Monday, February 16, 2004
Of course--who else?
201k listens to very little talk radio, but did tune in to Boston's 96.9FM for a few minutes today. Wow.
This station is owned by Greater Media, which operates several stations out of the same office in town. Don't know whether they are themselves owned by someone else. Probably.
Anyway, we listened for about five minutes, which was long enough to hear the dj and a caller agree completely about who was to blame for the fact that we have troops in Iraq on the basis of bad intelligence. Actually, it was kind of weird how much they agreed; it was less of a call-in and more of a mutual affirmation that just kept going and going.
Their shared opinion, mind you, was simply a matter of looking at all the available evidence, and in no way reflected any political or partisan leanings. It just happened that they both had come to the conclusion that all the facts clearly indicated that--all protestations and evasions to the contrary--one man was ultimately responsible.
One man, though he may try mightily to deny it, could not, in their opinion, duck responsibility for the bad intelligence that led to our troops being in Baghdad--which was a good thing, make no mistake, because it got rid of Saddam and made us all safer from terrorism--but as far as the poor intelligence itself that led to the decision to go to Iraq, it was clear to both of them that there was one man responsible, and that man was Sen. John Kerry.
Seriously. We couldn't possibly make this up.
Their reason, if you care, was that having served for so many years in the Senate he would have had access to intelligence data, and therefor should have known the Iraq intel was bad.
So there you go, in case, in your unenlightened fog, you maybe had thought of one or two other names that might just possibly have had something to do with it.
All we can say is, if there are people out there that believe this kind of thing, and believe the people and the media outlets that tell it to them, then this country is in much worse shape than we suspected.
This station is owned by Greater Media, which operates several stations out of the same office in town. Don't know whether they are themselves owned by someone else. Probably.
Anyway, we listened for about five minutes, which was long enough to hear the dj and a caller agree completely about who was to blame for the fact that we have troops in Iraq on the basis of bad intelligence. Actually, it was kind of weird how much they agreed; it was less of a call-in and more of a mutual affirmation that just kept going and going.
Their shared opinion, mind you, was simply a matter of looking at all the available evidence, and in no way reflected any political or partisan leanings. It just happened that they both had come to the conclusion that all the facts clearly indicated that--all protestations and evasions to the contrary--one man was ultimately responsible.
One man, though he may try mightily to deny it, could not, in their opinion, duck responsibility for the bad intelligence that led to our troops being in Baghdad--which was a good thing, make no mistake, because it got rid of Saddam and made us all safer from terrorism--but as far as the poor intelligence itself that led to the decision to go to Iraq, it was clear to both of them that there was one man responsible, and that man was Sen. John Kerry.
Seriously. We couldn't possibly make this up.
Their reason, if you care, was that having served for so many years in the Senate he would have had access to intelligence data, and therefor should have known the Iraq intel was bad.
So there you go, in case, in your unenlightened fog, you maybe had thought of one or two other names that might just possibly have had something to do with it.
All we can say is, if there are people out there that believe this kind of thing, and believe the people and the media outlets that tell it to them, then this country is in much worse shape than we suspected.
