December 1, 2009

‘We’re gonna take him out!’

-- Awol McCodpiece on Saddam Hussein.

Bush/Cheney purposely let bin Laden escape in order to justify Iraq war, get “re”elected.

On Monday afternoon, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) told MSNBC host David “duh?” Shuster that bin Laden was let go because "the [mis]administration... knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq."

Shuster, incredulous, pushed back: "You really believe that?"

Hinchey, himself incredulous that Shuster could be such a fucking blind doucheknob, replied "Oh, there's no question about that because the leader of the military operation in the United States called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda because there was a sense that they didn't want to capture him."

Shuster began talking over Hinchey: "You can accuse them of malfeasance, you can accuse them of dropping the ball, of having an awful plan, and all of them would be justified, but to suggest that they would deliberately let, deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away so they could justify the war in Iraq... That will strike a lot of people as crazy."

Hinchey leaned back and smiled wrily. "I don't think it'll strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it'll strike a lot of people as very accurate."

3 comments:

Chris Vosburg said...

Carl Sagan counseled that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

One of the things that strikes me most about the rep's statements is the "everybody knows" assurance in the tone of his comments. It's the tone of evangelicals, and I wonder if perhaps he is not in the wrong line of work.

big em said...

I for one tend to believe Hinchey's statement - - it's just TOO incredible to think that the largest military in the world, led by a virtually conscienceless administration, with the world's highest military/spying technology, all focused (supposedly) on the capture of a 6'-5" guy traveling with a dialysis machine could NOT prevail when they had him virtually surrounded. I CAN (and do) believe that 9/11 WAS a case of malfeasance/ineptitude/indifference to governing/lack of attentiveness, but after that 'wakeup call', it's hard to believe that -- with their attention finally focused -- they couldn't capture bin Laden. And then Bush's later statement that "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority."* to me represents a virtual admission that their motivations were elsewhere. Also, with his administration full of signatories to the 'Project for the New American Century', all of them 'hard-nosed' political opportunists who had openly yearned for a 'new Pearl Harbor', it's far from idle speculation to say that this was on their wish-list.
While I agree with CV's Carl Sagan quote, I would say that the apologists/believers in W's story have the burden of 'extraordinary proof for this extraordinary claim'.

(* G.W. Bush, 3/13/02)

Lex Alexander said...

Shorter big em: Hinchey's claim comports both with the known facts and Occam's Razor.

+1