Sunday, July 06, 2008


The Persistence of Lies

The one thing about lefty journalists (sorry for the redundancy), including Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes, is that they're not afraid to repeat lies even when the lies they are repeating have been shown to be lies. It really is amazing. In this belligerent, belittling interview with good guy Douglas Feith, Kroft says:

One of the reasons people were told we were going to war in Iraq was because of the imminent attack with weapons of mass destruction was about to happen.

Feith says no one said that [an attack from Iraq was imminent] and Kroft quotes three people, Rumsfeld, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney and no one uses the word "imminent." Rumsfeld says that of all the nations harboring terrorist, the threat from Iraq is the greatest and "more immediate" but that's a comparison with others, not a straight statement that Iraq is about to attack us.

So, with all the researchers and film at their fingertips, and the set up of Kroft lying about what the administration said, and Feith denying it--here was the opportunity to make Feith look the fool and point out that the administration indeed said an attack from Iraq on America or Americans was imminent.

And they produce no such clip.

That's because there is no such clip.

There is this rather famous bit from the 2003 State of the Union address:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Kroft didn't play that.

The next time some Democrat/socialist/moderate/anarcho-syndicalist says that the administration lied to say that an attack by Saddam was imminent (or that they used some sort of Jedi mind trick to fool some into thinking that) call them a liar, because they are.

Oh, and about the "wide" debunking of the Czech report that leader of the 9/11 attack, Mohamed Atta, met just before the attack with Iraqi officials in Prague, who debunked it widely, the CIA? The FBI? No way they could ever be wrong about anything. No freakin' way. That's crazy talk.

When you're as wrong as Kroft is on the facts, it really doesn't suit you to be smug as well.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?