Administration Re-writing/re-directing History ... again.

Even speaks-from-both-sides-of-his-mouth Senator John McCain believes dissent and criticism is acceptable, unlike this administration. This morning National Security Council Advisor Stephen Hadley, on CNN with Wolfie, repeatedly hit on the Republican talking point that it was 'unfair' (boo hoo) to question whether the Prez (both of them) lied the American people, and troops, into war. Here's the WaPo coverage of his appearance.

If they had nothing to worry about, if they were confident this never happened, they should be happy the press, dems and critics are off chasing ghosts, if indeed these criticisms amount to nothing. If they have nothing to fear, they should welcome the inquiries. They should throw open the files, the (non-classified & declassified) materials and BEG for transparency in order to get this behind them.

But transparency, much less honesty, has never been a strength of this administration. In fact, quite the opposite as most of the other half of America is finally starting to realize. This White House is truly emblematic of 'stinkin-thinkin' to use the 12-step vernacular. They are far more concerned about appearances and maintaining control, instead of honesty and authenticity. Truly the hallmarks of an alcoholic/addict mindset and modus operandi.

Shrub is most likely surrounded by (nonrecovering) addicts of one form or another, or 'children of addicts' who are also afflicted with this approach to life -- therefore a groupthink mentality (see the works of Irving Janus) combined with obedience to authority (Stanley Milgram & Lawrence Kohlberg & Philip Zimbardo) is the norm to them because they are so steeped in the distorted mindset of alcoholic/addictive thinking (combined with the fervor of the true fanatics of fundamentalist beliefs, which are actually more alike than different when you start reading the literature and research).

And, I think it is completely feasible that shrub never SAW the so-called 'war' memo* (remember he only reads comics & sports), it is HIGHLY LIKELY he received the gist of the information verbally from staff who did read it. He's the imperial ADHD prez, I doubt he has the patience, much less intellectual capacity to comprehend anything he does read that's not about baseball.

OR he communicated something equally as plausible: "Don't tell me what I don't want to hear, tell me what supports going to war."

-------------
David Corn also weighs in on the administration's tactics, distortions and lies. The brilliant and talented Froomkin at WaPo writes about shrub's and the RNC's desperate rhetorical attacks recently launched at those who dare criticize or question the admin's misuse and massaging of intel to mislead this nation into the Iraq debacle:

Bush's argument is deeply flawed. Far from being baseless, the charge that he intentionally misled the public in the run-up to war is built on a growing amount of evidence. And the longer Bush goes without refuting that evidence in detail, the more persuasive it becomes.

And his most prized talking point -- that many Democrats agreed with him at the time -- is problematic. Many of those Democrats did so because they believed the information the president gave them. Now they are coming to the conclusion that they shouldn't have.

Like other Bush campaigns, this one will inevitably feature the ceaseless repetition of key sound bytes -- the hope being that they will be carried, largely unchallenged, by the media -- and virulent attacks by the White House on those who dare to disagree, even going so far as to question their patriotism.

Finally, John Edwards takes a courageous solo step:

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.

Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.

Sure, it's calculated (and maybe even cynical to some degree), but it puts him further ahead in my book than any of the the dems now in national office.

*National Security Memo (first reported in USA Today in 2003) outlining the number of troops necessary to fight a war in Iraq.