thedrifter
03-28-08, 08:26 AM
Baghdad Boys "Didn't Know" But "Don't Mind Being Used" [Steve Schippert]
The Baghdad Boys are busy informing us that they didn't know Saddam Hussein's intelligence service (IIS) was behind their 2002 trip to Baghdad. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), and former Rep. David E. Bonior (D-MI) were such masters of nuance that they took it upon themselves to lend aid and comfort to an enemy and usurped the policies of the elected administration in the run-up to conflict. But now they say they had no idea that Hussein might have had a hand in facilitating their dissent. So which is it? Masters of nuance or victimized dupes? They can't have it both ways. And as I wrote earlier this morning, there are no excuses for their actions. There are none now and there were none then.
One cannot claim to be wise in the ways of nuance - if any of these elected officials’ words and actions are to be interpreted as routinely transmitted - and then turn around and claim ignorance to the fact that the Iraqi regime was all for what they were doing. 'For it' to the point of making their trip happen, such a media coup it was for the self-professed enemy of America.
The same applies to elected officials (and any others) who insist on ‘diplomatic’ junkets to have tea with the dictatorial leaders of states whom the official US policy includes no diplomatic ties. The congressional trip to Syria to meet with Bashar Assad is another prime example.
No excuses. None. You know what you were/are doing. Don’t act surprised when you learn their intelligence services are busy arranging and facilitating your aid to them.
Jim Thompson says that “obviously, had there been any question at all regarding the sponsor of the trip or the funding, I would not have participated.” That's an interesting statement from one of the Baghdad trio, especially considering what they said at the time while in Saddam's hospitality in 2002.
So how does it feel to be used as a propaganda tool against your own country? McDermott, who was asked that question by CNN's Jane Arraf when he was still in Baghdad, said it feels fine. "If being used means that we're highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then, yes, we don't mind being used."
Back then it was, of course, all about "the children." Today they say they would never have participated had they known that Saddam had facilitated the trip. (Steve Hayes questions the likelihood of Michigan Rep. Bonior's ignorance of this fact based on his own experience in Detroit.)
Yet, at the time, "We don't mind being used" was their professed attitude. They knew Saddam Hussein was using them and it simply didn't matter; it was all part of the great game. It was, in fact, a symbiotic relationship between the congressmen and Hussein, and only months before war between their own nation and a dictator supporting international terrorism.
Why would it matter whether Saddam facilitated and paid for their trip? Both Saddam and the congressmen had the same desired result in mind, no? "Because it would look bad" is not a valid reason, though it is likely the most pressing reason it matters to them today.
Did Bashar Assad pay for Nancy Pelosi and Jim Murtha, et al., to provide him with his own Syrian propaganda coup last year? Probably not, though you can be sure he encouraged their visit; one must actually ask the dictator for a sitting. But if we found out today that he had financed the trip, Pelosi and Murtha, et al., would certainly be assuring us that they had no idea and would not have gone if they'd known.
Again, why would this matter? It's the objectives of such undermining efforts that matter, not who paid for the ticket. Such is the low-water mark of congressional conduct, and the low bar of expectations for congressional performance today, while this nation is engaged in a global war against barbarian terrorists and states who sponsor them.
Ellie
The Baghdad Boys are busy informing us that they didn't know Saddam Hussein's intelligence service (IIS) was behind their 2002 trip to Baghdad. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), and former Rep. David E. Bonior (D-MI) were such masters of nuance that they took it upon themselves to lend aid and comfort to an enemy and usurped the policies of the elected administration in the run-up to conflict. But now they say they had no idea that Hussein might have had a hand in facilitating their dissent. So which is it? Masters of nuance or victimized dupes? They can't have it both ways. And as I wrote earlier this morning, there are no excuses for their actions. There are none now and there were none then.
One cannot claim to be wise in the ways of nuance - if any of these elected officials’ words and actions are to be interpreted as routinely transmitted - and then turn around and claim ignorance to the fact that the Iraqi regime was all for what they were doing. 'For it' to the point of making their trip happen, such a media coup it was for the self-professed enemy of America.
The same applies to elected officials (and any others) who insist on ‘diplomatic’ junkets to have tea with the dictatorial leaders of states whom the official US policy includes no diplomatic ties. The congressional trip to Syria to meet with Bashar Assad is another prime example.
No excuses. None. You know what you were/are doing. Don’t act surprised when you learn their intelligence services are busy arranging and facilitating your aid to them.
Jim Thompson says that “obviously, had there been any question at all regarding the sponsor of the trip or the funding, I would not have participated.” That's an interesting statement from one of the Baghdad trio, especially considering what they said at the time while in Saddam's hospitality in 2002.
So how does it feel to be used as a propaganda tool against your own country? McDermott, who was asked that question by CNN's Jane Arraf when he was still in Baghdad, said it feels fine. "If being used means that we're highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then, yes, we don't mind being used."
Back then it was, of course, all about "the children." Today they say they would never have participated had they known that Saddam had facilitated the trip. (Steve Hayes questions the likelihood of Michigan Rep. Bonior's ignorance of this fact based on his own experience in Detroit.)
Yet, at the time, "We don't mind being used" was their professed attitude. They knew Saddam Hussein was using them and it simply didn't matter; it was all part of the great game. It was, in fact, a symbiotic relationship between the congressmen and Hussein, and only months before war between their own nation and a dictator supporting international terrorism.
Why would it matter whether Saddam facilitated and paid for their trip? Both Saddam and the congressmen had the same desired result in mind, no? "Because it would look bad" is not a valid reason, though it is likely the most pressing reason it matters to them today.
Did Bashar Assad pay for Nancy Pelosi and Jim Murtha, et al., to provide him with his own Syrian propaganda coup last year? Probably not, though you can be sure he encouraged their visit; one must actually ask the dictator for a sitting. But if we found out today that he had financed the trip, Pelosi and Murtha, et al., would certainly be assuring us that they had no idea and would not have gone if they'd known.
Again, why would this matter? It's the objectives of such undermining efforts that matter, not who paid for the ticket. Such is the low-water mark of congressional conduct, and the low bar of expectations for congressional performance today, while this nation is engaged in a global war against barbarian terrorists and states who sponsor them.
Ellie