Are you consistently skeptical?

Update: 13 Feb 2006 To see how this effort fits in with the White House disinformation strategy, visit this summary box, open in a new window to see the larger pattern and other related ruses: [ Click ]

Politics is a curious thing. When you're on the right side of the law, you can easily defeat your oppontent.

But if you're on the wrong side of the law, you have to shut off your brain.

Is your brain on or off; and are you picking sides, or getting manipulated to believe in non-sense?[ Cross posted ]

* * *

Yes, it's important to notice things. Take the following examples:

LA Plot: Things didn't make sense [ Click ]

Blue U2: That didn't make sense [ Click ] Things didn’t' add up, but why did this unverified memo cause Congress to finally say, "You know we really ought to look at this whole Iraq war things." That, after the DSM. Hmmm. . . seems a little odd.

Iran: This doesn't make sense [ Click ] Little too convenient to have the Plame story linked to Iran -- if that's true, why didn't we invade Iran before Iraq? No answer.

NSA: This is illegal, but some don't care and want to find excuses to blame someone else. [ Click ] -- That make no sense; well, actually that does make sense -- we're dealing with the Federal government that can't do much other than make excuses.

There's one common theme: Despite the White House lying over Iraq WMD, people still refuse to question. Don't be surprised why this leadership continues to do what it does. Congress isn't willing to question.

Like anything, if you put one loyalty above another, you're going to make compromises. You have to choose: Are you going to call it like it is, and take the chance you'll offend someone on your own side; or are you going to only call it like it is when "the other side" has a problem?

You have to make the choice. The key is to know what you're doing, otherwise you're going to simply blame the world for calling you on your non-sense and inconsistencies.

* * *

[Cross posted]

This convenient disclosure of "Plame connected to Iran" seems far too timely. Even if it is true, does that mean that Iran is actually creating something?

Again, the record is clear: There's nothing there [ Click ]

The fast way to get the DNC to "buy into" the Iran-risk is if "their man" -- or in this case, their lady: Plame -- is brought into the nexus.

She may have been doing something in Iran, but does that make a difference what Iran is or not doing today? Of course not.

But the White House trick is to emphasize Plame's activities -- real or imagined -- in order to get people to say, "Hay, if Valarie Plame was involved, maybe there is something to this."

What Plame and/or Wilson did or didn't say about Iran doesn't make a difference whether or not Iran is or isn't doing anything.

What's worse than a nuclear armed Iran? A use invasion against a nation that was doing what they said: Making nuclear fuel, and learning the lesson from the British: Creating a back energy source.

The UK has exhausted many of the oil fields in the North Sea. Some say that oil is limited. Putting that debate aside, what's to say that Iran isn't seeking diverse energy? There's no reason.

If the White House is connected to revelations about Plame and Iran, I wouldn't be surprised. But I'm not going to sit here committing to theory of Iran's "threat" solely because I might believe Plame.

The burden of proof is on the White House to show that there's a credible problem, and a reason to believe them in the wake of their many lies over DSM, Iraq WMD, and Yellow Cake.

Being skeptical means also knowing when you're being asked to not be skeptical.