Replies

Looks like Pollack did a Scott Ritter too--he writes a 528-page book and repudicates it here (apparenlty referring to a mea culpa article he wrote in Atlantic Monthly within the past month or so):

The Real State of the Union

Although it's a Clark campaign site, it appears that what it says about Pollack is accurate. How about this gem:

In closing he (Pollack) urged that "we should recognize that the Administration's rush to war was reckless even on the basis of what we thought we knew in March of 2003. It appears even more reckless in light of what we know today.

If I were so wrong to the tune of 528 pages, I would at least have the self-preservation instinct not to tell the world I was COMPLETELY stupid. There NOTHING in those 528 pages that supports going to war? What a maroon.

What a maroon.

I think Bugs Bunny said it best:
"What an ULTRA-maroon!"

Over the past year, I've pointed folks in this forum to Pollack's scenario of Saddam, Inc.
putting his energies into this very smart "just in time" or "capability-based"
program for chem/bio WMDs.
And in most (if not all) of my posts, I said something to the effect that it pained
me to say the a Clinton Admin. official was making a really good case.

Well, I guess that in a way I should be thankful.
Now I just about feel relieved of any sense of a need to be fair to anyone associated
with the Clinton Administration.

Every one of them, in the fullness of time, reveals themselves to be weasels
who should be ignored.

And many of them should feel lucky to get such treatment.
In a rational world, they'd be found guilty of treason, put against a wall and...

In the world of RealPolitik, Dubya, Condi, et al should be talking NON-STOP about
the "take it to the bank" two-faced weasel factor of the administration...
that supplied them with a lot of intelligence info. that counseled "at the first
decent provocation...go get Saddam".