Republican lies used to trick the public

[Skyhunter]

Here’s one for those who love Word Wars:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001477236
In the footage this evening on MSNBC, Scotty clearly said “that’s accurate.”

The official White House transcript.

Not what I would consider a reliabe sources these days.

 

[SOS2008]

Speaking of rewriting history...

Bush: Critics try to rewrite Iraq war history
He calls new questions about pre-war intelligence ‘deeply irresponsible’
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2:25 p.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005

TOBYHANNA, Pa. - President Bush, in the most forceful defense yet of his Iraq war policy, accused critics Friday of trying to rewrite history and charged that they’re undercutting America’s forces on the front lines.

“The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges,” the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.

“While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,” the president said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004606/

I'm sure Bush realizes his approval ratings are very much linked to the war, including how the invasion was instigated, so he is coming out with this defense. Or, he is very out of touch with reality? After Libby's indictment, he can't be serious.

 

[SOS2008]

I'll add more to the post above, but in the meantime...

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., says that the No. 1 health care crisis in his state is medical lawsuit abuse and in the past he's called for a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage awards or awards for pain and suffering. "We need to do something now to fix the medical liability problem in this country," he declared at a rally in Washington D.C., this past spring.

But Santorum's wife sued a doctor for $500,000 in 1999. She claimed that a botched spinal manipulation by her chiropractor led to back surgery, pain and suffering, and sued for twice the amount of a cap Santorum has supported.

----------

But the fact is that Santorum has sponsored or co-sponsored a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages two times — even though he testified in his wife's case against the doctor.

"Of course I'm going to support my wife in her endeavors," he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything that she does."
But Santorum agreed enough to tell the jury that he had to carry the laundry upstairs for his wife and that, because she suffered humiliation from weight gain, she no longer had the confidence to help him on the campaign trail. The jury was so moved it voted to award Karen Santorum $350,000.

"That's where again you're misled is that a lot of, there was cumulative damages," he said. "The medical bills, lost income, all those other things that were out there."

Those medical bills totaled $18,800, yet she sued for $500,000. And lost income? The judge made no mention of that when he slashed the jury's award in half, saying it was excessive.

The judge noted that the remaining damages "awarded amounted to something in the neighborhood of $330,000 or so for injuries sustained and the effect upon Mrs. Santorum's health, her past and future pain and suffering and inconvenience."

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1300271&page=1

He had to carry the laundry, and his wife was, well...not as sexy? I always knew he was a chauvinist creep.

 

[Skyhunter]

Bush: Critics try to rewrite Iraq war history
He calls new questions about pre-war intelligence ‘deeply irresponsible’
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2:25 p.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004606/
I'm sure Bush realizes his approval ratings are very much linked to the war, including how the invasion was instigated, so he is coming out with this defense. Or, he is very out of touch with reality? After Libby's indictment, he can't be serious.

What a great way to honor veterans on veterans day.

He has no shame.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Classic Bushtalk

Edited back to original statement for continuity

"We do not torture. We're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible, more possible, to do our job," Bush said. "There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet we will aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law." [continued]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture

Translation:
Until we got caught we did not call what we do torture. Since most people realize that it is torture, and since we wish to use torture, we are soliticing congress to prevent McCain from banning its use. In my dirty little world the ends justify the means. So even though we have been wrong at nearly every turn - invaded a country on false pretenses and all that, you know - and even though we have clearly shown ourselves to be inept and over zealous at best, we now wish to act without any constraints, but under the law.

 

[SOS2008]

What a great way to honor veterans on veterans day.
He has no shame.

So true, he used this day for political leverage instead of honoring the men and women he sent to Iraq to die.

And now the rest of the story:

Asterisks dot White House’s Iraq argument
Administration had access to intel that wasn’t shared with Congress
ANALYSIS
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Updated: 12:30 a.m. ET Nov. 12, 2005

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

…Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material.

And

…the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions.

Also, I’d hardly refer to the committee as bipartisan. But to top things off:

Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

That’s right, this is the part that really gets me:

A vote for regime change?
Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

Not only is he casting blame on Congress and Democrats for going along with him, he admits the real reason for the invasion was regime change!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10009710/

OMG he is providing testimony for impeachment. What are we waiting for?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another glaring misrepresentation: The Bush camp often cites the alleged fact that nearly every allied intelligence org believed that Saddam either had WMDs, or that he was trying to make them. What is left out here is that almost no one else supported the invasion, so despite Bush’s implications that it was, it is clear that the Saddam threat was not generally perceived as imminent. Does Bush forget that he snubbed most of our allies and then counted Island nations as partners for a head count? What was that one little country that he touted so proudly when Germany, France, and most of the UN refused to be mislead; Cameroon?

 

[Skyhunter]

…the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions.

Also, I’d hardly refer to the committee as bipartisan.

If we can all remember back to the 2004 election and the results of the 911 commission report. In the interest of the country, in order to release the commission's report and have it's recommendations taken seriously, the members agreed to separate the report into two phases.

Phase 1 was the most important.

What happened and how do we fix it?

That was the 911 commission report

In order to have a consensus they agreed to leave out the part about how Bushco handled the intelligence until after the election.

This is where the bi-partisanship=date-rape analogy comes in. With the best interests of the country in mind, Democrats agreed to not look at how the "facts and intelligence were being fixed to fit the policy". If the facts had been allowed out during the election, Bush likely would not have been elected. Now as the facts are coming to light, he is saying that his opponents are trying to re-write history.

Projection is what these guys do. Makes it real easy to know what they are up to. Whatever they accuse their opponents of, is exactly what they themselves are doing.

Why is it the Dem's who always seem to make these compromises in order to do what is best for the country?

It just may be that they do have the better interests of the country at heart. I still try to judge politicians individually. I have however noticed this trend since Jim Wright was ousted as House leader and the new Repub's like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay came into power.

Do not get in a car with these guys. Call a cab from the restaurant or movie theater!

 

[SOS2008]

More on the White House “fear and smear” strategy -

From MSNBC:

BLITZER: Why do you shake your head?

PRESS: Well, first of all I'm shaking my head -- look, I don't know what got into this gang at the White House. They used to be so smooth. This speech today I think was a big mistake. Bad timing. You know, we all know what happens on Veteran's Day. The president, not the vice president -- the president goes to Arlington.

The president brings a whole country together supporting our troops, he lays a wreath at the tomb of the unknowns. Today, instead, the president goes up to Pennsylvania, makes a political speech dividing the country, attacking his political enemies. I think this is a big mistake, Wolf.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/11/sitroom.01.html

From AP-The Washington Times:

Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, who is still under the cloud of the CIA leak investigation, hopped Air Force One to attend the speech, an indication that it was a political event.

Bush shared the stage with a tan Army depot vehicle, and banners behind him read "Strategy for Victory." "Hail to the Chief," which is rarely played to mark Bush's arrival, blared from speakers in the warehouse.

http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

Not to mention that many veterans are Democrats, and Bush attacked all of them on Veterans Day.

From CNN:

Bush takes on critics of Iraq war
President says war is central to fight against terrorism
Friday, November 11, 2005; Posted: 5:43 p.m. EST (22:43 GMT)

Democrats respond -

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, responded to Bush's speech in a statement, saying that the commander-in-chief missed an opportunity to lay out "a clear strategy for success in the war in Iraq."

…In a statement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, noting that a majority of House Democrats voted against the resolution that authorized the war, faulted the president for politicizing Veterans Day.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/11/bush.intel/?section=cnn_us

I would add, the war is central to generating terrorism.

More from AP-Washington Times:

"This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition. That's why Scooter Libby has been indicted. That's why a statement in the State of the Union Address was retracted," said Kerry...

http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

Getting back to the speech - Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

Congress did not vote to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. Those who voted for the resolution did so because of claims regarding WMD and links to Al Qaeda/terrorism--both of which have been proven to be false.

 

[Skyhunter]

Getting back to the speech - Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
Congress did not vote to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. Those who voted for the resolution did so because of claims regarding WMD and links to Al Qaeda/terrorism--both of which have been proven to be false.

Actually they did vote with the goal of removing Saddam from power.

Regime change in Iraq was already US policy. Congress voted to authorize force in order to lend credibility to the threat and force Saddam to let the inspectors in unfettered. (Which he did.) There was also an exile deal being worked out.

When it looked like we might possibly avoid a war Bush told the inspectors he could no longer guarantee their safety and rushed in.

 

[Astronuc]

Medicare's new prescription drug benefit starts next week

Remember Bush's claim that he would take care of Medicare and our senior citizens. Well

From PAUL KRUGMAN, The Deadly Doughnut, NY Times, Nov 11, 2005

Americans will also learn a bigger lesson: politicians who don't believe in a positive role for government shouldn't be allowed to design new government programs.

At first, the benefit will look like a normal insurance plan, with a deductible and co-payments.

But if your cumulative drug expenses reach $2,250, a very strange thing will happen: you'll suddenly be on your own. The Medicare benefit won't kick in again unless your costs reach $5,100. This gap in coverage has come to be known as the "doughnut hole."

One way to see the bizarre effect of this hole is to notice that if you are a retiree and spend $2,000 on drugs next year, Medicare will cover 66 percent of your expenses. But if you spend $5,000 - which means that you're much more likely to need help paying those expenses - Medicare will cover only 30 percent of your bills.

A study in the July/August issue of Health Affairs points out that this will place many retirees on a financial "roller coaster."

People with high drug costs will have relatively low out-of-pocket expenses for part of the year - say, until next summer. Then, suddenly, they'll enter the doughnut hole, and their personal expenses will soar. And because the same people tend to have high drug costs year after year, the roller-coaster ride will repeat in 2007.

The smart thing to do, for those who could afford it, would be to buy supplemental insurance that would cover the doughnut hole. But guess what: the bill that established the drug benefit specifically prohibits you from buying insurance to cover the gap. That's why many retirees who already have prescription drug insurance are being advised not to sign up for the Medicare benefit.

Why is this bill so bad?

The probable answer is that the Republican Congressional leaders who rammed the bill through in 2003 weren't actually trying to protect retired Americans against the risk of high drug expenses. In fact, they're fundamentally hostile to the idea of social insurance, of public programs that reduce private risk.

Their purpose was purely political: to be able to say that President Bush had honored his 2000 campaign promise to provide prescription drug coverage by passing a drug bill, any drug bill.

Can this mess be fixed? Not by the current leaders according to Krugman.

 

[Skyhunter]

Remember Bush's claim that he would take care of Medicare and our senior citizens. Well

Can this mess be fixed? Not by the current leaders according to Krugman.

One of the reasons I can't believe Bush won Florida is that the seniors I know from Florida, my grandmather and her friends, all seemed to understand this. It was their biggest beef with Bush.

My grandmother has volunteered for the Republican party and worked the polls every election since about 1950, except for the this last one.

 

[SOS2008]

Actually they did vote with the goal of removing Saddam from power.
Regime change in Iraq was already US policy. Congress voted to authorize force in order to lend credibility to the threat and force Saddam to let the inspectors in unfettered. (Which he did.) There was also an exile deal being worked out.
When it looked like we might possibly avoid a war Bush told the inspectors he could no longer guarantee their safety and rushed in.

What? It wasn't because of the "smoking gun--that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" nor the infamous “aluminum tubes?" We all know regime change was Bush's real reason, but that's not what was presented to the UN, Congress and the American people:

War justifications
Stated or allegedly perceived goals of the invasion and occupation as stated by the United States in 2002 before the Iraq invasion are likewise controversial factors. Over time, these have varied, but as originally given (before the 2003 Iraq invasion) for the initiation of the war included:

That Hussein's regime was in violation of United Nations demands for weapons inspections;
1) that the Hussein regime allegedly had a program intended to develop weapons of mass destruction;
2) that Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions requiring a full accounting of its weapons of mass destruction and full cooperation with UN inspections;
3) that the Hussein regime had ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that posed a threat to international safety; and,
4) promoting democratic self-government in the nearly-entirely autocratic Arab Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#War_justifications

One could argue that regime change would likely result in relation to addressing the above, but I would remind folks that regime change is illegal and the main reason why the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to support the war.

 

[scott1]

A list of ongoing lies seems appropriate at this point. I will list my top six.
1). The media is liberal
Clinton was more than ample evidence that the media goes after anyone possible. They only seem liberal because the Republicans give them so much more to attack. This has been true for most of my life; going back to Nixon.
2). Republicans are fiscal conservatives
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=90511
3). Here is the lie that gets me the most: We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq.
My uncle still thinks that Saddam attacked New York - this is the thinking that gives Republicans their power. We have the corrupt leading the blind.
4). The price of oil is based solely on supply and demand
This week investigations began as retail prices have outpaced wholesale prices by as much as 70%.
5) We have been preparing for future terrorist attacks
New Orleans proved that if anything, the Federal Gov response was inept, and the real protectors of homeland security - The National Guard - are short on equipment and unable to do their primary job of keeping Americans safe. Which leads us to the greatest lie of all
6). The Republicans have acted responsibly to keep America safe.
Not only are we clearly unprepared for large scale terror attacks at home, as was seen in New Orleans, also, the war in Iraq has had exactly the opposite effect of that claimed: The Bush administration has sacrificed homeland security for other agendas.

1)Ture the Media isn't liberal but sometimes just seems that wayto Republicans(The more powerful gourp/person the more parnoid you are)
2)Who know's?
3)It's kind of ture and a lie they are terroist and the insurgent leader did swear his allgince to osma bim laden and not every terroist gourp that aganist is really wit Al-Qudiea(Fact:Al-Qudiea means "the base" in arab)
4)No it's solely based on supply demand but it does have to lot with it rember more people in china and India are buying cars
5)I'am not sure if you this know this but terroist and Hurricanes(I'am not joking) two differnt things but yes New Orleans did prove that were not well prepared for a terroist attack but it was te Mayor of New Orleans that he didn't have plan when he was soppesd to make a plan not the president
6)Again big differnce from Hurriane and Terroist.But we have been planing better for Emegencies since rember Rita

 

[Skyhunter]

1)Ture the Media isn't liberal but sometimes just seems that wayto Republicans(The more powerful gourp/person the more parnoid you are)
2)Who know's?
3)It's kind of ture and a lie they are terroist and the insurgent leader did swear his allgince to osma bim laden and not every terroist gourp that aganist is really wit Al-Qudiea(Fact:Al-Qudiea means "the base" in arab)
4)No it's solely based on supply demand but it does have to lot with it rember more people in china and India are buying cars
5)I'am not sure if you this know this but terroist and Hurricanes(I'am not joking) two differnt things but yes New Orleans did prove that were not well prepared for a terroist attack but it was te Mayor of New Orleans that he didn't have plan when he was soppesd to make a plan not the president
6)Again big differnce from Hurriane and Terroist.But we have been planing better for Emegencies since rember Rita

Dude...get a spell checker.

 

[Skyhunter]

What? It wasn't because of the "smoking gun--that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" nor the infamous “aluminum tubes?" We all know regime change was Bush's real reason, but that's not what was presented to the UN, Congress and the American people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#War_justifications
One could argue that regime change would likely result in relation to addressing the above, but I would remind folks that regime change is illegal and the main reason why the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to support the war.

What is so astounding to me is that during the lead up to the invasion I was telling people; Bush is exaggerating the threat and is going to attack regardless of what the UN does. After he did exactly as I said he was going to do, they denied that he did it. I never cease to be amazed at the ability people have to be self deluded.

 

[Gokul43201]

Don't know if y'all talked about this over the weekend, but now a DIA report says that the "intel" provided by a key Iraqi informer was known to be spurious all along. However, Powell specifically spoke of intelligence from this source, in making his case to the UN.

Watch the video on this page (middle right), titled "CIA experts: WMD intel source a 'liar' "

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/iraq.intelligence/

The day before Powell's speech, a CIA skeptic had warned about the defectors reputation as a liar. In an email reply, his superior acknowledges the problem, but adds : <transcript of email>"Greetings. Come on over (or I'll come over there) and we can hash this out. As I said last night, let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say, and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about. However, in the interest of Truth, we owe somebody a sentence or two of warning, if you honestly have a reservation." <end transcript>

More links on the Curveball fiasco :

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0402-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0401-10.htm

WASHINGTON — Prewar claims by the United States that Iraq was producing biological weapons were based almost entirely on accounts from a defector who was described as "crazy" by his intelligence handlers and a "congenital liar" by his friends.

The defector, code-named "Curveball," spoke with alarming specificity about Iraq's alleged biological weapons programs and fleet of mobile labs. But postwar investigations showed that he wasn't even in the country at times when he claimed to have taken part in illicit weapons work.

 

[edward]

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread so I hope this isn't a repeat.
It appears that the infamous Judith Miller had been providing information about non existent WMD. Long before the war started.

The New York Times publishes a front page story reporting that Iraq has attempted to obtain aluminum tubes which, US intelligence believes, were intended for use in a nuclear weapons program. The article—written by Times reporters Judith Miller and Michael Gordon—cites unnamed intelligence officials as its sources. “In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium,” reports the newspaper. “The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program ...” The article does not say that experts at the Department of Energy do not believe the tubes were intended for use in a gas centrifuge.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=judith_miller

Then the administration pumped the Iraq WMD story to Judith Miller, whose story was then trumpeted and echoed by Vice President Cheney on the television talk shows. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers and Condi Rice added to the tilt.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001074.html

Unless the investigators are given subpoena power these turkey are going to walk. For that matter what do politicians know about investigating something that goes this deep into intelligence agencies?

This entire WMD scam has been the worst deception ever perpetrated on the American people.

 

[pattylou]

This entire WMD scam has been the worst deception ever perpetrated on the American people.

It's still being perpetrated. John Bolton is talking about Iran's nuclear weapons as though the Iranians have them in hand. Iran has steadfastly maintained that it's interests are for energy development, not weapons.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1215220

We're in a somewhat similar situation now wrt Iran, that we were in wrt Iraq 3 years ago. Is the American public buying the line about Iran?

Naturally, I can't know what Iran's goals are - but to strike a country out of *fear* that they *might* be developing a weapon, is self destructive. We've certainly seen that in Iraq over the last two years.

I don't know that the war drums are beating for Iran yet, but it sure sounds to me like Bolton is drumming on it a bit.

 

[SOS2008]

Don't know if y'all talked about this over the weekend, but now a DIA report says that the "intel" provided by a key Iraqi informer was known to be spurious all along. However, Powell specifically spoke of intelligence from this source, in making his case to the UN.

...More links on the Curveball fiasco :

"Curveball" may have been tortured, but more likely paid. And probably still on the payroll along with Chalabi—another questionable source. (At least Former FEMA chief Michael Brown is no longer a "consultant.") If only I had thought of a way to get on the payroll.

Then the administration pumped the Iraq WMD story to Judith Miller, whose story was then trumpeted and echoed by Vice President Cheney on the television talk shows. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers and Condi Rice added to the tilt.

And I believe all three of those Bush administration members did so the same, next day after Miller’s story ran—Not that there’s anything suspicious about this.

 

[Skyhunter]

And I believe all three of those Bush administration members did so the same, next day after Miller’s story ran—Not that there’s anything suspicious about this.

That is how they did it. Give a story to a hack reporter, then quote them on TV. It is the same way they attacked Clinton. Start a talking point with right-wing radio and then get a talking head on the mainstream media to echo it. Easy enough to make it sound like what it is not, without actually lying.

 

[edward]

That is how they did it. Give a story to a hack reporter, then quote them on TV. It is the same way they attacked Clinton. Start a talking point with right-wing radio and then get a talking head on the mainstream media to echo it. Easy enough to make it sound like what it is not, without actually lying.

Exactly!

And Judith Miller was one of the key players. After the so called Major Hostilities ended, Miller was embedded with a military team known as MET alpha. The team was supposed to discover the missing WMD.

From there she concocted the numerous erroneous accounts of WMD being found.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28385-2003Jun24?language=printer

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2003; Page C01

New York Times reporter Judith Miller played a highly unusual role in an Army unit assigned to search for dangerous Iraqi weapons, according to U.S. military officials, prompting criticism that the unit was turned into what one official called a "rogue operation."

More than a half-dozen military officers said that Miller acted as a middleman between the Army unit with which she was embedded and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, on one occasion accompanying Army officers to Chalabi's headquarters, where they took custody of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law. She also sat in on the initial debriefing of the son-in-law, these sources say.

Since interrogating Iraqis was not the mission of the unit, these officials said, it became a "Judith Miller team," in the words of one officer close to the situation.

In April, Miller wrote a letter objecting to an Army commander's order to withdraw the unit, Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, from the field. She said this would be a "waste" of time and suggested that she would write about it unfavorably in the Times. After Miller took up the matter with a two-star general, the pullback order was dropped.

An Army officer, who regarded Miller's presence as "detrimental," said: "Judith was always issuing threats of either going to the New York Times or to the secretary of defense. There was nothing veiled about that threat," this person said, and MET Alpha "was allowed to bend the rules."

Miller's coverage of MET Alpha has drawn some critical press scrutiny for optimistic-sounding stories about the weapons hunt, generating headlines including "U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms," "U.S. Experts Find Radioactive Material in Iraq" and "U.S.-Led Forces Occupy Baghdad Complex Filled With Chemical Agents." These potential discoveries did "not" bear fruit.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cheney today at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein

This rather ignore the entire point here. - the information on which those decisions were made, was biased. Also, no one implicity approved a blind and ill prepared rush to war. The time table was the presidents choosing.

some U.S. senators reached the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that the Bush administration and the Clinton administration had made.

Everyone agreed that Saddam was a threat. The critical and legal question is, was he an "imminent threat" to National Security. This is the key legal language that allowed for the invasion. Also, by no means did Clinton or anyone else support a nearly unilateral, half baked plan with no end game. That was the presidents choosing.

What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war

Again, if we assume that they [Congress] and we were mislead, then no one is contradicting their position. They are modifying it based on the obvious lapse in intelligence, and the unrepresentitive slant and cherry picked evidence presented to Congress.

the criticism threatens to undermine the morale of U.S. troops in Iraq.

First of all, any soldier will tell you that not all of the troops support the war. A soldier must and does put his or her political preferences aside to do their duty. So the idea that soldiers are like some glass shell that will break at the first implication of discontent is silly and disingenuous. I would say that finding no WMDs was much more demoralizing than why we didn't find them. Next, to suggest that we should avoid investigating a potential cover-up, lie, and abuse of power of this magnitude only makes sense from the point of view of a guilty man. FInally, what I have seen is troops demoralized by broken promises [extended stays], ill equipped vehicles, lack of personal body armor, and an insufficient number troops as needed to maintain control.

 

[Gokul43201]

Flashback :

Nixon ordered Cambodia cover-up

Richard Nixon told top aides involved in Vietnam to lie to the public about US operations in neighbouring Cambodia, files released in Washington show.

BBC News, Thursday, 17 November 2005, 08:12 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4444638.stm

"Publicly, we say one thing," Nixon told aides in one memo after his secret war in Cambodia became known. "Actually, we do another."

Just the left-wing media doing their thing again, eh ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700113.html

 

[SOS2008]

Cheney today at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
This rather ignore the entire point here. - the information on which those decisions were made, was biased...

I knew claims about Saddam and Al Qaeda were definitely wrong, and claims about WMD were very questionable. I knew this without any so-called intelligence. I suspect the Dems who voted against the resolution knew it was bogus too, and those who voted for the resolution either were duped and/or too afraid to go against the highly popular Bush in the wake of 9-11. This is the real story. As for Cheney, who has zilch credibility at this time, what do they hope to gain from their old campaign bashing tactics now? Maybe hold on to a small, ignorant base? Further anger the rest of us by calling us unpatriotic for questioning them--again? That will get them real far.

 

[Informal Logic]

What gets me is Bush saying the democrats are responsible for dividing the country. WTF!

 

[BobG]

As for Cheney, who has zilch credibility at this time, what do they hope to gain from their old campaign bashing tactics now? Maybe hold on to a small, ignorant base? Further anger the rest of us by calling us unpatriotic for questioning them--again? That will get them real far.

That doesn't even get them very far among Republicans, especially John McCain and Chuck Hagel. Hagel on Tuesday defended the right to criticize the White House's war policies in a speech to the http://www.cfr.org/publication/9220/?jsessionid=5665f1a6ab585084d03023e4d97878f9

"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late. Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic—to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices. "

 

[BobG]

Off topic, but Hagel talked about another problem in the US, as well. When's the last time the US was 'officially' at war and how many unofficial wars has the US fought in the last 50 years?

The Constitution also establishes Congress’ authority and responsibility regarding decisions to go to war. The course of events in Iraq has laid bare the failure to prepare for, plan for, and understand the broad consequences and implications of the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq. Where is the accountability? In the November 8 Washington Post, Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, wrote,

“Our Founding Fathers wanted the declaration of war to concentrate the minds. Returning to the Constitution’s text and making it work through legislation requiring joint deliberate action may be the only way to give the decision to make war the care it deserves.”

The American people should demand that the President request a Declaration of War and the Congress formally declare war, if and when the President believes that committing American troops is in the vital national security interests of this country. This would make the President and Congress, together, accountable for their actions—just as the Founders of our country intended.

 

[SOS2008]

Off topic, but Hagel talked about another problem in the US, as well. When's the last time the US was 'officially' at war and how many unofficial wars has the US fought in the last 50 years?

Here, here! Aside from the problem of unofficial wars…

In regard to the original resolution, I thought Congress was supposed to be provided with periodic progress reports. (What happened with that? A GOP power grab?) So I guess the new resolution is supposed to enforce periodic progress reports?

Has anyone noticed the difficulty in finding tar and feathers, or even a rail these days?

 

[Gokul43201]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/16/news/fortune500/oil_execs.reut/?cnn=yes

Did oil execs lie to Congress?
Report contradicts big oil execs testimony denying a White House meeting. Democrats seek probe.
November 17, 2005: 10:20 AM EST

At a Senate hearing last week on record oil profits, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey asked five executives, "Did your company or any representatives in your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy force in 2001?"

Each executive answered the question in the negative.

However, The Washington Post reported Wednesday that a White House document showed some companies did in fact meet with the task force. It said the document showed officials from Exxon Mobil Corp. (Research), Conoco (Research), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc., whose executives testified at last week's Senate hearing, met with Cheney aides.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"John Murtha is a coward"... who is "supporting the policies of Michael Moore"

 

[Skyhunter]

"John Murtha is a coward"... who is "supporting the policies of Michael Moore"

I like his Murtha's response to Cheney.

I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," said Murtha, referencing the vice president's long record of draft avoidance in the 1960s.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20051118/cm_thenation/138198;_ylt=A86.I25.Hn5DsIIBiRv9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

The Nation -- When Dick Cheney, a Wyoming congressman who had never served in the military and who had failed during his political career to gain much respect from those who wore the uniform he had worked so hard to avoid putting on during the Vietnam War, was selected in 1989 by former President George Herbert Walker Bush to serve as Secretary of Defense, he had a credibility problem. Lacking in the experience and the connections required to effectively take charge of the Pentagon in turbulent times, he turned to a House colleague, Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, a decorated combat veteran whose hawkish stances on military matters had made him a favorite of the armed services. "I'm going to need a lot of help," Cheney told Murtha. "I don't know a blankety-blank thing about defense."


In the 2004 vice presidential debate, Cheney noted that, "One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was Secretary of Defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee." The vice president was particularly complimentary over the years of the Pennsylvania representatives decision to provide high-profile backing of the administration's 2002 request for authorization to use force against Iraq.

But the cross-party relationship has soured as Murtha, whose concern has always been first and foremost for the men and women who serve in the military, has reached the conclusion that the Iraq intervention has steered U.S. troops into a quagmire from which they must be extracted. Typically blunt, Murtha said this week: "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring (the troops) home."

Cheney's response to the man he begged to help him understand military affairs during the first Bush administration was to rip into Murtha and other Democrats who had tried to work with the administration. "Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorising force against Saddam Hussein," the vice president growled in a speech to the conservative Frontiers of Freedom Institute. In another clear reference to Murtha, Cheney said, "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history."

Of course, it is not Murtha but Cheney who is rewriting history -- or, at least, attempting to obscure it.

 

[SOS2008]

Washington Post
Nov. 21, 2005

Vice President Cheney yesterday accused critics of engaging in "revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety" in the Iraq debate, in a major speech that reflected the uncompromising style that has made him a touchstone for many of the controversies shadowing President Bush.

Ha ha - “revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety.” It takes one to know.

"The terrorists . . . have contempt for our values, they doubt our strength, and they believe that America will lose its nerve and let down our guard," he said. "But this nation's made a decision: We will not retreat in the face of brutality, and we will never live at the mercy of tyrants or terrorists."

Some observers called into question Cheney's repeated description of the enemy in Iraq as "terrorists" who are seeking to control that country to establish a base from which they can "launch attacks and to wage war against governments that do not meet their demands."

U.S. intelligence agencies say foreign terrorists represent a minority of the insurgent forces; the vast majority are Iraqis. Classified findings by U.S. intelligence agencies are reflected in a study by Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, released yesterday, which estimates that at least 90 percent of the fighters are Iraqi.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10133734/

“This nation” made a decision? If you look up the definition of “tyrant,” Bush and Cheney’s pictures are probably next to it.

 

[Art]

Well, well what a surprise. More lies.

It seems WP is classified as a chemical weapon by the pentagon but only when used by Saddam.

A De-Classified Report from the US Department of Defense calls WP “CHEMICAL WEAPONS” by Gabriele Zamparini (*)

From a declassified document of the US Department of Defense:


REPORT CLASSIFIED

SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND
REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED. cont.

http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/

There is a link to the actual report embedded in the article above.

 

[Art]

Another Downing Street Memo.

More lies in the making? The Whitehouse has dismissed a newspaper report in the UK which claims Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera's offices in Qatar but was talked out of it by Blair.

Last Updated: Tuesday, 22 November 2005, 17:21 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Bush al-Jazeera 'plot' dismissed

Al Jazeera has broadcast messages from Osama Bin Laden
The White House has dismissed claims George Bush was talked out of bombing Arab television station al-Jazeera by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The allegations were made by an unnamed source in the Daily Mirror newspaper.

A White House official said: "We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response."

Ex-UK minister Peter Kilfoyle, who opposed the Iraq war, had called for a transcript of the alleged conversation to be published.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4459296.stm

It is interesting to note the people who leaked the supposedly 'non-existant memo' have been charged under the official secrets act. Which seems a tad self-contradictory.

Senior politicians in the UK are now demanding the memo be published in full.