Safire Is A Big, Brown, Steaming Pile

"In time of war," Winston Churchill said, "the truth is so precious it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

Judging by today's editorial pages, the Deserter has deployed his praetorian guard of liars in advance of tonight's "Desperation Address." It is highly doubtful, however, that these liars are guarding a truth somewhere in the Deserter's catastrophic Iraq policy. But Bill Safire and Doug Feith are undeterred, and they seek today in the pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to shield the Deserter's mendacity with their phalanx of lies as assiduously as if they were defending truth in a time of war.

Let us begin with neocon stooge emeritus William Safire, the fossilized and senescent sage of the New York Times op-ed page. Mr. Safire, although occasionally an engaging writer, wouldn't know the truth if it were jammed up his ass like a plunger up the ass of an Iraqi detainee. Today's column from Bill is a cornucopia of lies and disinformation.

Safire begins by parroting Chalabi's absurd contention that he's the subject of a CIA frame-up and, for good measure, throws in the State Department for a share of the blame for tarring this great Iraqi patriot and American ally. Safire knows that the CIA and State have held a dim view of Chalabi for years, but their opposition couldn't prevent the neocon cabal at the Pentagon from installing Chalabi in a dominant position on the IGC, from larding the new Iraqi bureaucracy with his cronies, and from installing his nephew as head of the body organizing the Iraqi tribunal that will try Saddam. Chalabi has been squired by the Defense cabal, and only the withdrawal or attenuation of their support explains Chalabi's current problems. George Tenet didn't close the spigot last week on the flow of U.S. tax dollars to Chalabi's I.N.C - the Pentagon did. Colin Powell didn't level an accusation of espionage against Chalabi - the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency did. Safire knows these inconvenient facts, but they don't fit the narrative constructed by the neocon "Chalabi deadenders," and so Bill chucks the truth for lies.

Safire then contrasts the Pentagon's alleged desire for a democratic Iraq with the preference of the "Arabists" in the State Department for a "Sunni strongman." Let me say that anyone who believes that Rummy, Wolfy et al give a crap about democracy in Iraq is a fool; Chalabi is nothing if not the Pentagon's favorite nominee for Iraqi strongman, which is why the Pentagon permits Chalabi to retain possession of Saddam's secret police files. Even if one is willing to grant the Pentagon altruistic motives in Iraq and brand the "Arabists" as anti-democratic, it is absurd for Safire to suggest that State is slandering Chalabi in furtherance of a policy that would install a "strongman"; the preferences of the "Arabists" at State have no sway in the Bush administration. Colin Powell is no "Arabist" in any sense of the word, and it is Powell's aversion to Chalabi, which is shared by the entire foreign policy apparatus in Washington outside of the neocons, that explains State's position regarding Chalabi. Safire's insinuation that the State Dept. opposes democracy in Iraq is execrable.

Safire then gives us this chestnut: "Gleeful C.I.A. operatives who accompanied the raid spread rumors that the troublesome Iraqi was a spy for Iran and a blackmailer of recipients of oil largess. True? Who knows?" Classic Safire. He reposes complete credulity in the neocon's purported (and ultimately discredited) evidence of Iraqi WMDs and Al Qaeda ties, but dismisses the mountain of credible evidence of Chalabi's espionage with an insouciant "who knows?"

Safire is a disgrace, a hack, and a dutiful servant of the neocon design for endless war. His continued representation in the New York Times' editorial page is an embarrassment to the Grey Lady. If it is any consolation, however, it is more apparent with every column that Bill will soon be consigned to the Abe Rosenthal wing of the Home for Shrill and Radical Geezers, where he can begin penning his screeds for the shameless Wall Street Journal editorial page.

As for Doug Feith's column in the WSJ, what really needs to be said? Doug Feith as champion of the Geneva Conventions? Puh-leeze. Let me suggest to anyone who believes that Doug Feith upheld the Geneva Conventions that they google on "Feith" and "Geneva Conventions" and take a look at the first half-dozen or so sites that result. Then reread Feith's shitty little op-ed in Bartley's Wasteland. It should be good for a laugh.