Even absent evidence, they tend to lend heaping sums of credence to disastrously faulty intelligence.No, I'm not talking about the WMD boondoggle and charade that lead Libby to prison and a commutation.
I'm talking about the on going situation revolving around the investigation of Daniel Pearl's murder case. Have a look and then keep reading at the link:
In March, Mariane Pearl, the widow of the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, received a phone call from Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General. At the time, Gonzales’s role in the controversial dismissal of eight United States Attorneys had just been exposed, and the story was becoming a scandal in Washington. Gonzales informed Pearl that the Justice Department was about to announce some good news: a terrorist in U.S. custody—Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda leader who was the primary architect of the September 11th attacks—had confessed to killing her husband. (Pearl was abducted and beheaded five and a half years ago in Pakistan, by unidentified Islamic militants.) The Administration planned to release a transcript in which Mohammed boasted, “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head.”What this really does is confound the process of extracting people, who may or may not have a connection with terrorism, and base the action on simply your say so. I've said this before, but the days of "trust-us" we're with the W, Rove and Co are over.
Pearl was taken aback. In 2003, she had received a call from Condoleezza Rice, who was then President Bush’s national-security adviser, informing her of the same news. But Rice’s revelation had been secret. Gonzales’s announcement seemed like a publicity stunt. Pearl asked him if he had proof that Mohammed’s confession was truthful; Gonzales claimed to have corroborating evidence but wouldn’t share it. “It’s not enough for officials to call me and say they believe it,” Pearl said. “You need evidence.” (Gonzales did not respond to requests for comment.)
Really, have we ever operated with a government that we could completely trust? I don't think so. Our founding fathers were justifiably dubious about the trustworithiness of an institution that grants powers, particularly the brand of absolute power the W, Rove and Co. is continuing to acquire.
Who was it that said...power corrupts, absolute power corrupts, absolutely?" Oh, yeah...."four legs good, two legs bad"...I get it.
Blog on friends, blog on all.