The only source I’ve found for this so far is Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch, but that’s more than good enough for a Pitting:
:dubious: GIVE IT UP, W. Remember that “political capital” you resolved to “spend” after the 2004 election? Well, you’ve gone and overdrawn the account. You are now more unpopular than Nixon was when he resigned. You cannot sell the American people yet another war. Just accept your “legacy” as it is and stop trying to make things even worse.
I stopped being surprised about this stuff when we invaded Iraq. Honestly, I thought that was a joke - “no sane government would start a second war when it already had one unfinished one on its hands,” I said to myself. Said it to you lot too, in fact.
No, it’s not the same story. Note the reference to “nonlethal” in the ABC story, and the comments that this means Bush is less likely to take overt military action against Iran, contrary to the conclusions you drew from the first story.
Yeah, kinda like the idiots around here who you are constantly chastising for calling Libby or Cheney treasonous. Right?
If the Iranians didn’t already know about this… well, what could you possibly have to fear from people who didn’t notice we were destabilizing their government and currency markets until we told them about it?
This is a complete outrage and I will not stand for it! How could this be done to the unsuspecting American people!?!?!
(Note: The link freezes up my Firefox every time I click on it. I’m more worked up about that than the topic of discussion. This aggression will not stand, man!)
So does this authorization of “targeted assassination” mean that Shrub has revoked Executive Order 11905? Or was that EO already toast and I hadn’t heard about it?
No, it means that BG’s first link was factually incorrect regarding that assertion in the first place. If you can link to the ABC news story, this particular order explicitly forbids taking lethal actions.
But words are slippery in Washington and especially in the intelligence community, and the sources’ calling this a “nonlethal presidential finding” does not actually mean the sources’ understanding is that assassination is right out.
But words are slippery in Washington and especially in the intelligence community, and the sources’ calling this a “nonlethal presidential finding” does not actually mean the sources’ understanding is that assassination is right out. The story does say, a bit further down:
More like “Why does someone jab a caged bear with sharp sticks? Answer: to bring the bear to a more sensible negotiationg position, in order to foster better relations with the bear.”