February 07, 2004

Atrios Tires of the Pro-War Hypocrisy Atrios writes a suberb essay on how the violence is getting worse in Iraq and the hypocrisy the the pro-war people. He targets warbloggers, Paula Zahn, Andrew Sullivan, Ahmed Chalabi, Jim Hoagland and liberal hawks. It's aided and abetted by the "liberal hawks" who for the most part seemed to just want to prove they have bigger testicles than the rest of us. But, why the hell should anyone listen to them? They were wrong, and I don't really care about reading their tortured essays of self-evaluation. I say it didn't matter whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMD. The Bush administration don't need a reason 9in their collective minds.)
  • The article he links to on the assassinations of Iraq's educated class is very disturbing.
  • Great link, homunculus. Atrios and Andrew Sullivan had a blowout on NPR radio. The Sullen Man said that the NY Times was against the war. Atrios informed that the Times ,b>endorced the war. End of debate. The media coverage of this sucked. Reporters (from other networks) saying that that they were scared of Fox News doesn't cut it.
  • This is telling. The Soviets had their own neocons stovepiping intelligence in the 80s. In 1981, we now know, the K.G.B. chairman said at a secret conference that President Ronald Reagan was planning to launch a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. The Soviets became consumed with the U.S. threat, just as the Bush administration became obsessed with the Iraq threat. The K.G.B. ordered all its offices in NATO countries to seek evidence of Mr. Reagan's plans for a pre-emptive nuclear strike, and they code-named the effort RYAN. Once K.G.B. officers knew what Moscow wanted, they found "evidence" everywhere of Mr. Reagan's secret plans for a nuclear strike
  • The Inside Story.
  • Thanks, Gyan. This graphic is great.
  • Wolof tires of Atrios' atrocious load times.
  • I notice that none of the arrows in the graph point to Bush. I'm not surpried that he is so out of the loop.