So Dubya reckons 'there's a lot of revisionism going on'.
Apparently, some journalists dare suggest 'we' never had enough evidence to warrant the slaughter of tens of thousands in the first place. Now, I don't doubt most of those hacks are only now, when the dead are dead and the maimed dying, beginning to voice criticism. But let's not tar them all with the same brush, eh?
Me, I don't reckon it'd do to wax too outraged in response to the revelation that porkies have been told and pretexts conjured. But maybe blogorrhoea just had access to rather better intelligence than messrs Bush, Blair, Howard, assorted hackery and divers bloggerazzi.
For instance, on 8 September 2002, blogorrhoea managed to gain access to an intelligence source in Washington (code name: CBS News
); producing the following post:
This from CBS News (4 September 2002)
"With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
'Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not.' "
On the same day, blogorrhoea was also able to reproduce an uncoded document delivered to the blogorrhoeaic drop-box by homing cassowary from the *Chicago Tribune's* Steve Chapman, initially couriered by way of visible ink in the pages of the 3 September 2002 edition of the *Baltimore Sun*:
"So why does Mr. Hussein want weapons of mass destruction? For their only real function - deterring other countries from attacking him. If he had nuclear weapons, the United States would have to drop the idea of invading Iraq to overthrow its government. But if the only value of an Iraqi bomb is Mr. Hussein's self-preservation, it's hardly worth going to war over.
For months, we've been wondering why the administration has been so reluctant to make the case for invading Iraq. Now we have the answer: Because there isn't one."
On 24 November, blogorrhoea's quest to vindicate its paranoid lefty fantasies took yours dismally to a deep source in London, code-named *The Daily Mirror*. Pausing only to translate from the original English, blogorrhoea reported as follows:
... from the mouth of Senior US Security Adviser Richard Perle to your eyes courtesy of Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor for the London *Mirror*:
' ... Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine. Evidence from ONE witness on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme will be enough to trigger a fresh military onslaught, he told an all- party meeting on global security.'
We had four months to digest that lot ... And yet it's Dubya complaining about the revisionism.