Ready for another "one witness" war?

George W. Wagthedog wants the UN to open a can of Whoop Ass^® on Syria...

Keep these little gems in mind when you hear the drum beat in the next few days:

1. "Furor" refers to 3 people: Bush; Rice; and Bolton.

2. The "report" of Syrian govt involvement is based on the account of a single witness (Remember Judith Miller's friend, Chalabi?)

(German Prosecutor, Detlev) Mehlis said he deleted the names when he learned the report would be made public, because he only had one witness.

While the U.N. findings did not directly incriminate Assad, the report cited a witness who said Assef Shawkat, the president's brother-in-law and Syria's military intelligence chief, forced a man to tape a claim of responsibility for Hariri's killing 15 days before it occurred.

3. John Bolton is either lying, terminally stupid, or both.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the flap was distracting the United Nations from the report's main findings, which he said showed "clear evidence" of Syrian obstruction of justice and "probable cause to believe that the assassination could not have been undertaken without the knowledge of senior figures in Syrian intelligence." --snip--

The report's substance "doesn't change no matter what version you have," he said.

4. Condoleezza Rice is an asshat of the first order:

His (George W.'s) Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said "there will have to be some way to ensure accountability for what has already been found here". (UK punctuation)

5. George W. has done this before. Will he get away with it again?

"Today, a serious report came out that requires the world to look at it very carefully and respond accordingly," he said.

6. Oh, see the multiple headlines...

US wants action against Syria in Lebanese killing

Bush: U.N. Hariri report 'deeply disturbing'

Furor over names deleted from UN Hariri report

US demands action on Syria report

SYRIA ON THE BRINK

Jitters in Lebanon as Syria braces for UN Hariri report

Syria Rejects Accusations in Hariri Probe

If the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand can spark a world war, who can say with any certainty that a single "witness" (or 2) can't wreak havoc when George W. needs another diversion? After all, he's done it before.


File this under: Can we really afford another war right now?