HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb. 23, 2005 It looks as if I’ll have to go over the subject of Bush’s lies concerning the uranium, comma by comma, with Tom Pain. The thesis plagiarized by the British government was published in 2002, but written years earlier, if the following article is to be believed, so, contrary to Pain’s remarks, I was not distorting anything: “Parts of the dossier turned out to have been lifted from the Internet -- complete with typographical errors -- from a university thesis written by a US student 12 years earlier.” http://www.spacewar.com/2003-a/030608115455.tkxie9vc.html Tom Pain conveniently overlooks the fact that Sean Boyne’s article in Jane’s Intelligence Review, also plagiarized by British intelligence, was published in 1997. That the obsolescent work of a single magazine contributor or a single graduate student, studying on a fellowship, should be given the status of recent findings of M16, the British Secret Intelligence Service, and without as much as the knowledge or consent of the authors, is preposterous. From my first article, “George W. Bush Lied About The Uranium”, it can be seen that the Britain’s intelligence dossier had been shown fraudulent as early as February 7, 2003. If that information was in the public domain, it means that people in the White House knew about it. It’s not as if Tom Pain or Thomas Keyes, consulting websites at random for their own edification, happened to miss a story somewhere, and could plead ignorance. The Federal Government has vast resources and personnel for finding all data relevant to important decisions. They cannot have failed to learn that Blair’s dossier had been shot full of holes well over a month before the beginning of the war. This raises the reasonable presumption that Bush knew about the dossier but decided to proceed with the war anyway, that his intent was to go to war regardless of any countervailing facts. The intelligence failures of the CIA that in July he adduced to justify his pretended ignorance of the truth cannot have been anything other than a subterfuge, that is, a lie, since in February he had M16’s intelligences failures out in plain sight and chose to ignore them. Then came el Baradei’s denunciation of the Niger forgeries on March 7, and Bush still carried on as if absolutely nothing had happened. I recall that period. I was shocked that the revelations did not give anyone cause to halt, or at least to pause and reconsider whether, in light of the new information, they should do some rethinking. They obviously didn’t care that the Niger documents were false. I happen to share Tom Pain’s low opinion of Edward Kennedy and William Clinton, though Clinton’s offenses in Monicagate were relatively minor, but I would prefer that Pain omit the foul language. I am trying to keep the level of our debate high, but Pain keeps sinking into the depths with his needless invective. Incidentally, you have to prove intent to prove “murder”, so calling Kennedy a “murderer” is ridiculous, as contemptible as he may be. Unless Tom Pain knows something I do not know, I don’t think he has any reason to call John Pilger’s video “mythical”. I don’t know of anyone who has shown that Pilger does not have such a video. I surely cannot prove he does have a video, but I have enough confidence in him to say that he probably does. Perhaps Pain can explain why he calls it “mythical”. This eludes me! To suppose that the mere fact that it has received no attention in the US demonstrates its mythical character is something like saying that since Tom Pain never heard of the student plagiarism, it never happened. I am afraid that Tom Pain, perhaps supposing me to be a Democrat, a liberal, a progressive or whatever, imagines that I have always had it in for Bush, merely because Bush is a Republican and a conservative, and that I am seeking any pretext to vilify him, but nothing could be further from the truth. I am totally indifferent to such dichotomies as liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican, etc. I don’t belong to or sympathize with a party. I don’t vote—what would be the point in a nation of 300,000,000? I had nothing against George W. Bush whatsoever until the run-up and the whole denouement of the Iraqi War. So Pain is mistaken to persist in that view, if that is the view he holds. Saying that I want to believe Bush is a liar is just nonsense. I call it as it is, not as I want it to be. To conclude, if Bush was not lying at the time of his State of the Union address, which is highly unlikely, he certainly knew by the time of the invasion that there was good reason to doubt the information at his disposal. Therefore, he was definitely lying when later he claimed that he had been misled by intelligence failures. Any judge who threw my evidence out of court would be removed from the bench. ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
