals at two sites: an agricultural warehouse containing 55-gallon chemical drums and a military compound, which soldiers had begun searching Saturday. The soldiers also found hundreds of gas masks and chemical suits at the military complex, along with large numbers of mortar and artillery rounds.

Chemical tests for nerve agents in the warehouse came back positive for so-called G-Series nerve agents, which include sarin and Tabun, both of which Iraq has been known to possess. More than a dozen infantry soldiers who guarded the military compound Saturday night came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to very low levels of nerve agent, including vomiting, dizziness and skin blotches.

A hand-held scanning device also indicated that the soldiers had been exposed to a nerve agent. Two tests were negative, but further testing indicated sarin was present.

Illegal missiles and nerve gas stashes. Together they make a tidy argument for a chemical assault. Yet, according to the press, Saddam did not have WMDs.

By who's standards? Does not "sarin gas" + "illegally proscribed missiles" = WMD? How many people must it be able to kill before it classifies as such?

Again the play on words by the politically desperate.... "it all depends upon the meaning of...." WMDs.

Boy o boy... did Clinton start a new era of comprehension of the English language or what?

And the newest "revision" in the works? The inevitible withdrawal of troops from Iraq will happen because of the foul threats of the dissenting left.

Rutten's buds at the LA Times, Richter and Marshall, pepper the same issue with such predictable nonsense in their U.S. Starts Laying Groundwork for Significant Troop Pullout From Iraq article today.

President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.

The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.

snip

The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners. The approach also tracks the thinking of some centrist Democrats, such as Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior representative of his party on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"The Administrations PIVOT"???? Please, people. What have we been told as "the plan" since our entry into Baghdad? That we help the Iraqis set up a new gov't and Constitution, train their troops until they can take care of themselves, then leave.

And what have we got today? A new Iraqi gov't, an approved Constitution, and an improving level of Iraqi troops that have sustained not only the mortars of terrorists, but the verbal mortars of the American and int'l left.

"The Administration's pivot...." my ass. It is coming down exactly as foretold, despite protests of failure, and we're getting out just as was promised. Yet the press will "revise" this history as a win for the disgruntled Dems, crediting for forcing their will on a weakening White House because of low approval poll ratings resulting from a press bombarding the public with negativity and claims of failure.

How ridiculous can this be? Bush backing down because of Congressional and press pressure? Don't think so.

We have all watched this President buck the polls, buck the UN and buck even members of his own party to do what he felt was necessary to prevent a 911 from ever happening again on this soil. Why, when he has no re-election to lose, would he give a rat's ass about a low poll rating? This man is already hardened - accustomed to being hated and ridiculed thru both terms.

Personally, I agree with the left on one particular issue. We ARE going to hell and a handbasket in this country. But not for the same reason as the emotional-and-intellectually-void-on-facts crowd.

What we have in this country is a Congress behaving like spoiled children (BOTH sides of the aisle), vying for power and creaming off the top positions. Add to that we have an arrogant and pious press that is consumed with controlling the preservation of perspective history by op-eds, cleverly presented as "news", instead of official documentation.

And the aforementioned bunch are in control of what our children will be taught in the future. Is it any wonder we should worry about our future?? We are all at their mercy if we do not seek to educate ourselves and our future generations with alternative sources.

So I guess, for us normal goons in the world, we shall just have to adopt the philosphy of our past President and ask "what the meaning of..." HISTORY really is before we can determine just who is doing the revisionism.