Comments: Suskind: Congress Preparing To Investigate, He'll Play Tapes If Necessary, Sources Previously Said They'd Testify

For some reason my bullshit detector is piqued by this whole story. Perhaps I'm just cynical enough to think they would sucker Suskind into making these allegations public so they can be publicly debunked in Congress and the accusers ridiculed.

Then the right-wing media circus will go nuts about how the accusations are typed up in Times New Roman, which didn't even exist in 2003, and then the whole idea that they lied about WMD to put the U.S. military's bootprint smack dab in the middle of the oil will become politically radioactive and no one they allow on TV will go near it again. Meanwhile good liberals will pitiably bleat about the superiority of a nuanced worldview and how just because Dick Cheney didn't personally order these two guys to create these documents doesn't mean documents weren't forged at his request, etc. Five years later and everyone knows that they found proof Saddam was chasing yellowcake in Niger.

Fuck me if I'm not cynical.

Posted by James Cape at August 7, 2008 08:59 PM

Mr. Cape, you read my mind. Watching Suskind on Olbie I got a sinking feeling, he's being baited into delivering the Bush Junta a well placed smoke screen on their way out the door. As if they needed any extra.

"...these guys are big believers in the truth process". Ya don't say?

I dearly hope I'm off on this.

Posted by BenP at August 7, 2008 10:12 PM

I don't actually think this is a "Bush Junta conspiracy"; suckering Suskind and how this plays out is pretty much the absolute worst-case scenario. I could just as easily convince myself that these two guys were making shit up to play at the big-time or settle old scores--and Suskind is bluffing about the tapes to maintain his reputation...

Regardless of the veracity of this, the point is to treat the criminal prosecution of officials little-r responsibly. They are still innocent until proven guilty, so you had better actually *prove* them guilty. In that scenario, this is simply *a* piece of evidence (e.g. like the DSM), not *the* piece of evidence.

Posted by James Cape at August 7, 2008 11:32 PM