"How to Succeed in the Spy Business Without Really Trying" or "Rub-a-Dub-Dub...Three Spies in a Sub" or "Where-What-How-Who Am I?"

This is mysfit reporting for the fish.

In light of recent developments regarding the Bush White House and the investigation surrounding the War in Iraq, I present the following picture:

-from InternetWeekly.org

Don't let this man fool you, I never believed he was as dumb as he looked, nor as he seemed. It's easy to dismiss someone's actions and overlook what's going on if you frame them as a laughable (possibly even lovable**) idiot. For an example: Maxwell Smart of Get Smart.

An excellent if mostly inept spy, if I may say so, and a wonderful show, but Max Smart saved the day often because he was so lucky that the badguys (not the sharpest tools in the shed either) dismissed him as an outright idiot - (which he often was, but that's besides the point, he was dumbly clever, or cleverly dumb - whichever you like).

It seems that Bush's luck maybe running short. With troops still dying trying to police Iraq and Bush criticizing the Iranian elections, saying: "Today, Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world," Bush said in a statement distributed by the White House. (Sound familiar?) - Bush's popularity even among those who originally supported him and the war is waning.

People say "we won the war too quickly" and that's why there was no exit plan. But isn't winning the war quickly a good thing? Why would you start a war without a plan of winning? Especially since it seems that Bush was planning this war since before he was elected: "We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge. We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors." (From his inaugural speech, January 2001).

So now there is a secret memo of the minutes of a secret meeting between the British Prime Minister and the US President from about a year before we went to war, which has sparked an investigation into the events leading up to the war. I wonder if they used a Cone-of-Silence at the meeting:

All joking aside, this is an investigation that probably should have happened a few years ago and we'll just have to see if this results in "impeachment". The term has been thrown back and forth for most of the years that Bush has been in office, but this could be serious if this investigation proves that the president, vice-president, etc, mislead Congress or "that the intelligence and the facts were indeed fixed around the policy, and we sent our troops to war under dubious pretenses," (from an article at CNN.com). Either offense is not only abhorrent but "would violate federal criminal law, including the Federal Anti-Conspiracy Statute which makes it a felony, (quote), "to commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United States or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose", and the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress." (John Bonifaz, attorney and co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org in an interview on DemocracyNow!).

There seems to be enough evidence to put President Bush and Vice-President on trial, and even if it is not true, they should have to stand and defend themselves, under oath, against formal accusations - just like the rest of us would have to do in such circumstances.

It's definitely nice to see that our corporate media is actually picking up this story - though coverage is not as thorough as a story of this magnitude seems to merit. Isn't the even the possibility of the President having mislead the Congress (and the nation) with "fixed" intelligence information more important and interesting to the American people than Michael Jackson's trial?

This is mysfit signing off, with hope, disgust and, of course, apathy.