HALF-TRUTH: SLATE's Hard & Soft approach to the DSM
Click here to listen to Mr. Kaplan discussing his inconsistent analyses on NPR.
late Magazine weighs in on the DSM:
Let's Go to the Memo
What's really in the Downing Street memos?
By Fred Kaplan
An excerpt from the article states:
This is about as solid as the evidence gets on these matters: By mid-summer 2002--at a time when Bush was still assuring the American public that he regarded war as a "last resort"--the president had in fact put it on his front burners.
Sounds promising, right?
Well, at the end of this article, Kaplan gets a little soft.
It's worth noting that "fixed around" is not synonymous with "fixed." To say that Bush and his aides "fixed" intelligence--as some Web sites claim the memo shows--would mean that they distorted or falsified it. To say "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" means that they were viewing, sifting, and interpreting intelligence in a way that would strengthen the case for their policy, for going to war.
Either way--"fixed" or "fixed around"--Bush and his aides had decided to let policy shape intelligence, not the other way around; they were explicitly politicizing intelligence.
"explicitly politicizing intelligence"???!!!
We're not talking about selling a used car here.
Jeezus, Kaplan!! I can't think of a better euphemism. Can you? George W. Bush and the neocons deliberately DECEIVED congress and (tried to) deliberately DECEIVE the rest of the world about the need to go to war at the time. This is not merely "politicizing intelligence". It is a CRIME OF THE WORST KIND.
Deliberately leaving out important evidence about the decision to go to war is a high crime.
The "method" of deception is not an issue when determining if Bush & co. are guilty. This is what makes Kaplan's analyses absurd.
Oh, well. I guess we should be happy that it's finally getting some coverage from the MSM.