More information leading to important questions
I keep sitting on post bits concerning the upcoming showdown over judicial filibusters, and I'm going to continue to do so for a little longer. It's one of those issues where I quickly become too angry to maintain a useful tone. I'll correct that soon, for all the good it'll do.
In the meantime, I was wondering when someone would make a point of how unbalanced the potential job & revenue loss will be to blue states while red ones will see a nice jump over-all if the Pentagon's proposed base closure list were to be followed. Why, I'm sure it's all a coincidence. It couldn't be as if there's any mix of pay-off or punishment for support or lack thereof for Dubya in the 2004 election, could there?
I also see a useful follow-up to something I commented on back on May 9th as another one for the (impeachment) case file. I probably should have made more fuss about it at the time. I see that more recently Tony Collett noted it, too, earlier this week, in understandable frustration that it had been buried in the media, including a link to the UK memo at the heart of this. To reiterate and summarize, a briefing by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence agency in July of 2002 states that during a meeting in Washington earlier that month the Bush administration had already decided to invade Iraq and efforts were already being exerted to cherry-pick information to fit their supposed justifications for the action.
Comments