Who ya going to believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?

Josh Marshall sums up Bushco's latest series of outright lies in this years presidential campaign: the contention by Bush and Cheney that Kerry's claim, that the administration's folly in Iraq proved a distraction on the war against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, is "absolute garbage". He provides compelling arguments and cites contemporary reporting by the WaPo that, in fact, we did have OBL cornered in Tora Bora, that we "outsourced" the job of ferreting him out to the Afghan warlords who had other alleigances and probably did more to help OBL escape than they did to capture or kill him.

Gen. Tommy Franks writes in his recent NYT op-ed piece that Kerry's "understanding of events doesn't square with reality". Gen. Franks is a zellout. A shill for a pack of liars. I wonder what Rove managed to dig up on Gen Franks to get him to write a NYT op-ed piece that is, for lack of a better term, full of shit.

First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Josh points out, while there was some debate in the intellegence community as to OBL's whereabouts at the time, it became increasingly clear after-the-fact that he had in fact been in Tora Bora at the time. What's more important though is that Gen Franks doesn't cite specific intellegence to state categorically that OBL was not there, yet he finishes the point by stating as fact that "Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp". (and what is with the Mr.?)

Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Here I simply have to laugh at the sheer cognative dissonance of the statement. He says "we did not "outsource" military action" and in the very next sentence, says the opposite "We did rely heavily on Afghans ...". Huh. He goes on to refute his own statement with "Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.". (scratches head) Isn't that the very definition of "outsourcing"?

Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

So, we didn't "outsource" to the Afghans because we had a few special forces troops, left behind from the redeployment of the bulk of their number to Iraq, providing "tactical leadership and calling in air strikes". Oh, and for good measure, he mentions the fact that we had our friendly neighborhood Pakistani troops who "sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters". Still sounds like outsourcing to me. Maybe Kerry is guilty of not mentioning the Pakistani troops, but his point is still valid. The job of finding, capturing or killing OBL was left to surrogates while the administration pursued its folly in Iraq.

The WaPo also has a compelling, but long, piece entitled: "Afghanistan, Iraq: Two Wars Collide" which I would heartily recommend reading in full.

The fact is that there's a good reason that 72% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq had WMD and 20% still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. It has nothing to do with reality. It has everything to do with the fact that Bush and Cheney are running around the country spewing lies and distrortions of the truth, and that these distortions and lies are being echoed ad nauseum by the Humes, Limbaughs, Coulters and Hannitys of the right-wingnut talk radio spectrum and GOPTV (Fox News and most recently MSNBC). Worse, the lies and distortions are not being properly challenged by the traditional press.

Not only could we use a new administration, but we would be well served if the press would grow a set of balls and do its job for a change. The press should be asking itself: why is it that there are so many misinformed Americans?