In regards to the Ritter article I linked in this post, xymphora asks a good question:
“Shouldn’t the Democrats attempting to make a political issue out of the lies concerning the attack on Iraq have to prove their bona fides by making at least as strong an objection to the pre-war that is going on now, at a time when it can be stopped? Or is the sudden Democrat interest in the attack on Iraq just more bullshit partisan politics?”
Justin Raimondo takes down the “remarkably incurious” Howard Dean for his comment associating Ray McGovern with 9/11 material distributed outside the Downing Street memo hearing.
“I don’t recall anybody at the hearing saying that Israel was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks: not that Dean ever let facts get in the way of his emotional outbursts, which are mostly calculated attempts at demagoguery that invariably fail.”
And a commenter in Kurt Nimmo’s entry here, points to this Raw Story article, to dispell the growing contention Michael Smith “admitted” he destroyed the original documents:
I first photocopied them to ensure they were on our paper and returned the originals, which were on government paper and therefore government property, to the source,” he added.
The Butler Committee, a UK commission looking into WMD, has quoted the documents and accepted their authenticity, along with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Smith said all originals were destroyed in order to both protect the source and the journalist alike.
“It was these photocopies that I worked on, destroying them shortly before we went to press on Sept 17, 2004,” he added. “Before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter.”
brooding persian explains yet again why he didn’t vote in Iran’s election. Why bother? Unless IRV (something Dean used to endorse) and a paper trail are applied here (taking all money out of the election process makes sense), I’ll never waste my time again, either. John McCain vs. Joe Biden? Sounds like an invitation to a wake.