Bush Haters - We Taunt You a Second Time

“Good Leak”, that was the headline of the lead editorial in today’s “Washington Post”. There is nothing illegal or particularly usual about the release, says the Post. The material and subsequent investigations show that it was Wilson who twisted the truth. Sorry guys. Liberals are thinking et tu brute, but it restores some of my faith that at least some MSM still values truth above rhetoric.

For those too lazy to follow the link, l summarize with block quotes. To encourage you to link, however, I will disclose that I have left out the parts about Bush being clumsy. Find it yourself.

A Good Leak
President Bush declassified some of the intelligence he used to decide on war in Iraq. Is that a scandal?
Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page B06

PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material . . .

There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that . . .

The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges. . . The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

. . . After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity
Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife.

Bush haters will please read the editorial in the liberal Washington Post and weep. Once again you went down the wrong path and in this case the liberal "Washington Post" is setting you straight, not me.

Now stop the hysteria (I know you like the word) or I shall taunt you a second time.

Posted by Jack at April 9, 2006 11:39 AM
Comments
Comment #139339

Good leak, Bad leak. We’ve seen this routine before, designed to keep folks off balance, and hide what is really going on.

While we’re being open and honest here, let’s make it very visible that the link Jack refers to is nothing more than an editorial by a person with an opinion. Guess that puts me in good company, because my opinion is, to condemn leaks while opening the door for leaks is reminiscent of the kind of thinking I witnessed in schizophrenic patients I used to work with.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 9, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #139344

So much for “the liberal media.”

Posted by: ElliottBay at April 9, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #139346

As a self-described liberal who has been reading the Washington Post from since before Bob Woodward and Carl bernstein were employed there, I have seen many cases where the editorials deviate from the so-called “liberal line.” This is just another example and is nothing new. It has been getting more conservative as the years roll on. Case in point: this so-called liberal paper’s best op-ed columnists are George Will and Charles Krauthammer. Hardly liberals.

As for the merits of what the Post wrote, I’m still scratching my head because it doesn’t adress the much more important issue that the Bush administration consistently lied to the public about the intelligence that led us down to this horrible war.

Posted by: Steve K at April 9, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #139353

Jack, if everything is as perfect as the Washington Posts suddenly makes it sound; can you explain me why instead of coming up with this answer two years ago, President Bush came up with this one: “If there’s a leak out of this administration, I want to know who it is”.

Posted by: Carl at April 9, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #139354

Anything that serves the republican perpose is fine by the republican standard.
I on the other hand find this whole administration
to be the most underhanded ,selfserving , pack of fools
( being kind cause mama taught me not to use nasty words)
America has ever had to force its self to endure.
I know your readers are now required to call me a
liberal , unamerican , terrorist supporter. I
Know I have just earned the hate of any true republican.
But lets get real if a Democratic President had
been caught doing half the lieing , law breaking
unamerican sneaky lowlife things as this one has.
Ken Starr would be the richest man on earth.

Morals and laws are only mandatory for Democratic
leaders. For Republicans they are open for interpratation by the best lawyers
corporate blood money can by.

Posted by: Honey P at April 9, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #139355

Mr. Remer

In the elite liberal media (New York Times, L.A. Times, WASHINGTON POST) there is no distiction between hard news and editorials. They are one and the same.

You can bet my farm that the Washington Post would not have run this so-called “opinion” piece if they did not believe it to be fact.

The horse is dead, folks. Stop kicking it!

Posted by: slowthinker at April 9, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #139357

Well folks, we have leaks and wire taps of bad guys!!! OH MY GOD! Where is the news? What is the news? And why should we care?

Mr.Bush has the power granted to him and this power was also granted to other presidents great and lousy ( Clinton, Carter) in our history.

They president can release special documents and he can order wiretaps on the phones of terrorists if need be. The FISA Court is to slow in some cases.

Maybe we should look into the NY Times, LA Times and all the rst of the birdcage liners that call themselves ” serious” journalists. They are all liberal hacks with a socialist agenda, who hate AMERICA !!!

GOD BLEES G.W. BUSH AND GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!

Posted by: TommyBoy at April 9, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #139358

Okay, I really do not know what to think about you people that actually think that this adminastartion is actually a good thing. Firs of all on this post, the article in question is ‘opinion’, if you think that it is not and it is based on fact, well look at this article from the same exact newspaper printed today stating the facts from an actual editor, Washington Post , I do not know if the link actually worked, but there is and article stating just the oposite of the link posted earlier.
Now if you want to keep arguing about opionions that is fine, go ahead, why don’t you argue facts, like all the wmd that we found, all the lives ended for …, the idea that we are going to use nukes on a country, when we are trying to get countries to lose them. How about the budget, imagration reform (oh, sorry, the Democrats are blamed for that, yea, we did not vote, give me a break) How about the documents saying we are going to war even if there is no proof of wmd……………

Posted by: Jason at April 9, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #139359

Kudos to the WaPo this time! No matter though Jack, the Bush haters won’t acknowledge anything supportive of him. Most of them are too ignorant to even understand that, Bush’s hypocrisy aside on leaks, the executive branch (president, by executive order) essentially sets all classification rules. And, he can declassify anything he wants to, at anytime. 90% of the garbage classified by presidential administrations today is done so to prevent embarrassment over some silly snafu. The intel communities rightly classify their products to protect national security and sources. All that being said, nothing matters to the Bush haters except their blind, seething hatred of the man. So sad……

Posted by: Beak at April 9, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #139360

There never was a “Mainstream News Media”. If there was it has done an extremely poor job, with 90% of our troops believing they are in Iraq as payback for 9/11. You guys simply like to do really disgusting things, like create an overtly partisan news outlet a la 1984 by claiming liberals have always done likewise. You claim it’s all shades of gray, but when the chips are down and Bush and co are finally caught red handed that’s when the truth outs: You don’t really give a damn what kind of game they play, if they break the law, who they lie to. The constitution means nothing to you.

Any reasonable person at this point very, very strongly suspects Bush leaked Plame, but I know you guys are not reasonable so lets use the information that has been confirmed beyond any doubt. Bush leaked that Hussien tried to get Uranium in Niger, and that’s his right. However, he did this at the same time that Powell was on TV dismissing this intelligence, saying that it was not true and never happened, as we all know now is true.

The only logical explanation to my mind is that Bush, Cheney, and Powell sat in a room and talked about this intelligence and agreed it was faulty, but that at some point after Powell left the room Bush told Cheney to leak it.

Nice. We’re back to square one. Bush leaking what he knows is suspect intelligence on the publie to manipulate them into thinking Iraq is a valid threat. This is called lying to Americans about the reasons for going to war. It’s not spelled out in the constitution, and I’m no texturalist, but do you really think this is something our framers thought was okay?

Even if you do think legally it’s okay, how about it being treasonable? Lying to Americans about the reasons for going to war, telling us someone has weapons that can hurt us when they really don’t, are you arguing that’s not a high crime and misdemeanor?

Posted by: Max at April 9, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #139361

With good news like this coming out every day, how is it possible that Bush’s ratings are not higher?

By the by, whatever happened to “the president is supposed to be a role-model?”

Posted by: Zeek at April 9, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #139362

If it was legal or okay to leak this stuff, why the hell are the taxpayers paying for this investigation??????

Posted by: womanmarine at April 9, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #139366

Fact is, according to court papers, Bush authorized Cheney to have Libby leak Plame’s identity. Additionally: he leaked for political purposes information from the Classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate.

The NIE report that was released to the public had much of the warnings, caveats, and qualifications removed from it. Now there is good reason and cause to keep information that identified sources and alerted targets out of the public’s eye. Me, and most Democrats are comfortable with that. But what we have here is the uncertainty made the secret, and information in support of the President’s agenda made public, forcing a selective picture of the truth on us, even as we are asked to support the president’s push for war.

The sense of the evidence is what brought many of us, especially myself, to lend our support to the president. What we see here is a calculated effort to feed us information that it turns out they knew did not reflect the truth.

This is leadership that unironically shouts Jack Nicholson’s famous line from A Few Good Men: “You can’t handle the truth!” This is leadership that leads our country into failure because it is too busy vindicating it’s own agenda to be bothered to take a long hard look at the evidence, and see the real big picture it presents. This administration, not the media, is the great example of the dangers of self-serving bias. Only they did a disservice to us by not giving us a true sense of how shaky our evidence for pre-emptive war was.

We missed some chances to do al-Qaeda real damage, and to keep our soldiers free to be an implicit threat to our enemies when we invaded Iraq on the unreliable evidence we did. We’re now paying for an expensive, extended, and precarious war here. I think it should matter how honest and open-minded the president was in dealing with the evidence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #139367

Bush’s so-called popularity ratings are low because he is more concerned about doing something to make the world a safer place to live than he is about popularity polls.

Librals live and die by polls, as the Clinton years proved over and over.

And, despite what the little Blue Rule Book says, polls can be manipulated. (And frequently are, by both sides.)

Ask the right poll question in the right way and I can prove the Earth is flat, that the sky is yellow and the moon IS made out of cheese!

Posted by: slowthinker at April 9, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #139369

Mr. Daugherty

We could have decapitated al Queda in the 1990s if our president hadn’t been too busy soiling blue dresses and worrying about popularity polls.

Don’t you think it’s a little hypocritical for you to now be preaching about how Bush missed all those opportunities to damage al Queda.

Mr. K

Funny. When one of your liberal media outlets reports something you don’t like, they suddenly metamorph into conservatives.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 9, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #139376

Jack,
i can not tell on the web but i thought this was an op ed is there a way to tell on there web page.

Posted by: jp at April 9, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #139382
Bush leaked that Hussien tried to get Uranium in Niger, and that’s his right.
I have yet to see any evidence that our President has the legal right to leak CIA information without clearing it with the CIA first. So far, as in the editorial that Jack linked to, the opinion that Bush has that legal right has been just that—an OPINION.
Posted by: Charles Wager at April 9, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #139383

JP

It is an editorial, not an op-ed. This is an important distinction. Op-eds are the personal opinions of the writers; they may not be at all related to the newspaper’s opinion.

An editorial is the official opinion of the newspaper. It is decided by the editor and the editorial board, who have at their disposal the resources of the paper. The WP is generally liberal. That they came to this conclusion is significant.

Our liberal readers know this. That is why it bothers them and they will try to obfuscate and deflect. They prefer the bad Bush myth.

It is always fun to watch.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #139384

Charles

CIA works for the executive. He doesn’t need to clear anything with them. See if you can find CIA in the Constitution as a check or a balance.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #139386

So let me get this straight, are you saying that because the editorial board of the Washington Post thinks something is OK, that you find that a compelling argument?

My opinion is that Bush and Cheny leaked this in order to discredit those who disagree with them, not to further an honest public debate. I beleive it was an abuse of power.

Posted by: Matisse Enzer at April 9, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #139389
CIA works for the executive. He doesn’t need to clear anything with them.
Yes, and the president works for us…

I didn’t ask for more opinions, Jack, I asked for evidence. If you have any please share it.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 9, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #139391

Jack is correct! Neither the world nor America owes any person a single thing. That America as a nation shares with “you” does not in any manner mean that “you” are owed anything. The opposite however, is true. “YOU” owe everything you have including your life to America. Ask any man or woman who has been released from prison after a decade or longer incarceration and has become successful in their chosen field of employment and they will tell you the same. Anyone who wants to become rich and successful in America has only to set that in their mind and get after it. We love a self made man or woman. It makes all of America look good when someone pulls themselves out of the rut of being poor and makes a successful life for themselves. Anyone but the weak can do it.
http://russell4president.blogspot.com

Posted by: Cecil L Russell at April 9, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #139392

What one needs to remember is not wether it was legal or not for the President to leak, but the way he did it. If President Bush was sincere in declassifying information for the public good, then why didn’t he just issue a press release and give it to the white house press corps? Also, the NY Times in an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/washington/09leak.html?hp&ex=1144641600&en=bc85efcb03b580b2&ei=5094&partner=homepage) talks how the information was disputed. And the hypocrisy of Bush’s public statements against leaking just makes him look foolish. It maybe legal, but it was handled with incompetence. He is loosing credibility.

Posted by: Steve at April 9, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #139395

slowthinker wrote:

Funny. When one of your liberal media outlets reports something you don’t like, they suddenly metamorph into conservatives.

You are the one describing it as a “liberal media outlet,” not me. I’m pointing out the fact that the Washington Post frequently takes positions contrary to what one would describe as “liberal.” Over the years, the Washington Post’s editorial page has become more conservative. That by itself doesn’t make them conservative, just less liberal perhaps.

But when you argue, as I interpret from your post, that everything and everyone is a “liberal” or “conservative,” you’re just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, rather than looking at the merits of the discussion. And yes — liberals are guilty of that as well.

As I said, I have been reading the Washington Post editorial page for more than 30 years, so I have seen this slide to the right over and over again.

Posted by: Steve K at April 9, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #139396

1) The article makes the typical right wing conclusory statement that the assertions of Mr. Wilson were misleading, despite the fact that this statement has never been supported by anything resembling fact. Instead, there is a host of other sources other than Mr. Wilson that indicate the truth of the idea that facts were being fixed around policy and that the intelligence surrounding the run-up to the Iraq war was at the very least deeply flawed. So if you don’t like Wilson, despite the fact that he’s never been truly debunked, choose one of the other sources giving exactly the same idea he was: the Downing documents; recent articles stating that in the intelligence community and even within the administration itself there were serious misgivings about the validity of the intelligence Bush was shoving down America’s throat; insider after insider (Richard Clarke, Colin Powell’s undersecretary or whatever whose name escapes me right now) coming out and corrorborating that the Iraq intelligence was fixed around policy; and so forth.

2) I admit that there were some out there misconstruing this recent development as proof that Bush had leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, but I don’t think the majority think that. Rather, they see this as yet another indication that Bush isn’t to be trusted, and that he regularly misleads the public. Which he undoubtedly did in this case, with regard to his staunch opposition to leaking information.

3) Moreover, the fact that the Bush administration leaked information, whether connected directly to Ms. Plame’s identity or not, is information that is certainly relevant to Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation, and if Bush or Cheney lied to Fitzgerald regarding this leak, they’re still guilty of obstruction of justice.

Thus, Jack, this article is hardly a vindication for you. In fact, it doesn’t really change anything.

And, just for the record, I’m going to have to add “Mr. Wilson’s report was misleading” to the pile of Unproven Right Wing Assertions No Longer Allowed to be Made, right up there with “Iraq was connected to 9/11”.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 9, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #139398

Jack,

The Washington Post’s editorial board and op-ed writers are, to a certain extent, the same people.

The difference is that the editorials are always unsigned, the views expressed in them are the result of a discussion and a vote, and always written so we can’t tell who wrote them.

While this editorial may be the result of a couple of “swing votes” to the right on the board on this issue, it in no way means that everyone thinks that way. In a few days, if the issue is still hot, we may know at least one of the minority votes from a signed op-ed piece that disgrees with the editorial.

Posted by: Steve K at April 9, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #139402

Jack-
Problem #1: Self Serving Bias
The President deprived Americans of the full context of the decision they were being asked to make. He revealed selected claims from within the NIE, but failed to disclose a number of fairly important caveats and qualifications. If these had been known, the picture of dire threat Bush was pushing on us would have been given less credibility than it was in fact was granted.

Problem #2:Communication Dysfunction
Classified information carries with it the risk of exposure of battle plans, targets, agents, and intelligence assets on our side. Bush’s snap decisions on this front made it difficult if not impossible for the Intelligence community to figure out the sensitivity of the information and send him back the recommendations on the issue. Like it or not, the president is a leader, and though a leader sometimes needs to make snap decision, he also needs to give his people the chance to advise and counsel him.

Problem #3: Extent of Disclosure
The president implicitly and explicitly denied responsibility for the leaks. He obviously did not want to be connected in any meaningful fashion to the selective release of such information, especially since so many of the selective releases were of unreliable evidence, and what he was selectively holding back at the time were many of the indications that the case was not as solid as advertised. That includes information regarding doubts about the Niger Documents, doubts which existed before the president’s SOTU address.

Bush intentionally put the American public at a disadvantage, because he did not trust the American Public to make the decision he wanted if we were properly informed. What he and you fail to understand is that it is not what Bush wants for this country that’s important, but what all of us together want for our country. That’s the point of Democracy. This government decides our fate. We decide what we will accept from it on those terms.

slowthinker-
No, Bush’s polls are low because:

a)Katrina showed him unable to respond to an urgent, devastating crisis with appropriate power and authority.

b)He’s chronically secretive and dishonest with people, and folks have gotten burned apologizing for him on matters he later admitted actually went down as described.

c)He rarely recovers from his errors in a timely fashion, and almost never changes his position unless the political pressure becomes overwhelming.

Regarding Clinton’s flaws, we can start my divergence from your claim almost immediately. Clinton’s administration’s response to terrorism was flawed and politically compromised, but it was there. Counterterrorism was a cabinet level affair, and there was active organizational movement to get on top of things. He did indeed live and die by the polls, and few people deny that he let the Lewinsky Affair become a huge distraction. There, though, it took two to tango, and House and Senate Republicans took something many past presidents did in private and made it into a high state affair.

Moreover, when Bush got into office, He dumped Counterterrorism in the toilet and started focusing on Rogue States and the like. Time and time again, military policy, particularly the Neocon kind, intended to confront and conquer rogue states in the Middle East as a solution to the problem of terrorism has overruled concerted effort to secure points of risk within our own country. We are counting on a very unpopular war in the Middle East to guard us against terrorism here. Lets keep in mind it only took 19 people to kill thousands the last time we were attacked, and the eight years since the last domestic strike saved not one life there.

Ultimately, this is a bipartisan problem. Clinton screwed up in a number of ways, including caving into the Airline’s special interests on their security. There are also a number of political problems he created within the agencies. That said, Bush IS screwing things up right now by emphasizing security outside our borders at the expense of that which is inside it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #139404

“I want the truth and I want it now!!” That seems to be the people with a lack of patience and liberals. Sometimes the truth takes awhile to develop. If the truth was immediate, then our court systems would not be so overloaded.

I have stated in the past that WMD’s that were in Iraq will be found and it will be shown that during that time of “diplomacy” that they were shipped out of Iraq to the Bekka Valley and Syria.

There are far too many people on this location that call it fowl if they disagree with it. They further attribute “liar” to those people who disagree with them.

Some person above said he was convinced the Cheney, Bush, and Powell sat in a room and agreed that the intel was faulty. That is a pretty broad conclusion for somebody that was not there nor has evedince of the conversations within the room. But that is repeated over and over that they know that there was faulty intel. They know nothing. They do not know the facts of the intel they are referencing. If they had inside knowledge, they would not be on this blog site spewing sentences that are many times incoherent.

The conclusions reached could be described thusly that the more manure stacked into a pile next to ones location becomes less smelly because you become acquainted the the aroma and now it is less offensive. The same is in the discourse on society and government. The more the liberal thought control mechanism is put into place the more distorted the results become.

When one puts into chronological order the details that are known to the public, Mr Wilson is the one who revealed that his wife worked for the CIA and not as a covert employee but a desk job without covert status. He then was less than truthful about his wife, Niger, who he had contact with in the administration and other items of concern. These are things that are easily established both as fact and timeline.

I am not giving links because those that choose to not believe the links can find sources that are more believable to them. They are available.

Posted by: tomh at April 9, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #139408

From elsewhere in Jack’s favorite paper, the WP:

As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence … Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a “concerted action” by “multiple people in the White House” — using classified information — to “discredit, punish or seek revenge against” a critic of President Bush’s war in Iraq.

Why could be worse that that? well

according to Libby’s grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney “specifically directed” Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson’s visit to Niger. One striking feature of that decision — unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it — is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.

Cheney, and possibly Bush, were leaking cherry-picked information to justify war in Iraq. The “good leak”?

Posted by: William Cohen at April 9, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #139411
I am not giving links because those that choose to not believe the links can find sources that are more believable to them. They are available.
READ: I am not giving links because it would allow others to discredit them and reveal that my arguments are based on faulty or shaky assumptions and rumors. I am not giving links because I know the truth in my heart and will not let facts get in the way. I am not giving links because an open discussion about my assertions will prove disadvantageous to my argument.
Posted by: Introspective at April 9, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #139413

Thank you slowthinker for demonstrating yet another Republican’s inability to sort news from editorial, fact from fiction. Good show! Those publications have editorials, news, and like all humans err, upon occasion. But, by now, even Fox has to be looking liberal to some Republicans as they chime in on reporting the poll numbers and critiques of the administration’s policies. Getting tough to keep that head buried in the sand as waves awakening wash it out to sea.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 9, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #139415

Cecil, come back to earth. If that were the case, there would be far more wealthy than poor in the world. Try taking an economics course and a probability and statistics course, together they are a real eye opener on the real world.

Economics - the relationship between unlimited demand and limited resources. Does this communicate anything to you? It is the very definition of economics.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 9, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #139416

“Bush’s so-called popularity ratings are low because he is more concerned about doing something to make the world a safer place to live than he is about popularity polls.”

I am at a loss to recall a more illogical statement on WatchBlog. Presumably being concerned about doing something everyone wants done is why his poll numbers go down. WOW!!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 9, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #139418


I can’t believe it. Seems like the Democrats aren’t the only ones willing to believe forged documents.

Posted by: jlw at April 9, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #139421

Introspective
Your response shows the reason. Thank You

Posted by: tomh at April 9, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #139422

Sorry everyone, but Slowthinker thinks it’s funny to make outrageous statements just to get people all riled up.

I’ve took his mouse away from him for one week, so hopefully, he’s learned his lesson.

But, I’ll monitor his Internet use just to make sure.

Go Hillary in ‘08!!

Posted by: slowthinkerswife at April 9, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #139425

Jack, if everything is as perfect as the Washington Posts suddenly makes it sound; can you explain me why instead of coming up with this answer two years ago, President Bush came up with this one: “If there’s a leak out of this administration, I want to know who it is”.
Posted by: Carl at April 9, 2006 12:48 PM
Why didnt the president sayt this two years ago? Becase two years ago the questions were about leaking a CIA agents name. When these documents were released the media told the truth-that these were recently declasified documents that had been released. They are now using one of the NY Times favorit tricks. Wait till peoples memory is fuzzy then re-invent what happened.

Posted by: kelly at April 9, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #139428

Yup, it was Joe Wilson that was wrong.

They found those tons of yellow cake that came from a flooded, inoperable pit, and was smuggled in dipolmatic pouches under a raincoat wearing Iraqi diplomat.

Da Plame! Da Plame! Boss, are we are on Fantasy Island again?

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 9, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #139429

I guess we all grow up - even the liberal media has to sometime - maybe even some of the libs here will - yea I was a lib when I graduated from college - then I entered the real world and grew up - I find most people who remain libs havent been out in the world - they are usually sequestered away in academia or working for the gov somewhere

Posted by: mike at April 9, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #139431

SLowthinkers wife - right on!!! Hillarious and Osama in 08!! Yea!!!

Posted by: mike at April 9, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #139441

Jack said:

“Good Leak”, that was the headline of the lead editorial in today’s “Washington Post”. There is nothing illegal or particularly usual about the release, says the Post.

[emphasis added]

But then, David R. Remer pointed out that:

We’ve seen this routine before, designed to keep folks off balance, and hide what is really going on.

While we’re being open and honest here, let’s make it very visible that the link Jack refers to is nothing more than an editorial by a person with an opinion.

To which, Steve K added:

Case in point: this so-called liberal paper’s best op-ed columnists are George Will and Charles Krauthammer.

So, essentially, Jack LIED.

He made it seem as though Something were Something Else. Through the use of a sort of NewSpeak.

Incapable of mounting a viable rebuttal to the outpouring of damaging information coming from the bursting levee that is this administration, Jack lied to us to try and gain some leverage.

Wellwellwell.

Bad Jack: No Credibility.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 9, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #139442

Yosarrian

The reason I was so pleased to see this article is because it is in the Washington Post. You cannot call that a right wing outlet.

I have to admit that I am having a lot of fun with this. Not since Factcheck.org had the article that indicated Bush didn’t lie about pre-war intelligence have the liberals on this blog scrambled so fast to discredit one of their own usual sources.

Steve K

The editorial writers and the op-ed are completely different people. Op-ed refers to the page opposite the editorial where independent columnists, politicians, and even ordinary citizens can give their opinions that may agree and may contradict the paper’s vision.

Stephen

Leaks are what runs Washington. That is how politics works Wilson made a dishonest attack. The President’s team wanted to counter it. They had the facts. I am sure that they didn’t want to make it like an equal match between the current president and the former ambassador.

Tom H

You are right that the truth takes time to develop. As we learn more from the now available Saddam archives, we see that he was even more nefarious than we thought.

And BTW we still have not accounted for the WMD that we know Saddam had in 1998. There are still lots of blanks to fill in.

William

That is a misleading statement in your article. The point is not that the yellow cake was shown to be a mistake. That is true. The point is the WILSON is the one whose report seemed to indicate that it was. Wilson used information in his attack on Bush that he did not have and was not developed at the time. That is how he twisted the truth.

We now know that Saddam did not have WMD. We did not know it before the war. Wilson did not know it and he did not tell Bush. The report indicated that.

Kelly

He was talking about Plame.

Leaking is what Washington does. Some are illegal, some are not. When they are illegal, the person should be punished. Otherwise it is a matter of strategy.

Betty

Try to understand what the lead editorial on a paper like the Washington Post signifies. I explained the difference between editorials, op-eds etc above. You can check it out if you don’t believe me. A lot of people don’t understand how this works. Don’t feel bad. You will understand public affairs better when you understand the structure of the media.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #139444

Good Media, Bad Media…


…depends on which source agrees with you that day, eh?

Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 9, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #139447

hey i know one thing if i ever need a attorney i will call betty man can she turn it around faster than a three peck*** goat!

Posted by: FA STEPHENS at April 9, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #139449

Beijing Bob

Some media is more reliable than others. All media is biased. That does not mean it is inaccurate, it just has a point of view. I read the Washington Post most days and make a few implicit adjustments to account for its liberal bias. That is why when I see an editorial like this in the Post, I am surprised and I give it higher credibility. If such an editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal, it would still be accurate, but not as remarkable.

This whole Bush lied gambit is based on faulty view of how intelligence is gathered. Liberals cannot seem to understand the concept intelligence versus that of news and that of history and they attribute ordinary misinterpretations or mistakes to malice or dishonesty.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #139451
Rather than follow the usual declassification procedures and then invite reporters to a briefing — as the White House eventually did — Vice President Cheney initially chose to be secretive, ordering his chief of staff at the time, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the information to a favorite New York Times reporter. The full public disclosure followed 10 days later. There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security. Nevertheless, Mr. Cheney’s tactics make Mr. Bush look foolish for having subsequently denounced a different leak in the same controversy and vowing to “get to the bottom” of it.

Am I missing something?
OK, So perhaps no law was broken?
But, the whole thing seems kind of shady.
Or, is it merely Standard Operating Procedure ?

Or, is it merely the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing ?

I’m not sure which is worse.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 9, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #139454

No Jack, op-ed and editorial writers are not always different. Some op-ed writers never write editorials (as they are not on the editorial board), and I suppose there are some editorial writers who never do op-eds (hard to say since they aren’t signed). But the Washington Post certainly has overlap.

Posted by: Steve K at April 9, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #139456

Straight Shooter, Lawbreaker, or Liar?
If it turns out that the President did authorize the leaking of sensitive classified information, two questions come to mine. First, did President Bush break the law by allowing classified information to be disclosed? Second, has the President been dishonest with the American people in his many statements about leaks?

The legal issues will be debated for some time to come. According to the President’s defenders, his authorization to disclose information would itself be a secret declassification of that material. Therefore, it would be perfectly legal for the President or his agents to leak any “classified” information they desire.

President Bush’s honesty, on the other hand, cannot be defended if he did actually authorize the leaks or even have detailed knowledge of the source prior to Mr. Libby’s indictment. If Mr. Libby’s testimony is true, then the President’s past remarks can only be characterized as attempts to deceive the American electorate for political advantage. Is it acceptable in an elected democracy for it’s government to misrepresent its actions to the people it serves - even when those in govenment believe they have a just cause? Do the citizens have the right to know what the government is doing in their name?

Has the Bush administration been guilty of telling lies to us to hide their true behavior? Here, in his own words, are the President’s repeated denials of any knowledge about leaked information. Judge for yourself if he’s been telling us the truth.

President Bush: “I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.” (Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03)

President Bush: “Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of… . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.” (Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03)

Scott McClellan: “The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.” (White House Press Briefing, 9/29/03)

Scott McClellan: “Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I’ll talk to you about what he wants …If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that’s not the way this White House operates, that’s not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business.” (White House Press Briefing, 10/7/03)

President Bush: “I want to know the truth. … I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers.” (Fox News, 10/8/03)

President Bush: “I’d like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information.” (10/28/03)

President Bush: Responding to media question referring to “anybody who leaked the agent’s (Valerie Plame’s) name,” and the question, “Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?” the President responded: “Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.” (Press Conference, Savannah, Georgia, 6/10/04)

President Bush: “If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” (USA Today, 7/18/05)

Posted by: Seeking honesty in Government at April 9, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #139457

Well, Jack, that was amazingly unresponsive to any of my remarks. I think you must have confused me with someone else, because the fact that this article was in the WP in no way figured into any of my points. But I do understand you were fielding a lot of criticism at once, so it’s cool.

On your irrelevant response, however, I don’t see many people seeking to discredit the WP, here. I see them discussing the merits of opinion pieces versus objective fact-printing.

But I understand how you could confuse the two: your side has been conflating White House PR with objective fact for years now.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 9, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #139458

There is overlap of some people, but the lead editorial is very different from op-eds

The lead editorial is the official voice of the newspaper. It is not the opinion of one columnist. In an op-ed the person speaks for himself. The editorial speaks for the newspaper.

YOU or I can write an op-ed for the post. Here is how you can sign up. You or I CANNOT write an editorial for the Post. Because op-ed is our opinion; editorial is the newspaper opinion.

If you look at the editorial board. You see some overlap with regular columnists, but they are not the same guys. For one things there are lots more people who can write op-eds. As I said, anyone can write an op-ed. And more importantly, when they write under their own names, they are doing different work. The editorial speaks for the paper. The signed columnist speaks for himself. Very big difference.

When I wrote “says the Post” this was exactly accurate as anyone who understands what the lead editorial means.

When an editorial appears in a paper it is considered the institutional opinion of the newspaper. I don’t even know why we are having this discussion, since it is like the definition of “is”.

So when I say that the editorial I quoted is the official opinion of the Washington Post on April 9, 2006, I am right.

I know this is hard to bear for liberals. Et tu WashPost, right? But that is what the Washington Post says.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #139459

Yossarian

The WP editorial talks about the underlying facts of the case. I block quoted them. Maybe you believe the Washington Post editors are lying, but I expect they checked the relevant sources and it is in line with other evidence.

So let’s see

“The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.”

I have seen these reports (as reported in other media) this seems a true statement. It is not given as opinion. This is a factual statement to back an opinion.

“After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge. In last week’s court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity.”

I didn’t actually check the court documents. Do you think the Post is lying about this? If you can disprove it, please do. I think it will be really interested, almost like Rathergate.

“Mr. Libby’s motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife.”

Are these facts disputed by anybody? Cheney did not send Wilson and his wife IS the one who recommended him. Do you disagree with the Post on this too? DO you have any reason?

Don’t make me taunt you a third time.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #139460

I don�t even know why we are having this discussion, since it is like the definition of “is”.

Nice. I thought you elicited the discussion. But the right-wing solution to rational arguments and clear proof is to yell nastier and louder than anyone in the room ala Hannity & O’Reilly. Here’s a few more quotes of this style you might recognize. These are from the Commander in Chief who has only our best intersts at heart:

“You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.”

Describing what it’s like to be governor of Texas. (Governing Magazine 7/98)
— From Paul Begala’s “Is Our Children Learning?”

“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

(CNN.com, December 18, 2000)

“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it.”

(Business Week, July 30, 2001)

Posted by: sbhiggs at April 9, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #139462

sbhiggs

We can discuss many things. But there are some things that are definitional and generally accepted. What an editorial board does is one of them. I explained it three times. I didn’t call anybody names. You all would understand it fine if it wasn’t favorable to the President.

I think you may be mistaking me with your sterotype.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #139463

Ok, I am really confused. Do I have this straight?

Bush asked Cheney to “leak” information that ruined a woman’s career.

2.Bush actually did lie about the reasons we are at war,(I.e., that there really were no WMD).

3.When Wilson said that Bush knew there were no WMD, Wilson was essentially telling the truth.

Which lead to:

1. How many people running around trying to find the original leak, while Bush acted as if he really didn’t know and wanted to know the truth.

2. Spending money unnecessarily trying to bring charges against someone (Liddy)who has apparently been used as a dupe.

If I am essentially correct. Then it appears that:

Anyway you look at it the American people were manipulated again.


Posted by: Linda H. at April 9, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #139466

Jack:

What weighs more: The Editorial or the Front Page NEWS article?

There are two articles in the WP that contradict each other.

What is your response to the News Article that challenges yours?

Posted by: Aldous at April 9, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #139467

Linda

Actually you don’t have it straight in any of the particulars.

1. Bush did not ask Cheney to reveal anything that ruined the woman’s career. According to the Washington Post, “After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge. In last week’s court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity”

2. There were no WMD at the time of the invasion, but it was widely believed that there were and Bush was acting on the intelligence available. He was mistaken, but did not lie. Look at the factcheck.org

3. Wilson was not telling the truth. According to the Washington Post, “The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium”

SO if all you premises are wrong, we don’t need to consider the conclusions based on them. BTW all these things are available in the first part of the article. Did you read any of it?

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #139470

Aldous

I am looking at the front page. Could you be more specific about which parts of the articles are contradictory (and include a link)?

As far as I can see, the articles talk about related topics, but are talking about different details. The Key points of the editorial are those I mention to Linda above. I don’t find them contradicted in the article.

The Bush Administration worked to discredit Wilson, because he was not telling the truth about how he got the assignment or what he found. We can talk about whether or not it was a dirty trick. Wilson’s activity certainly was.

The intelligence was mistaken and mistakes were made in what to believe and use. The question is WHEN they knew and what they believed. Wilson implied information not known at the time of his report and not included in it. Like many Dems, he now says he knew things that he didn’t at the time

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #139472

Jack

Actually, you’re distorting some facts, as is the editorial. It’s a shame that we have to go over this so many times.

Re: the ways Wilson allegedly “twisted the truth”, according to WP

Only by use of some imagination does Wilson’s report “suggest” that Iraq sought uranium from Niger. In fact, report states that an Iraqi delegation approached Niger regarding increased trade, and made no mention whatsoever of uranium. This is undisputed.

Mr. Wilson has never said that Cheney sent him to Africa, but that the CIA elected to send him in order to answer questions that Cheney had raised.

As I said before, even if you don’t like Wilson or think he was not telling the truth, it is curious how his assertion that intelligence was being manipulated in order to produce a certain result happens to comport with what a great many others unrelated to the Wilson-Plame controversy were saying. While I admit that the Wilson-Plame affair is a tad murky, if you take Wilson’s allegations, place them in a framework with the myriad other sources alleging that the exact same practices were occuring, i.e. fact-fixing around policy, it creates a fairly coherent picture of deception by this administration.

As for Fitzgerald’s statements regarding Bush’s role, the editorial is not stating them altogether accurately. All he said was that Bush was unaware of Libby’s role in this particular matter. This is far from saying that Bush played no role in this affair.

Fitzgerald DID say, however, and this is taken from a different WP article that is NOT an opinion piece, “it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to ‘punish’ Wilson.”

In fact, while the editorial attempts to color the leak as a legitimate attempt at debating points in the open with Mr. Wilson, most NON-opinion articles on the matter have shown it to be an underhanded and purely punitive measure.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 10, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #139473

Leave it to a Neo-Con to use a Pythonism in an unfunny, nonsequitur sort of way.

Now, my criticism may seem trite until one considers how remarkably quotable Monty Python really is. So many of the lines can be repeated by just about anyone and still be funny, no matter who is doing the quoting. For example, “Message for you, Sir” is ALWAYS funny, as are “What, the curtains?” and “waifer-thin mint.” Really, it is one of the most ingenious characteristics of the Circus that their jokes can be relayed by Everyman and still garner laughs.

That this writer can only muster haphazardly tossing a Pythonism at the beginning and end of his article, apropos to nothing and engendering no sense of humor at all is, well… frightening.

Posted by: T.K. Gretick at April 10, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #139477
We can discuss many things. But there are some things that are definitional and generally accepted. What an editorial board does is one of them. I explained it three times.
Jack, it’s been explained to you at least three times that an editorial is not news—it’s an opinion. Whether it represents the paper’s opinion or not doesn’t change that fact. Editorials are a way to express an opinion, independent of whether or not the facts support it. Why don’t you answer Aldous’s question about the contradiction with the front page news story?
The reason I was so pleased to see this article is because it is in the Washington Post. You cannot call that a right wing outlet.
Is this the best you can do, Jack? Your whole premise is based on your assumption that the Washington Post is a liberal bastion? That’s news to me; it’s certainly not the paper I choose to pick up to get my liberal fix in the morning. And the WP’s editorial section in particular has been right-leaning and chicken-hawkish since before this whole Iraq mess started. What’s next? Do you boldly assert that Krauthammer’s a liberal…then go on to demonstrate how he’s in favor of tax cuts as some sort of coup de grace?

Forgive me for not realizing I was being taunted. Forgive me for not feeling the bite of your “wit”.

And since your premise is wrong, I guess there’s no need to consider the conclusions based on them…

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 10, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #139480

mike,

yea I was a lib when I graduated from college - then I entered the real world and grew up - I find most people who remain libs havent been out in the world - they are usually sequestered away in academia or working for the gov somewhere
Come to Chicago sometime. I’ll introduce you to hundreds of liberals—not a one of whom is described by your shallow stereotype.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 10, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #139482

“ A lie is half way around the world while the truth is still lacing up it’s boots” (Black is white and white is black) Look, simply read Yergin’s book “The Prize” to add colour to this picture. A supposedly, clear window, made vulnerable our jingoistic hot buttons to be pushed: Revenge! The need to feed this base emotion was utilised. Plus which, when the oval office wraps itself in the flag – national security, what really is the public to do. A strategy was drawn up; the bogey man with the best legs was seemingly and logically designated and labeled pure evil. Discourse was shot down…Voices of dissent or the minority party was labeled as cowards, pacifist, unpatriotic. So, if it is a lie, then you fight on that lie. This is nothing new. After all, was it not propaganda (yellow journalism) that forced-compelled McKinley into the Spanish-American War. Did not FDR carefully conduct a subtle campaign to slowly enter America into the war: Oil embargo, Lend Lease… This is how wars are fought and how nations join battle. (The “good fight” is always romantasised and justified; the end justifies the most absolute of means.) But really, why should anyone be surprised if Bush was involved in this leak/red herring-chum: Passively and with stealth. You forget he was schooled by the master: Lee Atwater. A brilliant Republican strategist, and quite ruthless! The fifth corner for Bush is denial and/or, executive order per the discretion of the President.

Posted by: Eisai at April 10, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #139484

Jack,

I thought you might appreciate this:
Does Fred Hiatt Even Read the Washington Post?

It’s an interesting article directly debunking Fred Hiatt’s editorial, A Good Leak, that you’re been going on and on about here. And here’s the kicker: unlike the editorial, this article is backed up by research. Enjoy!

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries…

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 10, 2006 1:24 AM
Comment #139509

This leak is a dead parrot.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 10, 2006 3:38 AM
Comment #139511

bawk he is in there. bawk he is over there. bawk he is hiding in there. hey poly fetch this ka booom !

Posted by: FA STEPHENS at April 10, 2006 4:39 AM
Comment #139512

Mike - “I find most people who remain libs havent been out in the world - they are usually sequestered away in academia or working for the gov somewhere”

Hey Mike, have you ever been outside of the U.S., buddy? Most of the world is leftist and liberal. Most of the people in the world also live lives in a world which, compared to you, is much more “real”. Whatever the hell “real” means in this context.

What an ironic and condescending post, sheesh…

Try visiting a place where people DON’T hold the same opinions as you.

By the way I am neither a CON nor a LIB. I prefer to hear the facts as they are and refrain from judgement until a logical conclusion can be drawn.

Obviously you do not. Maybe you should go “out in the world” sometime.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 10, 2006 4:42 AM
Comment #139515

Anyone who can see the WaPo “Good Leak” editorial for the execrable bunch of counterfactual horseshit it is should go check out the comments on the Post’s site — they are hilarious! You can almost hear thousands of subscriptions canceling as you read!

It looks like people are seeing right through this article that you have placed your utmost faith in, Jack. The joke’s on you, cowboy.

But don’t let it get you down — I’m sure you can still attempt to save some face by churning out a flurry of posts about the low, low unemployment rate.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 10, 2006 5:06 AM
Comment #139521

Charles

It is opinion, but it contains news and is based on news. So you believe that the Washington Post just made up a lot of BS to help President Bush? This is the Washington POST not the Washington TIMES or even the WSJ. That the considered opinion of the generally liberal and usually intelligent board of the WP can think this is significant, and you know it. If I had quoted the Times or WSJ we would not be having this discussion. Or if the Post had trashed Bush, you certainly would have believed it.

That saying, BTW, variously attributed and with slightly different emphasis is “If you are not a socialist when you are 20, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you are 40, you have no brain.” I have seen it attributed to
Churchill, Clemenceau and even Oscar Wilde, but it is a common wisdom and we don’t know who said it first.
Yossarian

Unemployment IS low. I have just been reporting every month with the BLS tells us the latest number. For most of the U.S., conditions are good. Maybe you live in a depressed area, but where I live employers are crying for workers and starting wages for kids still in HS are $6-7 an hour.

My advice to you guys is don’t jump on things where the actual numbers prove you wrong. If Kerry had been elected President, you would be praising the upturn and I would be telling you that it started in June 2003. (just like the “Clinton” recovery began in March 1991 and ended in March 2000)

You guys should stick to the myths you can defend for a longer time. Bush lied is like the Kennedy assassination or the causes of the Vietnam War. You can successfully argue that forever without winning or losing. Stick with that. That sort of thing is what you are good at.

Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2006 8:04 AM
Comment #139524

Well Jack, you’ve grown just a little. In your original post what the Post wrote was all fact, according to you. In the last reply above, you admitted it was opinion. Just like the current administration, saying something over and over and over and then admitting you’re wrong, well what you hope happens and what usually does happen is people only remember what was said often, not the correction.

Posted by: ray at April 10, 2006 9:12 AM
Comment #139529

Jack:

President Bush declassified some of the intelligence he used to decide on war in Iraq. Is that a scandal?

Doing it solely for political gain IS a scandal…and it’s morally wrong, too. So much for “honor and dignity” in the White House…haven’t seen any yet.

Posted by: Lynne at April 10, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #139531

Jack,

This has been an interesting week on the leak front.

I will grant that the President can declassify whatever he wants. What I would like to know is whether he authorized the outing of Valerie Plame. While this would probably not be illegal, it would certainly make him a petty, vindictive bastard. Likewise for Cheney, if he authorized it.

As for the Washington Post, keep in mind that they supported the Iraq War. This what they wrote on 2/5/2003.

Unless unexpected change takes place in Baghdad, the United States should lead a force to remove Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and locate and destroy its chemical and biological weapons and its nuclear program. The Iraqi regime poses a threat not just to the United States but to global order.

(Note how they assume as fact that Iraq has WMD.)

I think this is significant in two ways. First of all, it means that they apt to interpret later developments in a way that vindicates their earlier decision. Secondly, they are most definitely NOT a “liberal” newspaper…

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 10, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #139534

Washington Post on Niger uranium discredited yet used by Bush

Try this on for real news, not opinion.

Posted by: Lynne at April 10, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #139536

Woody

Technical question. If the Post is not a liberal newspaper, which newspapers are liberal and which are conservative.

This was my feeling

NYT, Wash Post = liberal
WSJ, Wash Times = conservative.

Lynn and others

Opinion of the WP is based on their assessment of the facts. You may come up with a different opinion based on your assessment of the facts.

I look at it like this. The editorial board of WP is not conservative. THey are smart and experienced people with access to better sources than any one of us. They decide the things about the case I mentioned above.

Now if I assess their opinion against others, which should I take? My conclusions based on the evidence are similar to theirs.

So based on facts available to all of us, the Wash Post editors and I think one way; you guys think another. I don’t always agree with them either, but most of you do. That is why it is an interesting and enjoyable thing to taunt you with it.

You can do the same to me if the WSJ writes that job growth is weak, since WSJ is to a conservative like me what WP is to liberals.

Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #139539

OK, So, was a law broken? Nope.
But, was it unethical ? Yep.
Was it irresponsible ? Yep.

The issues (thanks for the link Charles Wager) are:
(1) selective leaking of information for purely political CYA and still failing to accomplish to CYA; that is, the leak still failed to be politically helpful;
(2) the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing; perhaps they ought to let each other know what the game plan is so they don’t all look “clumsy” (or more accurately, like hypocrites or imbeciles);
(3) this is just another straw on the camel’s back;
(4) Think of all the time and effort wasted trying to figure out where it all started, and “Bush’s” statement vowing to “get to the bottom of it”. DOH !
(5) It is interesting trying to watch partisan loyalists defend this, and the other similar shady shenanigans. It truly speaks volumes. Partisan loyalists will want to avoid the entire subject like the plague, due to the unpleasantness of getting all twisted out of shape trying to explain it away as a non-issue.
Don’t be fooled. The issue is: corruption, ethics, integrity, honesty. Something we see very little of anymore within government.
(6) The final conclusion is that Bush, and his accomplices abused their power to hide their mistakes and blunders by twisting the facts.

Even if no laws were broken, the driving motivation, resulting unethical behavior, and deeply ingrained irresponsibility and corruption permeating all throughout government, should not be overlooked.

Sorry, Jack. Doesn’t it get tiring (especially these days) trying to deflect this stuff?

How long before it breaks the camel’s back?

Too bad more incumbents in the Senate aren’t up for election this year.
_________________________________________
Stop Repeat Offenders.
Don’t Re-Elect Them !
_________________________________________


Posted by: d.a.n at April 10, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #139540

Jack is like the lovesick puppy who just can’t understand why everyone hates his love.

Even though he’s battered and bruised, he is still quite sure that his love is the end of all loves.

Stop drinking the kool-aid, let your hair grow back and stop saying the Mantra. Help is out there for you Jack, if you only seek it. Go away from the light. Reverend Moon and the Washington Times will forgive you.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 10, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #139541

Here is my own taxonomy of newspapers:

LA Times - Liberal
NY Times - Usually liberal
Washington Post - Centrist
Wall Street Journal - Conservative/GOP-friendly
Washington Times - Scary

But I think the key point here is that it is not out of character for WP to agree with Bush on foreign policy issues. And ultimately, as you said, the facts are the facts.


Posted by: Woody Mena at April 10, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #139543

Interesting article, Lynne, but why does it, and you for that matter, ignore the fact that Wilson’s own article stated that delegates from Iraq did approach Niger to purchase uranium but the sale was not agreed to because of the sanctions?

I find it incredulous that people today are saying that no approach was ever made now when we have the Nigerian Prime Minister’s own words…

I have a link for you too! Report on the US Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq - Joe Wilson.

Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,( ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”
The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger’s uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.

Given that this was not the only intelligence regarding the issue (another report asserted that a deal was indeed struck after 1999, other intelligence from Britain backed up the assertion that Iraq at the minimum did approach Niger to purchase uranium) I would think that most people would agree that such an approach was most likely made. Which means that Saddam was attempting to build nuclear weapons as recently as 2 to 3 years before we invaded, who knows who else he contacted and if he indeed might have been able to pull of a deal with someone not as ‘friendly’ to the US as Niger was at the time.

Or, it was a huge conspiracy that Bush started before he took office, working behind the scenes with his Dad the whole time Clinton was in office just so he could steal the election in 2000, help conspire the 9/11 attacks so he could have the political power to invade Iraq to steal the oil ther (which I don’t think we have yet after 3 years…)

Hmmm, tough one…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #139544

Would someone else please explain to me what the heck is wrong with my original question?

Jack gave me one from the Conversative side, which I greatly appeicate, but I’d like to compare it to how the Liberal side sees things. Then hopefully, I’ll be better informed about this wole mess.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 10, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #139547

Jack:

Must I remind you that your language and presentation say more about you and your psychology than they do about the subjects themselves???

Let’s see the words you like to utilize in headlines (oh, maybe you wouldn’t get any postings if you stuck to the real subject, yes???):

Bush haters
Taunt
McCain trashing
Outraged Americans
March 24 sources (not hysterical)
March 17 hysterical sources
Hysterical sources - March 9
Going negative
Hysterical sources - March 2
Hysterical sources

Kind of borders on yellow journalism…oh, but that’d be “hysterical”, wouldn’t it…

Posted by: Lynne at April 10, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #139549

If a News outlet differs from your stance it is either liberal or conservative (depending on your own stance). When that same news outlet agrees with you, then you can quote the liberal/conservative outlet and use it agains the “other” side.

Could it be that this particular news outlet is not so biased as folks would haved it seem? Could it also be that the individuals are, in fact, so biased that they are out of the mainstream and not the news outlet?

Unfortunately, news outlets have become more biased over time. Eliminating the fair reporting act didn’t help. Now a news outlet can give only one side to a story without ever considering the other side. With the advent of so many conservative talk radio stations and FOX the once slightly left media have had to make decisions….remain slightly left, move right, or move further left to counter the right.

Those that elected to move right did so at the expense of their audience. The right won’t embrace them because they had already labeled them as left. The left did just that…they left. Those that remained moderately left are still considered left by the far right.

All that said, I don’t think this particular media outlet is as “left” as some would want others to believe. In the right’s mind, if you aren’t O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Bortz, or Fox….well, you’re left.

to be honest, it really doesn’t matter. This is an Opinion piece. The key work is “opinion”. Editorials are usually loosely based on fact…but not always. When looking for a source to back up fact I wouldn’t use an editorial. Heck, Cuvota (sp?) on Fox sometimes says stuff I agree with during his opinion section….however, I don’t run with it as fact, because it isn’t.

Posted by: Tom L at April 10, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #139551

Well, I’m not a conservative or a liberal, but this is how I see your questions…

Bush asked Cheney to “leak” information that ruined a woman’s career.

No. Bush did ask Cheney to release some elements of an NIH report that backed up his claims that Niger was approached by Iraq to purchase uranium (the deal was not done, Niger did not want to violate sanctions).

2.Bush actually did lie about the reasons we are at war,(I.e., that there really were no WMD).

No. Bush, as did most everyone else at the time, believed that Iraq still had unaccounted for WMD from the 1991 invasion, and were concerned that he had developed more during the intervening years. The main reason many people beleived this is because Iraq never fully cooperated with the inspection process, a process that was suppose to take all of 90 days and 12 years later and years without inspectors on the groud they were still getting less than full and complete cooperation.

Many felt that even with this blocking by the Iraqi government that the inspectors would eventually be able to say for sure that there were no more WMDs left on the ground, but I and I think many in the US and UK administrations felt that there was just no way to ever ‘be sure’ without Iraq doing as it had agreed and provide full and immediate cooperation as dictated in UN Resolutions. The information that Iraq had been seeking out uranium only made it harder to believe that Saddam had indeed disarmed completely and was no longer a threat.

3.When Wilson said that Bush knew there were no WMD, Wilson was essentially telling the truth.

This isn’t at all what the suggestion by Wilson was. Wilson stated that Iraq did not get any uranium from Niger. However, he did pass on information that Iraq had approached Niger to make such a deal in 1999 but it was not completed. He also brought information that was backed up by others that they believed that a purchase of uranium from Niger was not a likely event because of various circumstances.


Which lead to:

1. How many people running around trying to find the original leak, while Bush acted as if he really didn’t know and wanted to know the truth.

He did want to know the truth. The leak you are speaking about here was an unauthorized leak concerning Valerie Plame’s identity. No on in the investigation, not even Fitzgerald, believes that Bush authorized or was even AWARE that Libby released this information. It was unauthorized and he will be punished for it, Bush so far has kept to his word on that it appears to me.

2. Spending money unnecessarily trying to bring charges against someone (Liddy)who has apparently been used as a dupe.

Nope, the money was necessary and we were able to find someone who released classified information without proper authorization. He will be punished as he should.

If I am essentially correct.

You’re not.

Then it appears that:

Anyway you look at it the American people were manipulated again.

Yes, they were. But not by the administration in THIS case, but by the overzealous Democratic party who are trying to confuse you into thinking that Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Plame’s name to the media (which he did NOT do) and attempting to convince you that something happened which is not factually true.

It appears to have worked initially, I just hope that you do some more research and figure this out on your own (don’t just believe me, look it up for yourself!)

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #139552

Jack, I most certianly did read the article and the link you posted. I’m afraid I did not make myself clear.

1. What I don’t understand is how did the ‘Uranium situation’ that Wilson spoke about end up costing Plame her job, and potentially put others’ lifes in jeopardy.

2. According to Libby, the information he recieved came from the WH, which to me indicates that it must have come from Bush or Cheney. Where am I wrong here?

3. Why would Bush declassify this type of information, if not to hurt someone?

4.Why act as if you don’t know anything about the leak, cost the taxpayers a fortunate over a 2 1/2 year investigation, if there was no real reason to declassify it?

Posted by: Linda H. at April 10, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #139556

Jack, I most certianly did read the article and the link you posted. I’m afraid I did not make myself clear.

1. What I don’t understand is how did the ‘Uranium situation’ that Wilson spoke about end up costing Plame her job, and potentially put others’ lifes in jeopardy.What is the connection between the two?

2. According to Libby, the information he recieved came from the WH, which to me indicates that it must have come from Cheney, Kove, or Bush since he’s the one who declassified it.
Where am I wrong here?

3. Why would Bush declassify this type of information, if not to hurt someone?

4. Why act as if you don’t know anything about the leak, cost the taxpayers a fortunate over a 2 1/2 year investigation, if there was no real reason to declassify it?

Posted by: Linda H. at April 10, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #139561

Jack, Rhinehold, anyone else who is still trying desperately to defend the president,
I’m sorry, but you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about — and neither does whoever wrote that WaPo editorial.
A few facts you’re neglecting to note:

Following Wilson’s op-ed piece in the NYT, Ari Fleischer said when asked about it:
“There is zero, nada, nothing new here.”
Following that, The WH National Security Council then came out and said:
“Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq’s attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech.”
Then Tenet disclosed parts of the NIE regarding uranium from Africa. And this actually validated what Wilson wrote. Tenet also admitted that the famous 16 words:
“did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.”
So by the time we reach July 11th, of 2003, Wilson’s allegation’s were no longer even being disputed.

So — and this is vitally important — THAT MEANS THERE WAS NO REASON FOR BUSH AND CHENEY TO LEAK THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUTING WILSON’S CLAIMS.
NONE, WHATSOEVER.

But just three days later, Novak’s column outed Valerie Plame, the wife of Joe Wilson.
And as Fitzgerald’s court papers claim, Wilson’s article was viewed:
“as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president (and the president) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq,”
So, this was all about maintaining the appearance that they actually had a rationale for the war (which was much different than what they had been telling America), and it was about their egos and wanting to get revenge, so they began calling on their faithful GOP press stooges for secret meetings to begin attacking Wilson and his wife.
Because you see, while Libby testified that at his meeting with Judy Miller he never discussed Valerie Plame’s CIA status, due to the fact that:
“he had forgotten by that time that he learned about Ms. Wilson’s C.I.A. employment a month earlier from the vice president.
In actuality, he hadn’t forgotten at all, because in Miller’s account of her meeting with Libby (which she later published in the NYT), she said her notes showed that they HAD discussed Plame and the fact that she was working in a unit of the C.I.A. engaged in assessing unconventional weapons.

It’s as clear as the nose on your faces, but you can’t or won’t see it, because you prefer hiding your heads in the sand rather than look at the sad and disturbing truth.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #139565

Well, I’m not Jack but I think you were referring to me…

1. What I don’t understand is how did the ‘Uranium situation’ that Wilson spoke about end up costing Plame her job, and potentially put others’ lifes in jeopardy.What is the connection between the two?

Well, the way that Wilson attacked the administration (without having all of the data before doing so) in op-ed pieces caused the administration to fell as if it had to react. So Bush authorized the release of some information that was previously classified.

However, Libby felt that the CIA was trying to push the blame of the intelligence failure onto the administration and away from itself. One of the things mentioned by Wilson was that he was there in Niger gathering information FOR the vice president, which he was not there to do. So Cheney and Libby in determining who DID send him discovered that it was Wilson’s wife who arranged for him to go. Libby, in trying to defend the administration decided to leak that information to the news media as well. He was not authorized to do so and may have put some people, no the least of which Plame herself, into harms way. That is what the investigation was for and what we discovered from it.

2. According to Libby, the information he recieved came from the WH, which to me indicates that it must have come from Cheney, Kove, or Bush since he’s the one who declassified it. Where am I wrong here?

Libby is now stating that the original information he passed to the media, regarding the NIH report about the state of Niger’s uranium, was authorized to be released by Bush. No one, not even Libby, is saying that Bush authorized him to release the identity of Wilson’s wife to the media. These are two seperate issues, though tied together by this investigation because they occured during the same conversations with the press.

3. Why would Bush declassify this type of information, if not to hurt someone?

He wouldn’t, and he didn’t.

4. Why act as if you don’t know anything about the leak, cost the taxpayers a fortunate over a 2 1/2 year investigation, if there was no real reason to declassify it?

I think you are still combining the two seperate issues into one. Bush had no knowledge and gave no authorization to release Plame’s identity to the media. This issue is a side issue that has NOTHING to do with Valerie Plame’s identity.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #139568

Adrienne,

It’s as clear as the nose on your faces, but you can’t or won’t see it, because you prefer hiding your heads in the sand rather than look at the sad and disturbing truth.

I’m not sure where you think we are that far apart…

I think it’s more related to you taking some quotes and information to fit your opinion but ignoring the others (the two seperate investigations that later determined there was something to it the Niger approach and the use of the 16 words was legitimate).

You’re not seeing the whole picture and are trying to suggest that the CIA, FBI and the State Department, along with the British Intelligence community, are all knowing and the president just rewrote the intelligence to fit what he wanted. We know from the later investigations that this wasn’t the case. While Bush did believe the reports and sections of the report that he felt fit in with what his other adivsors and person feelings were telling him, he was not getting completely opposing information either. There was a lot of confusion in what was actually going on in the intelligence community at the time.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #139569

Well put Rhinehold,

but do you really believe in all honesty that these are two distinct and seperate issues? I mean totally and completely? I don’t either love or hate Bush but I’m having a hard time buying it.

I’m not condemning anyone, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there are some more facts yet to be outed here. I wish we could be privy to the whole truth.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 10, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #139573

This is like telling my kids 3, 4, or 5 times to do something and it still is not done. Valerie Plame was not outed. It was common knowledge that she worked for the CIA. Furthermore her husband confirmed this, and the rolling stone gathered no moss. As far as a leakage is concerned, there was nothing to leak. There may have been a confirmation from the WH, but it was not a leak. Of course if one believes that Valerie Plame was covert (which she was not) then the charge that lives were in danger would fit. Again the person who was responsible for that claim was Joe Wilson. Mr. Wilson, in his reports and testimony before congress, changed throughout the time lapse. The question of uranium purchase by Iraq from Niger is what else does Niger have for sell that Iraq would be interested in? Nothing!! So the commerce that Iraq was trying to set up was for yellow cake, which most agree that Iraq failed to purchase at that time.

Posted by: tomh at April 10, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #139574

Rhinehold
“(the two seperate investigations that later determined there was something to it the Niger approach and the use of the 16 words was legitimate).”

We’re not discussing later investigations. We’re talking about what was going on leading up to these leaks that the president authorized.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #139576
overzealous Democratic party who are trying to confuse you into thinking that Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Plames name to the media (which he did NOT do) and attempting to convince you that something happened which is not factually true.
Bush had no knowledge and gave no authorization to release Plames identity to the media.


Rhinehold,

You keep saying that Bush didn’t authorize the Plame leak. How the heck do YOU know?! Are you Scooter Libby? George Bush? A close friend?

Are you trying to “confuse us” into thinking you actually know what you are talking about?

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 10, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #139580

Sorry, I got it from Fitzgerald…

You know, the one doing the investigation?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #139581

Woody, I think both Rhinehold and Jack are forever attempting to “confuse us” into thinking they know what they’re talking about.

Unlike Arlen Spector, these folks seem to think that what the president did is all very clear, justified and above board — and that “Bush Haters” should just shut up because they’re making the president look bad.
LOL!

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #139583

Mmm, I don’t think anyone should shut up, that would be silly. Everyone’s unique view on a subject helps shape everyone else’s opinion of that subject. That’s why I love writing here, all kinds of viewpoints are expressed and debated and everyone should routinely question their views. How could we do that if anyone who disagreed with us weren’t around?

As for ‘trying to confuse’ I’ll use Fitzgerald’s words:

In the new filing, he [Fitzgerald] did not allege that Bush authorized that disclosure [of Plame’s role at the CIA], and he said Bush was “unaware of the role” that Libby, then Cheney’s chief of staff, played in discussing her name with a number of reporters.

*shrug* I guess you can say that it was opposite day when he said that, that might work…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #139587

Jack M

I have been trying to grow my hair back since it started to forsake me when I was in my 20s. If you know a sure fire way, please let me know.

Lynne

It doesn’t border on yellow journalism; it is yellow journalism. I write this for fun. If you doubled or tripled the salary I get for doing it, you would still have nothing. It is fun to provoke people. As you must admit, I can take it as well as give it. And if the provocative title entices people to write back, that is good. I don’t write things that I believe to be untrue, but I am not fair and balanced. If you want fair and balanced, tune into Fox News.

Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #139590

Rhinehold:

In the new filing, he [Fitzgerald] did not allege that Bush authorized that disclosure [of Plame’s role at the CIA],

That means nothing more than that Fitzgerald doesn’t know.


and he said Bush was “unaware of the role” that Libby, then Cheney’s chief of staff, played in discussing her name with a number of reporters.

Which doesn’t mean he DIDN”T authorize somebody to do so, only that he wasn’t aware that it was Libby.
And this is assuming we should trust a word that the man says about anything.
IMO, the only way we’d ever stand a chance of getting the actual truth out of Bush/Cheney is by a judicious application of sodium pentothol.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #139592
That means nothing more than that Fitzgerald doesn’t know.

*sigh*

When a federal prosecutor says ‘Bush was not aware of the role that Libby played’ I’m pretty sure that’s something he’s pretty sure about.

If he was unsure he would have either said nothing or used very qualifying terms that are not used here. He’s a LAWYER, he wouldn’t make that simple mistake.

You can keep stretching and reaching to keep the hope alive that Bush ordered the release of Plame’s name to the press, but until I see the press or a federal prosecutor even suggests that it’s a possibility before I waste any more time on the subject.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #139595

tomh,

Plame was outed…

You don’t have to believe it….just keep drinking the Limbaugh KoolAid.

Posted by: Tom L at April 10, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #139596

Rhinehold:
“When a federal prosecutor says ‘Bush was not aware of the role that Libby played’ I’m pretty sure that’s something he’s pretty sure about.”

I think Fitzgerald realizes quite well that all these men have not been exactly forthcoming or necessarily honest — hence the perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

By the way, I noticed you’ve avoided addressing most of the things I brought out in my first post.
Refuting Wilson’s claims cannot have been the reason for the leaks, since what Wilson wrote about was nothing new to the Whitehouse spokesman, and because the WH Security Council, and the CIA had already determined that the infamous sixteen words should never have been in Bush’s SOTU speech. So, what other reason could there be to suddenly declassify and leak info to select members of the press, if not to get at Wilson?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #139600
I think Fitzgerald realizes quite well that all these men have not been exactly forthcoming or necessarily honest — hence the perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

He has had no problem stating such when he believed it to be the case, he’s being very specific in his statement. You can read what you like into that, I’ll take what he states as his beliefs as being what he believes.

I can’t go down the ‘we can’t find any evidence, no one is suggesting it and the person investigating it has no reason to believe it, but I think there’s somethere anyway’ path. Sorry, you’ll have to walk that one without me.

By the way, I noticed you’ve avoided addressing most of the things I brought out in my first post.

No, not really, I just don’t see the point anymore. The administration felt it should be in there at the time, when questions about it were brought up to them they backed off and said that it shouldn’t have been in the SOTU speech until it had been vetted more (that doesn’t mean that they didn’t think it was true, btw) and then 2 later investigations backed up that it was an accurate assessment and they were justified in having it in the speech. You read that as being that they admitted that it wasn’t true and I take it to mean exactly what I have posted here. You see the sinister and ignore the later investigations, that’s your right to do and you can have that opinion all you want, but it doesn’t prove your point. As I said before, we’ll have to just disagree on that one as neither of us know what was in the minds of the administration at the time (as you pointed out earlier, no?) and make up our minds based on how we viewed events at the time. I supported the actions taken, you didn’t, which probably explains how we read the same things and come up with different explanations.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #139601

Jack,
If you’re interested, three good rebutals to that Fred Hiatt editorial you loved so much:

A Washington Post Editor Caught Brazenly Lying: When is this going to stop?
The Latest Plame Smear: Does Fred Hiatt Even Read The Washington Post?
Anatomy of a Shill: Fred Hiatt, WaPo and Bushco.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #139602

And yes, saying it probably shouldn’t have been in the SOTU address != they didn’t believe it to be true and had the evidence to back up their beliefs, there were just valid questions at the time about the intelligence. But when they were attacked by the CIA/Wilson they released the documents in their possession that backed up their claims (the NIH report was not unclassified at the time of the SOTU address, though if it had been it probably would have avoided the whole mess, the administration does have the penchant for being too secretive for it’s own good…)

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #139605

Rhinehold, could you give me some links (independent sources if possible) to these later investigations which proved that Saddam bought yellowcake uranium from Africa and that those sixteen words belonged in the SOTU speech?
Thanks.

PS. I still think they outted Plame for revenge on Wilson and that they did so because they knew their intelligence was flimsy, shoddy, and cherry-picked — and that if this was fully uncovered, the American people would be outraged.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #139609

Adrienne,

The 16 words did not say that Saddam bought yellowcake from Niger. The 16 words were:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

I would suggest reading this Factcheck.Org Report which highlights both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Comittee investigation that state that the 16 words were well founded.

There is still much we don’t know. The intelligence acency is now saying that it may not have been true, but at the time they believed it to be true, however Britian still asserts that the intelligence was valid. Wilson’s report actually gives the best bolster to the veracity of it, ironically.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #139611

To all of you who use the word “outed” in reference to the Plame affair, which, of the many definitions of out, are you using to explain the situation. Plame was publicized but not outed. It would be interesting to know the use of the word out in this case.

Posted by: tomh at April 10, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #139613

Tomh, I’m not sure that any definative answer to that is available atm, I’ve heard arguments on both sides and am still investigating for myself. Personally, I think right now that her position was still classified and she was in covert but inactive status, I was hoping that Fitzgerald would have answered that question but we still don’t have it. :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #139616

Is de-classifying the same as leaking? I think not. Why is everyone speaking as though they were exactly the same thing? Deciding which information should be kept secret and which information shouldn’t is completely different than releasing, disclosing or leaking information which is for sure a secret. This is not hard stuff.

Posted by: Kenny Winsman at April 10, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #139624

Jack,

I was not being sarcastic about unemployment — you’re absolutely right that it’s low. I was telling you to stick to that rather than defending a laughably inaccurate editorial as if it were gospel.

Re: Rhinehold’s Fitzgerald quotation

The idea that Libby or Cheney were on some kind of personal frolic of their own with regard to the leaking of this information, that Bush had no idea what was going on in an administration as monolithic as this one, is pretty difficult to believe.

There are many ways to explain this quotation that don’t amount to exoneration of Bush, as Adrienne pointed out.

Fitzgerald is notoriously tight-lipped about the evidence he has and the legal conclusions he is drawing based on that evidence. I know that some look back longingly to the days of Kenneth Starr’s regurgitation of every bit of info publicly in order to enhance his own celebrity, but Fitzgerald is cut from different cloth.

Moreover, Fitzgerald did specifically say that he doesn’t believe there could be any evidence that there WASN’T an attempt by the “White House” (last time I checked, Bush lived there) to punish Joe Wilson. Seems he clearly believes the White House was out to get Wilson. So, while he may be saying that Bush knew nothing of Libby’s particular conduct in this narrow matter, it seems he does believe that the Joe Wilson/leaky-administration affair is a team effort.

Re: The leak was an attempt to refute Wilson’s claims

OK, you’re making the same mistake that the editorial and Jack made earlier, which is to say that you’re portraying a patently underhanded and punitive measure as if it were some kind of legitimate debating tactic taking place in a public and open discourse.

This was a LEAK, not a press release or a speech.

Re: Rhinehold’s subsequent reports that corroborate the administration’s position

The Butler Report has been widely criticized for lacking evidentiary substantiation. As for Wilson’s own report corroborating the 16 words, that’s YOUR position. The only facts from the report were that years before, Iraq had talked to Niger about increasing trade. The Prime Minister thought that maybe that might mean selling them uranium. Most people haven’t found that to be terribly compelling evidence.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 10, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #139629

Rhinehold,

I just read the Factcheck article link you gave and I feel it bolsters Wilson’s and subsequently, my, argument. Because for these words not to have been a lie:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

We would have to believe that Saddam seeking uranium back in 1999 was “recent” and that after this, two other documents which were immediately recognizable as forgeries were what Bushco was trying to use to bolster that claim.
I don’t buy it.
I’m now going to give you some quotes from that Jane Hamsher link I gave to Jack earlier. (You should read it. It’s the center link entitled: The Latest Plame Smear)

From a WaPo article:

One striking feature of that decision — unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it — is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.

United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003, but the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair’s role in promoting the story. With no ally left, the White House debated whether to abandon the uranium claim and became embroiled in bitter finger-pointing about whom to fault for the error. A legal brief filed for Libby last month said that “certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”

It was at that moment that Libby, allegedly at Cheney’s direction, sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation. Libby made careful selections of language from the 2002 estimate, quoting a passage that said Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure uranium” in Africa.

From a NYT article from this past Saturday:

Mr. Fitzgerald, in his filing, said that Mr. Libby had been authorized to tell Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times, on July 8, 2003, that a key finding of the 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq was that Baghdad had been vigorously seeking to acquire uranium from Africa.

But a week earlier, in an interview in his State Department office, Mr. Powell told three other reporters for The Times that intelligence agencies had essentially rejected that contention, and were “no longer carrying it as a credible item” by early 2003, when he was preparing to make the case against Iraq at the United Nations.

Mr. Powell’s queasiness with some of the intelligence has been well known, but the new revelations suggest that long after he had concluded the intelligence was faulty, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were still promoting it.

Don’t you see? This was all about covering up their lies, Rhinehold. And, it was about getting at Joe Wilson. Look at what Fitzgerald said:

Indeed, there exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant, and there were conversations in which defendant participated,that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003.
Defendant also asserts without elaboration that “documents that help establish that no White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson caused the disclosure of Mr. Wilson’s identity also constitute Brady material.” Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a “White House-drive plot to punish Mr. Wilson.” Thus, putative evidence that such a conspiracy did not exist is not Brady material. Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to June 14, 2003 discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 — which evidence has been shared with defendant — it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson.

Those are direct quotes from Fitzgerald — do you think you know more than he does about what took place?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #139633

Whether one remains a staunch defender of Bush or harbors a deep dislike for him, there can only be one summary of this situation that makes any sense, and is undeniable regardless of your personal opinion of the man and his administration.

Whether he had authority to declassify information or not, he chose to declassify this in such a way as to smell like politicial payback from all directions. Historically, and no example of detouring from this can be found, any data the president considers declassifying is first forwarded to the classifying agency, which reviews it to determine if any of the info should remain classified. Even though he could veto any recommendation made by the agency, Bush did not go the historically-accepted route. The CIA appeared as caught off guard when the information surfaced in the news media as was everyone else (except for the Bush White House, apparently)

Never in history has a president declassified information and given the info to one (1) reporter in the cover of night through the vice-president’s assistant. Never has been done. It has always been either released through the White House press route or published in a recognized federal media publication.

Third. Were I Judith Miller, I would be extremely upset that Bush left me sitting in jail while he, Cheney, Rove, and Libby all knew very well he was lying about knowing who leaked the information and why. This points conclusively to the fact that Bush does not care who suffers from his careless disregard for protocol, if not for the law itself.

Lastly, Bush has cost the American taxpayer a tremendous amount of money by having Fitzgerald going forward with an investigation, which Bush and all his staff knew the answers to, but refused to acknowledge the facts. How much has that investigation cost so far?

Perhaps Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove should reimburse the federal treasury for their duplicity.

Posted by: KDTEXAS at April 10, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #139637

Jack,

No radicals, fundamentalists, or hate speeches. How did you get to be a blogger?

Perhaps because you mimic the tactics so well of this administration. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle with inane name-calling and hyperbole.

You are childish and boring. Grow up.

Posted by: KDTEXAS at April 10, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #139638

What I can’t wait to watch: “Mr. Wilson raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth…”

Hope Ol’ Joe brings an extra pair of underwear to court. He’s been caught in some real humdingers…

Posted by: nikkolai at April 10, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #139639

Hey lefties: Is it true that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are badder than Shaft, James Bond, Superfly and Kung Fu all put together?

Posted by: nikkolai at April 10, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #139641

Adrienne

Remember the time line. The 16 words were uttered in January. By summer (technically I guess in March) we concluded they were inaccurate. Wilson is writing in summer, but implying that he knew and told others back in January. That is the part that needed rebutting. It is like the guy who says he knew all along AFTER the mystery is revealed. His own report negates this.

And it is not Hiatt’s editorial; it is the Washington Post editorial. That is why you and the others on this blog care enough to write about it and why I can taunt you with it.

Yossarian

Thanks. You are one of the few who seem to believe that. Whenever I write, I get dozens of people telling me that 4.7% is unacceptably high.

KDTexas

As far as growing up, I am over the hill, clean through the hollow and back up the other side. I won’t be changing any time soon, so if you don’t like what I write, don’t read it. As far as I know, I have no power to compell anything.

Did I call anybody an inane name? I think Bush hater is an operative term and not inane. Some people sure seem to hate the man. You see what they call him? Seems like hate to me. Maybe you have a different concept of it.

Most of the words in my entry were directly from the Washington Post. Other people are arguing with me about them, but their problem is with the Post.

As I said, I am not fair and balanced like Fox News. But re the Post, I will fall back on the other slogan, I report; you decide.

Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #139643

Jack: Forget KDTexas. He/she/it knows not what she speaks of. Some of us traditional, patriotic Americans really appreciate what you do. Thanks!

Posted by: nikkolai at April 10, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #139649

Jack:
“Remember the time line. The 16 words were uttered in January. By summer (technically I guess in March) we concluded they were inaccurate.”

Yet Bush and Cheney and Libby still wanted to defend them. So much so, that they decided to leak false information to reporters to discredit what Wilson was saying. Then, they lied about it and denied they had anything to do with the leaks, claiming they wanted to get to the bottom of them, and would fire anyone who had anything to do with them. So, they let an expensive special investigation go forward at the taxpayers expense rather than admit what they had done. And the only way we were destined to find out was through the one who has been charged with false statements, and perjury and obstruction of justice to save himself from jail. So, now we know that it was the vice president and the president who wanted that already discredited and dismissed intelligence defended in the newspapers by select reporters who they felt would print whatever they wanted them to. And all we need to know now is whether they were also the ones who told Libby to disclose the name of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame a NOC who worked for the CIA to get back at a man who decided to tell the truth about what he “Didn’t Find In Africa”, thus, blowing the cover off their lie in the lead-up to their illegal-pre-emptive-war-turned-quagmire that is bankrupting America.

Oh, it’s all very clear to everyone — save for a few who are still trying to defend this indefensible administration, like you have so very many times before…

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #139652

Rhinehold,

Ok, new rule: Whenever the media says that Fitzgerald said X, X must be true.

I like this rule because most of the stuff coming out of Fitzgerald’s office has been embarrassing for the White House, and it’s right-wing apologists. This “Fitzgerald is always right” rule also settles some longstanding arguments. For example, Fitzgerald said that Plame was a CIA officer whose status was classified. Fitz knows best…

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 10, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #139675

Adrienne,

We would have to believe that Saddam seeking uranium back in 1999 was “recent” and that after this, two other documents which were immediately recognizable as forgeries were what Bushco was trying to use to bolster that claim. I don’t buy it.

Well, you have to realize that your assertion that ‘two other documents were forgeries’ and that invalidates the argument isn’t correct. You didn’t read the article very well, I suggest another try.

Some of the reason that the attempt was believed was from other sources than the forged documents, including British Intelligence who had not seen that document. The document also stated that the deal had been struck, however that is not the same thing as there being an attempt, one which several sources have not been refuted on yet.

Woody,

For example, Fitzgerald said that Plame was a CIA officer whose status was classified. Fitz knows best…

I never said that she wasn’t… In fact, if you read up a few comments you’ll see that I said pretty much the same thing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #139676

Wow, Adrienne, I love the self-rightousness you’re expousing… Don’t you normally rail against people like that? Or, is it ok when YOU do it but not when the administration does it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #139678
And it is not Hiatt’s editorial; it is the Washington Post editorial. That is why you and the others on this blog care enough to write about it and why I can taunt you with it.
You remember that kid in school that was always so sure of his cleverness, and poked fun of everyone around him? The one that everyone else made fun of sarcastically when he was around, and openly when he left, yet he was perpetually clueless that he was the butt of the jokes? The one that always thought that everyone was laughing with him—but they were actually laughing at him?

Perhaps you should reconsider why so many people respond to your posts…

Posted by: Introspective at April 10, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #139683

Jack,

1) Economy:

I’ll give you that the economy isn’t bad. I still don’t think that’ necessarily means we’re in good shape economically. But I don’t think we should get into this. And, as a show of good faith, I won’t attempt to get the last word.

Knowing you, you’ll write about it a few times before the week is out.

2) You said:

“Wilson is writing in summer, but implying that he knew and told others back in January. That is the part that needed rebutting.”

OK, do you know how weak that is? The object of this whole leak morass was solely to show that Wilson didn’t have his dates right as to when he KNEW something? That’s ridiculous.

Rhinehold,

I say again, the British intelligence that your claims rely on, if we’re talking about the same thing, has been criticized many times for having no evidentiary basis. Which, I admit, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is wrong, but simply means that the report didn’t give any evidence for its bare assertions. Which makes it weak corroboration for a story that had been pretty soundly debunked.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 10, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #139701

Yossarian

The dates are important because he implies that Bush lied when he talked about the yellow cake because he (Wilson) told him. If Wilson didn’t know until after the SOTU, then he has no basis to make the claim.

I think it is a syndrome among some Bush opponents to claim they knew (and the Bush knew) things that only became clear subsequently.

Introspective

I don’t mind. That is the nature of blogging. Make fun of me all you want. You can do that. You can also ignore me if you want. If you are here, it is because you choose to be here. Don’t give me a hard time about your choices.

Adrienne

The time line is important, see above. We can all claim to have known things ex-post-facto. It is harder to predict the future than predict the past. As the Washington Post and I say, “The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.”

Nikkolai

Thanks. No worries. I can take care of myself. Whenever someone gets personal, I know I have boxed them in and in the battle of wits they are unarmed. They are more to be pitied than censured. I suppose there are those who don’t like my humor and many of my jokes fall flat. I have noticed some people don’t have much of a sense of humor.


Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #139718

There’s a wide divide between what the WP reported about this subject (ie, the truth) and what its editorial page printed on the very same day:

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2561072

“Compare the WP’s lead article, ‘A ‘Concerted Effort’ to Discredit Bush Critic” with its editorial, “A Good Leak,” both from today.

From the editorial:
In fact, (Wilson’s) report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

From the article:
Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson’s CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year — in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there — as “a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife,” CIA case officer Valerie Plame.

From the editorial:
Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge.

From the article:
Fitzgerald said the grand jury has collected so much testimony and so many documents that “it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to ‘punish’ Wilson.”

The WP editorial perversely ignores the facts its own reporter lays out on the same day. Go to the site named above to see more comparisons between the article and the editorial.

Posted by: pianofan at April 10, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #139728

Let’s get a few things straight here since everybody seems so confused about the timeline:

Wilson had been sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA in February of 2002 to investigate whether Saddam had attempted to buy yellowcake uranium, and his conclusion was that there “was nothing to the story”. Now, although former Nigerien prime minister Mayaki claimed there was no pending sales contract with Iraq, he did mention that an Iraqi delegation had approached them in June of 1999, with an interest in “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki thought this MAY have meant that they wanted to purchase yellowcake uranium, but that he refused to discuss any trade issues at all due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.
It is these vague statements by Mayaki that have made some people claim that it is evidence that Iraq MAY have been trying to purchase uranium in Africa — they’ve also made a big deal about the fact that Wilson didn’t consider that good enough evidence or information to include in his NYT op-ed, even though he made mention of what Mayaki had said in his official report for the CIA.
But what Wilson believed and wrote about in his op-ed has been proven to be correct, and all of his detractors have been proven wrong.

As for the fraudulent Niger documents — these were documents that contained misspelled words and contained signatures from Nigerien officials who hadn’t even been in office at the time they were signed! This is the obvious bogus crap that Bush tried to use to claim that Saddam was trying to get yellowcake uranium. The thing is, the CIA didn’t believe these documents were real from the first moment they saw them. The National Intelligence Estimate of Oct. 2002 had said, “the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious”.
But even still, Bush gave a speech in Oct. of 2002 where he said that The Iraqi regime:
“possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.” He wanted to include the Niger claim at that time, but the CIA had actually made him remove it from his speech.
Then, even knowing that the CIA didn’t give these documents any weight at all and had altered his earlier speech, Bush still decided to include the infamous 16 words in his January 2003 SOTU speech by claiming that uranium had been sought from Africa by Saddam. When he said that, he KNEW it was a lie. So did Powell, and the National Security Agency, and everybody at the CIA.

PS. to Yossarian — You are 100% correct — the Butler Report has been (and still is) completely discredited by the British.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #139730

Jack,

What? Hold on a sec here. Wilson DID tell the CIA the results of his trip as soon as he returned (March, 2002), well before the SOTU (January, 2003). He wrote the NYT article that next summer, in 2003.

So… I don’t see what your point could possibly be. He DID know that Iraq wasn’t seeking uranium before the SOTU, and he DID communicate that to the CIA long before the SOTU. While it has been said that Cheney wasn’t directly briefed about the results of Wilson’s trip, it’s fairly implausible to think that the intelligence just vanished and nobody ever saw it. Is THAT what you’re alleging?

Posted by: Yossarian at April 10, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #139741

Wilson claims he knew it back then, but his own report contradicted him. That is why the report was disclosed, to debunk Wilson’s claim.

The information in SOTU, anyway, was based on British intelligence. A parliamentary commission (Butler Report) studied the facts. Their report of July, 2004 said this:

We conclude that…the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded. (Page 123, Paragraph 499)

The certainty that Wilson and others now claim just wasn’t there at the time of the statement. It is unfortunate that the President included it in SOFU. He believed it to be true. If he thought otherwise, it would have been very foolish to include it IF his plan was to go to war.

This, among other reasons is why the Washington Post and I believe “Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.”

Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #139751

please tell us your not trying to quote Monty Python.Monty’s all about Labour and occasionally the Silly Party,but never Conservative.

Posted by: geoff at April 10, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #139754

Jack,
The WaPo (Hiatt’s) editorial is Pure Bullsh*t.
Pianofan is right you need to read this WaPo article instead:
A Concerted Effort to Discredit Bush Critic
Then, you might choose to read those links I put up for you earlier — they debunk the editorial completely.
You see, I’m just not going to continue to try to argue if the whole basis of what you’re claiming is going to be based on that BS editorial, and your own desire to defend Bush.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #139763

Jack and Rhinehold,
While I truly appreciate your help in trying to help un-muddle this entire situation, I’m afraid my understanding about what is going on is about as clear as mud.

I’ve been reading all the posted links on this and other blogs, and I still don’t under the connection between Libby and Plame.

However,it still appears to me that someone in the WH authorized something and that was “leaked” to Libby who in turn “leaked” it to the reporters.

Anyone else got a better explaination?

Posted by: Linda H. at April 11, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #139767

FA Stephens:

As you can see, you’d do better to hire Adrienne as your attorney.

(But at least you realise that you should hire a good Liberal attorney - i.e.: one who believes in Due Process Of Law.)

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 11, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #139774
Anyone else got a better explaination?

I do, Linda. But you have to know some History…

Are you familiar with the phrase, “Who will rid me of this turbulent Priest!?”

It was uttered by King Henry II of England, about his (former) close friend, Thomas à Becket, who had ascended to become Archbishop of Canterbury.

Overhearing Henry railing against his onetime friend, four Knights of the court rode with all swiftness to the cathedral where they brutally murdered him, fulfilling Henry’s - not Command - but desire.

Now, fast forward 833 Years: Bush is King Henry, Wilson is Becket, and the Four Knights are Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Novak.

But you also have to know something else about History, and that is the story of Rasputin.

Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin was a monk in the court of Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra. He was credited with being a mystic and a seer, and he exercised a Svengali-like control over the Royal Family and many in the court. Several highly questionable decrees issued “in the name of the Tsar” were actually believed to have issued from Rasputin.

Now, fast forward 91 Years: Rasputin is Cheney (which is remarkable, since Cheney is also the AntiChrist!); Bush is actually only a hand-puppet who is worn alternatively by Cheney and Rove (although not so much by Rove anymore). Once in a great while, he used to be worn by Colin Powell (indeed, by Whoever It Was That Spoke With Him Last). But that has changed: Powell didn’t like the fact that whenever he put Bush on his hand, he always got a bit of Cheney’s or Rove’s Sin on him. And since Powell retired, Bush has been carefully locked up to make certain no Unauthorised Person might put him On and make him say whatever they wanted him to.

`Hope this clears things up for you!

:o)

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 11, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #139796

Jack,

Are you even listening? You’re not even adhering to the more cogent points your side has to offer.

“Wilson claims he knew it back then, but his own report contradicted him. That is why the report was disclosed, to debunk Wilson’s claim.”

What? This rejoinder is positively mytifying in terms of both its vagueness (“back then”? back when? huh?) and its factual inaccuracy (the disclosure, i.e. the leak, other than being a personal attack, was clearly intended to debunk the substantive content of his report, not the chronology).

As for the British intelligence and the Butler report, I’m quite familiar with both. Adrienne and I have mentioned both multiple times in our past few comments. Have you even been reading them?

On that topic, the Butler report has been widely criticized for failing to back up its claims with evidence, and we’re not speaking of a failure to supply GOOD evidence, mind you; we’re talking about a failure to offer ANY evidence in support of its claims.

If the White House didn’t selectively choose corroborative evidence while ignoring mountains of contrary fact, why did the administration base its case on evidence from a foreign government, while ignoring the advice from its OWN government, its OWN investigative organs, which were telling the president not to rely on that evidence?

The record is exceedingly clear that U.S. intelligence officials were practically inundating the the president with contrary evidence and pleas to ignore unreliable foreign intelligence regarding Iraq’s alleged attempts to buy uranium from Niger, and in particular intelligence officials were saying that the Brits has completely blown the issue way out of proportion. And yet the administration refused to listen, and went with nebulous info from a foreign government.

Odd, to say the least. But not cherry-picking, no.

You’re clearly going to keep believing what you believe. Hell, your last comment wasn’t even a response, so much as it was a largely unsupported reiteration of what you were saying at the beginning of this discussion. I give up.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 11, 2006 4:18 AM
Comment #139803

Jack,
Perhaps I was wrong, I was thinking it was the Moonies that shaved their heads, I think now it was the Hare Krishnas.

My cure for Moonie/Bush fever involves reducing the Oxycontin dosage, turning off Fox News, and weekends with a psycologist.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 11, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #139827

Yossarian

I believe there is plenty of evidence on both sides to believe what you want. Which is the important point. The intelligence was confused and confusing. The President had to make a choice based on incomplete information. The intelligence is never complete. It is not complete now, even years after we invaded Iraq. We still don’t know what happened to the WMD Saddam had in 1998, for example. In the course of normal decision-making, we all make errors. I believe that the errors were within acceptable parameters. The fact that some of the information turned out to be incorrect does not change this.

If you say that you will flip ten heads in a row with an honest quarter, I will disagree. If you then manage to do just that, I will still believe I made the right choice.

Betty

I agree with the general Henry II analogy, although not with the details. (Wilson certainly does not rise to a level of Thomas Becket) This happens with everyone in power. Their subordinates try to anticipate their needs. But if you know the story, you know that Henry probably did not want Becket killed and certainly did not intend for it to happen as a result of his orders. It was not a conspiracy on Henry’s part. This analogy, in other words, serves to exonerate the President of the mens rea, the guilty mind we require to accuse someone of a crime.

You must also recall that as Kings of England go, Henry was a great king.

Posted by: Jack at April 11, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #139832
The President had to make a choice based on incomplete information.

Jack, I don’t know where you got this misleading piece of information. As we all know, the President had “no doubt” that Saddam had WMD in 2003. In fact, he said he knew exactly where it was.

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”

That doesn’t sound like “incomplete information”, Jack.

“The Iraqi regime … possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

No ifs ands or butts there, Jack.

“Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

No sign of the qualifiers and dissenting opinions he was seeing in his intelligence reports.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

“No doubt,” the President insisted, Jack. But there was doubt, wasn’t there. Your little “intelligence is never certain” defense of the President is completely at odds with what he actually said. Bush knew what he was doing when he presented the intelligence as fact. He wanted his war and he got it, consequences be damned.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 11, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #139833

Anyone who has been paying attention to this since the beginning realizes that Joe Wilson is LEAST LIKELY to enjoy the cross examination. He has told so many (self-admitted) lies that one needs a scorecard to keep up.

Posted by: nikkolai at April 11, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #139840

Wow, nikkolai. Did I miss something? Did Iraq really try to purchase yellowcake from Nigeria? If you have proof of that, you should contact the White House immediately. They’d love to prove Wilson wrong.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 11, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #139848

AP

You make decisions based on incomplete information. You ask questions and you have doubts. But when you implement you don’t share those doubts. You are certain and strong. Nobody likes Hamlet. If I am sure I am going to hell, I will tell you that I intend to enjoy the journey.

Imagine the famous Americans speaking to their constituents with this perfidious attitude.

Washington crossing the Delaware: “It is pretty cold and there is lots of ice on the river. If the Hessians are not drunk or hung over they may cut us to pieces. After all, they are professional soldiers and most of you are just part time farmers. I hope we can make it, but maybe not.”

Lincoln at Gettysburg: “There is a real chance we will lose this war and my chances of reelection are pretty bad. Maybe President McClellan can solve this hopeless problem that cost so many lives. Reacting to the attack on Fort Sumter was a big mistake. If we had done nothing, the South would have given up slavery and reentered the Union.”

Roosevelt on December 8: “Well, we may have provoked the Japanese by cutting off their oil supplies, so in a real way it was our fault, not theirs, and now that they have destroyed much of our fleet at Pearl Harbor, I don’t believe they will carry on any more aggression against us. Let’s wait until we are sure they are dangerous.”

Eisenhower at D-Day: “We didn’t expect those hedge rows and the Germans are fighting pretty hard. Their tanks are better than ours. Maybe we ought to go home and avoid further bloodshed. After all, the Germans are no longer attempting to invade England. We have got Hitler in a box.”

Kennedy on the space program: “We will try hard to send a man to the moon, but face it. We really don’t have any idea about how this will work. The Russians have a head start and if they get there first maybe it will make them friendlier to us, since we will not humiliate them.”

Reagan at the Berlin Wall: “Mr. Gorbachev please open the gate, unless it is too much trouble. I understand they had to build this wall to keep our insidious influence out. You might consider moderating your position on emigration.”

Posted by: Jack at April 11, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #139869

Jack,

But when you implement you don’t share those doubts.
True, it may be wise not to share your doubts, and to even avoid disclosing certain facts. But what you don’t do is lie and mislead your constituents, playing on their fears and convincing them that something is true when you already know it is false. That is not the sign of a strong leader; it’s the sign of a cowardly miss-Leader.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 11, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #139880

woo hoo! I’ve learned two new words: fungible and perfidious. You guys have such big vocabularies. I wonder if my perfidiousness is fungible?

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 11, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #139894

AP and Charles,
Your points are spot on. Jack’s last post is pointless and bears no relation to what Bush and Cheney and Libby, and Rove have done AT ALL.
Not only did this administration lie and mislead our nation into a war, they leaked more lies to try to cover for those lies and to get revenge on Wilson. Then, they allowed a special investigation go forward, and so, lied again by saying they didn’t know who had leaked and would fire anyone who had.
It’s Lies, upon Lies, upon Lies. And now that they’ve finally been caught out on them, they’re still trying to lie!
“Public interest” and “Truth” MY ASS!

As for folks like Jack and Rhinehold, I honestly believe they understand all this, but it seems they’ve been defending this administration for such a long time, they just can’t bring themselves to stop doing it.

Jack Mohammedoff,
You can’t be perfidious unless you’re treacherously disloyal. Are you? I certainly hope not. Btw, I can’t stand when people use the word “fungible”. I’ve always considered it a rather silly and pretentious word for “interchangable”.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 11, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #139908

Jack:

Your sense of humor is hitting my funny bone. I enjoy seeing the tinyfisted tantrums of those who don’t appreciate your humor. But I….well, I find it incredibly funny.

Part of it is that I generally agree with your viewpoints, and part of it is that I have the ability to understand your points. Its funny to see some who completely miss the points, and others who just simply won’t even consider them. There are those, too, who understand and consider them, but disagree with them—but they are in the vast minority. (Psst..of course, those in the first two groups are all smugly thinking they are in the last group and how sorry they feel for the poor uneducated slobs in the first two groups ;).

I do find it amazing how many of those who disagree with you simply cannot stand by and ignore your posts. Being anal retentive, I averaged the number of responses to your posts and compared it to the average number of responses in the other columns.

Jack: 105
3rd party/Independents 63
Democrats/Liberals 38

I’m sure there will be creative offerings as to why you garner so many more responses, but nonetheless, you ARE noticed. Its kind of like how many liberals claim to hate Rush Limbaugh, yet know the details of every comment he makes. Its a form of flattery—-I’m sure you are touched.
In fact, I bet someone from the left will make that claim…that you are touched, or special, or something of that nature.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 11, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #139910

Adrienne

On several responses you have made recently you refered to “my ass”. Were you talking about your buttocks or the democratic symbol. Just curious.

Posted by: tomh at April 11, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #139915

To All;

What’s scary when I read this exchange is fractious and shrill gulf that exists between us today. Labels, rights, wrongs, good, bad are tossed about based solely on what outcome someone desires. Very few folks entertain that notion that their ‘guy/gal’ could do anything wrong or that the other side could do anything right because to do so may weaken him/her thus weaken the agenda, and afterall that’s the important thing! Newt Gingrich made the following statement yesterday while speaking in S. Dakota “The United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.

“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003,” Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.” Is there a single Democrat, no matter how moderate or conservative, that could have made this statement and not immeditely been branded a turn-and-run liberal? Simple food for thought. As I recall lots of Democrats have supported ‘No Child Left Behind’. Does that make them hard core conservatives? We need to cool off the ‘branding irons’. We will probably need them to identify real mad cows!!

Posted by: george at April 11, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #139934

george:

You’ve hit on something important. Often we draw caricatures of people’s positions, meaning that we simplify the position or even take it to its worst extreme in order to be able to defeat it. Some people call this making a “strawman” argument.

I tend towards the conservative side, but in some areas, I could be mistaken for a liberal. What this means is that I am more than a simple label—so too are most others. Yet both sides of the political spectrum engage in the simplistic idea that someone can be considered “liberal” or “conservative”, and then pigeonholed into the caricature that those terms hold. Truth is that most people don’t fit the terms throughout their thought process. Even the most liberal person often has some level of conservative thought on certain issues, and vice versa.

Good points in your comments.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 11, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #139935

tomh:
“On several responses you have made recently you refered to “my ass”.”
True [ ] False [X]

“Were you talking about your buttocks or the democratic symbol. Just curious.”

I was referring to my firm, shapely and discerning liberal tuchus, rather than the symbol. ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at April 11, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #139956

Adrienne

Fungible is a good word where it is used. It implies more than a single exchange, but rather a more multilateral and complex one. Energy sources are fungible, for example. It does not mean they are It does not mean they are interchangeable per se. It is more that one thing can be repurposed. So I think we should use fungible with energy, taxes, revenue and some sorts of labor.

Perfidious - I just like the sound of the word. It perfectly describes some people. Treacherous doesn’t cut it. Perfidious has the connotation of condescension.

Always use the simplest word that fits, but don’t limit yourself to simple words.

Posted by: Jack at April 11, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #139989

JBOD,

Part of it is that I generally agree with your viewpoints, and part of it is that I have the ability to understand your points.
I can actually see clouds of Smug drifting from your words, in a “perfect storm of self-satisfaction.” Don’t you know that’s bad for the environment! ;-)

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 11, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #139995

Adrienne
Thanks for the explanation. With your delightful description I almost got excited. Then reality set in and you are there and I am here without my viagra.

Posted by: tomh at April 11, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #140070

Damn. Not having much luck finding a liberal honey in St. Louis with a firm, shapely, and discerning tuchus. Keep having to toss away these fungible conservative girls.

It ain’t easy being a lefty in the Bible belt. Or a pimp, I hear.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 11, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #140084

>>Adrienne

The time line is important, see above. We can all claim to have known things ex-post-facto

Adrienne,

As I read these words of Jack, it reminded me of the same rather nefarious modus he used to pound the square CO2 peg into the round air quality hole. Repeat…repeat…repeat…after a while everybody gets tired and goes home.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 11, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #140089

Charles Wager:

I’m glad you picked up on the smugness in my comments. I thought it quite in keeping with the tone of Jack’s comments. It was intended in what I suppose was a bit of irony, or perhaps satire. I don’t quite know which best fits, but with your ability to understand and see things clearly, I’m hoping you might be able to provide the appropriate word or phrase.

Welcome to the club of understanding people. Our home is right next to the ‘island of the misfit toys’ from the Christmas specials. :)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 11, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #140100

Mary

This repeating thing, maybe like you guys do? With CO2 (actually it was the SO2 and NO) I just kept repeating the numbers (that I got from Adrienne’s report at first) because there was no other argument needed. You guys kept on telling me why the commentary was more important.

You guys were using the old Marx brothers routine, “what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes.”

The point of this post is that the Washington Post editorial board believes as I have written above. After considering the facts, that is what they came up with. You disagree with them (and with me). You keep repeating why you think the editorial board (and I) am wrong.

You feel you made your point; I know I have made mine.

Re tauting a SECOND time, the first time was with a factcheck.org article. I posted that, and everybody attacked factcheck, as they attacked the Washington Post editorial board.

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #140122

Adrienne,

I am only perfidious to the likes of Ann Coulter. I always try to be fungible.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 12, 2006 4:20 AM
Comment #140126

Jack:

I notice you didn’t have any quibbles with my comparison of Cheney to Rasputin…

;o)


George:

Oh yeah!? Well, F*#k you, buddy! @#$%^*&! big-time! &*@#^#$@ and $#$&$%+ your #&$%!*&!

[WatchBlog Managers: *SATIRE-ALERT*! *SATIRE-ALERT*! *SATIRE-ALERT*! *SATIRE-ALERT*! *SATIRE-ALERT*!]

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 12, 2006 4:36 AM
Comment #140159

Betty

I don’t think Cheney is evil or insane like Rasputin, and he is cleaner, but he does have a certain elegant detachment. He really does not care what people think about him.

I admire Cheney and have since he was Sec of Defense. Back then I told my wife that I wished he could be president, but that a man like him could never win in electoral poltics. I was half right.

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #140162

the story and the scandal is about leaking the identity of a covert agent. Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove destroyed 20 years worth of networks in Iran and Iraq, just when we needed them the most. How many Iranians were killed or put in prison for espionage because of the leak? How many Iranians are going to spy for us now because of the leak? These are the real questions we should be asking.

Posted by: sarah brown at April 12, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #140165

Sarah Brown
Since it was common knowledge that Valarie Plame worked at the CIA and whe was not a covert employee there was no leak. There was no destruction of networks in Iran and Iraq because of somebody confirming that she worked for the CIA. The chronology shows tht Joe Wilson publicized his wife’s employment status more openly and as I said above the rolling stone gathered no moss.

Posted by: tomh at April 12, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #140196

Jack:
“Fungible is a good word where it is used.”

Well, you may think it good, but I’ve never liked the sound of it. To my ear it has always sounded squishy and mushroom-like.

“Perfidious - I just like the sound of the word. It perfectly describes some people.”

Yeah, like Bush and Cheney and the whole ‘New American Century’ gang.

“Treacherous doesn�t cut it.”

I agree.

“Perfidious has the connotation of condescension.”

Yes, I’ve long known that condescension is very important to you, Jack.

Charles,
I happened to catch that South Park episode, and it was hilarious!

tomh:

“Thanks for the explanation.”

You’re welcome.

“With your delightful description I almost got excited. Then reality set in and you are there and I am here”

I’m afraid that wouldn’t matter, tom.

“without my viagra.”

You and Bob Dole, eh? Is this a pattern emerging here — you “elephants” needing assistance in order to lift your “trunks”?
Don’t get mad now — I’m only joking, and you set me up for that one!

Yossarian:
“Damn. Not having much luck finding a liberal honey in St. Louis with a firm, shapely, and discerning tuchus. Keep having to toss away these fungible conservative girls.”

Aw! But there have to be some! A few ideas come to mind:
1. Join the local Dem’s. If you don’t meet any nice girls, you might just meet someone who knows one.
2. Shop at places like Whole Foods Markets, the health food store, or organic farmers markets — a lot of liberal ladies don’t like injesting chemicals, preservatives, trans-fats and anything extruded by Kraft Foods.
3. Bookstores — liberals are readers. But you should probably steer clear of the Romance Novel and Evangelical Religious isles.

“It ain’t easy being a lefty in the Bible belt. Or a pimp, I hear.”

My heart goes out to you, Yossarian. No doubt you’d have a much easier time of things in a Blue State. Hey, there’s another idea — take all your vacations in Blue States from now on! Maybe you’ll meet a cute liberal girl and you could entice her to move to St. Louis!

Marysdude:
“As I read these words of Jack, it reminded me of the same rather nefarious modus he used to pound the square CO2 peg into the round air quality hole. Repeat…repeat…repeat…after a while everybody gets tired and goes home.”

Yes, the repeating is annoying. But for me the most tiresome thing is that he often doesn’t actually respond to what we write.

Jbod:
“Welcome to the club of understanding people. Our home is right next to the ‘island of the misfit toys’ from the Christmas specials. :)”

Yes, you righties are just continually victimized and marginalized by us lefties, aren’t you?

Jack re: Cheney
“He really does not care what people think about him.”

Did you hear how he just got loudly booed by an entire stadium full of people at the Washington Nationals game when he threw out the first pitch? I was happy to hear that his aim hit no one in the face!

“I admire Cheney and have since he was Sec of Defense.”

Did you also root for Darth Vader in Star Wars?

Jack Mohammedoff:
“I am only perfidious to the likes of Ann Coulter.”

Excellent. As am I. But then, perhaps we should only feel pity for Cruella Coulter. Indeed, for any bulimic so filled with anger and hatred.

“I always try to be fungible.”

Please don’t. I mean, who wants to be squishy and mushroom-like when they can be firm, shapely and discerning? ;^)

sarah brown:
“the story and the scandal is about leaking the identity of a covert agent. Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove destroyed 20 years worth of networks in Iran and Iraq, just when we needed them the most. How many Iranians were killed or put in prison for espionage because of the leak? How many Iranians are going to spy for us now because of the leak? These are the real questions we should be asking.”

Absolutely, sarah. But here in the rose colored column we’re not going to get that discussion because they’re in complete denial that anyone in this administration has done anything wrong.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 12, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #140230

Adrienne

Think of star wars. Who is the only one with real character? No vapid Leia or Hamlet like Luke. Not even good looking Han or Lando. It is Vadar.

Who is the interesting character in Paradise Lost, who would rather rule in Hell than serve in heaven?

The first time I saw “Spartatus”, I rooted for him. The first time I say “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” I was on the side of Jeff Smith. Now I see the virtues in the Romans and Senator Payne.

Oh yeah, and Mr Potter too, versus that naer do well George Bailey. Uncle Billy should retire.

BTW - South Park should be very good today.

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #140232

Newsflash: Yesterday Colin Powell told Robert Scheer that he never believed the Niger uranium claim, and that he and all the top experts in his State Department never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat.

Quote:
“I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.”
Too bad the man didn’t tell the American people then, eh?

So, Jack, how does that grab you? Or is Powell just a “loony leftist” along the lines of Paul O’ Neill, Richard Clarke, et all?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 12, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #140237

Oh, snap!

But for the record, Jack is right about one thing: Darth Vader, baby. Even though I was like -1 years old when that film dynasty began, I always wanted Vader to whoop little Luke Skywalker’s whiny ass.

Adrienne:

Way ahead of you. But actually, when the Handmaids of Hannity like you enough to date you, their minds are often malleable enough to bring back to the light.

I’m like a liberal Johnny Appleseed…or something. Give me a few years and MO will be a blue state.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 12, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #140239

Jack:

I’m looking forward to South Park also. Didn’t you love the slow speed chase that culminated in the big wheel exploding?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 12, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #140243

Jack,

Clearly you are conflating “evil but interesting” with “good” in your mind if you actually prefer Cheney, Vader, Satan, The Romans, Senator Payne and Mr. Potter. I don’t have that problem of being able to separate the two. I can admire a character for being interesting, while still acknowledging that they are evil. And I save my true affection for people and fictional characters who manage to be interesting and morally upright at the same time.

“Uncle Billy should retire.”

Sad, but true. Him and his little pet squirrel.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 12, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #140244

Yossarian:
“I’m like a liberal Johnny Appleseed…or something. Give me a few years and MO will be a blue state.”

How can any woman resist a man with that kind of drive and ambition? :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at April 12, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #140255

Here is something else for the righties to ignore and discredit:
Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

Interestingly enoughLil’ Scotty McClellan is demanding an apology on the reporting of this story.
Guess he doesn’t know the Neocon mantra, huh Jack? You know, the old “never complain, never explain, never apologize”.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 12, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #140290

Darth Vader never apologised! He just enjoyed choked the life out of everthing - you know, the “Clear Planet” Initiative…

And you forgot one Conservative Icon, Jack: the Grinch. He really put the “TM” into Christmas; and, as you know, every day is Christmas for Halliburton(tm)!

Nice info, Adrienne: thanks for the Fresh Air yet once again!

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 12, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #140305

Betty

It depends on when you invested in Haliburton. If you owned it on the day Bush took office and kept it until today, you made money, but not that much. Speaking of TM (which is the symbol for Toyota) you would have done better with that stock.

I never cared for the Grinch. He had no profit motive, you know. In fact, his escapade, even if successful, would have cost him money. He is more of a leftist, trying to regulate commerce and equalize results.

Adrienne

There were lots of mix ups on intelligence. The President said that many times. We can always go back and find details of mistakes.

My father, a conspiracy theorist and leftist, remained convinced until the day he died that Franklin Roosevelt planned Pearl Harbor. His arguments were very good. It was actually from him in a backhanded way that I learned how not to believe comprehensive theories.

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #140309

Adrienne:

blockquote>Jbod:
“Welcome to the club of understanding people. Our home is right next to the ⩳land of the misfit toys⠦rom the Christmas specials. :)”

Yes, you righties are just continually victimized and marginalized by us lefties, aren’t you?

It’s apparent to me that you mistook the meaning of my comment. That happens when you prejudge what someone is saying and view their comments through whatever particular lens you choose. But…it happens. C’est la vie.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at April 12, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #140331

>>Since it was common knowledge that Valarie Plame worked at the CIA and whe was not a covert employee there was no leak. There was no destruction of networks in Iran and Iraq because of somebody confirming that she worked for the CIA.
Posted by: tomh at April 12, 2006 10:24 AM

tomh,

She wasn’t covert at the time of her ‘unveiling’, but she had been. The people in her thread were still in jeopardy, and those who exposed her also exposed them. Criminal? Stupid? Ignorant? Politically Motivated Machiavellan? Who cares…it was not a good thing. And it was used to justify the unjustifiable.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 12, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #140396

Adrienne, you said “Not only did this administration lie and mislead our nation into a war”, please expound on these supposed lies.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at April 13, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #140426

I’m a true Republican. I believe in minimal government, honor and truth in leadership, even when its tough, I believe in a fair tax structure, that provides for the poor and encourages investment and I believe that people generally do better when they work for themselves not the system. I believe that free trade is a good thing and that tariffs only hurt domestic markets over the long run, I believe in the separation of church and state and I believe that the government should stay out of an individuals life to the greatest extent possible. I also believe in the Constitution of the United States and its various checks and balances, I believe that the president works for the people and the best check against presidential misuse of power is a free and voracious press that diligently investigates and reports on a transparent system of government.

This Administration, in its pandering to the religious and radical right has forever damaged the fine traditions of our party. I believe in the good will and judgment of the American people and their ability to make informed decisions given the free flow of information.

This administration seems more interested in making themselves look good and avoiding scandal than they are in finding actual answers and facts. That scares me a great deal. It is hard to fault People who believe the dizzying line of spin coming out of the white house press room these days when even the elite of the academic, political and journalist sphere’s can’t make sense of it. Every day there are contradictory stories printed, with additional expert analysis of the relative few actual facts on the record.

I do believe in common sense though, and in regards to the the yellow cake leaks I believe the following are accepted facts.

1. The former Ambassador questioned the Presidents State of the Union statement regarding evidence of Iraq seeking yellow cake.

2. The vice presidents office DID ask the CIA to investigate more fully the issue prior to the state of the union

3. The CIA did send the ambassador Wilson and his wife (the actual agent) to Niger.

4. Ambassador Wilson did make an official report to Washington that was ignored or overlooked

5. Rather than confronting the actual issue, (the mistaken claim of Iraq seeking Yellow Cake Uranium from Niger)the administration choose to attack minor inaccuracy in the Ambassador’s statement (than the VP sent him)

6. In doing so, the White house (Legal issues aside) blew the cover of a CIA agent.

7. Then, when that came to light, rather than own up to the fact that the leak had been authorized and the information declassified, allowed a year long investigation to continue while throwing numerous legal roadblocks in the way to delay the inevitable discovery of their actions.

And still, rather than focusing on the real issues, the press and administration seem content to just argue about the semantics of legality…

I try and look at things with an open mind but the spin, double-talk, misinformation and propaganda flowing from the Bush Administration these days is simply overwhelming.

Who was it that said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Posted by: Jason at April 13, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #140428

Betty:
“Nice info, Adrienne: thanks for the Fresh Air yet once again!”

Thanks Betty! :^)

Jack:
“There were lots of mix ups on intelligence. The President said that many times. We can always go back and find details of mistakes.”

Yes, why don’t we do just that since it would be the simplest remedy. To quote Howard Dean:
“Given that the President has been willing to declassify information for his own political purposes, he should declassify this report so that the American people can know if they were misled. The onus is clearly on the President to clarify the situation surrounding this report. Was this incompetence, meaning that he did not know something that he clearly should have known, or is this an instance of dishonesty where information was misused or withheld to support a political agenda?”

Jbod:
I guess I didn’t get your little joke. C’est la vie.

Luis:
No WMD and no mobile weapons labs. And as the quotes I’ve given in this thread show, Bushco was aware they were using cherry-picked, old, inaccurate and discredited intelligence to justify their war — and the CIA, and the National Security Council, and Colin Powell and the UN clearly knew this was the case. This president lied to the American people.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #140515

Taunt this:

But the classified information he authorized to be selectively leaked — that Saddam Hussein was seeking to purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger for use in nuclear weapons — was not the truth, and its release was intended to buttress a falsehood. Indeed, last week, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told journalist Robert Scheer that the notorious 16 words in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address concerning Iraq’s supposed efforts to buy uranium — the claim that former ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate — were bogus. “That was a big mistake,” Powell said. “It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.” Thus, three years after the event, Powell finally admitted publicly that the president spoke falsely about the reason for war, that there were interested parties inside the administration determined to put false words in his mouth, and that the secretary of state, knowing this, lacked the power to stop it.

Posted by: mental wimp at April 13, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #140605
My father, a conspiracy theorist and leftist, remained convinced until the day he died that Franklin Roosevelt planned Pearl Harbor. His arguments were very good. It was actually from him in a backhanded way that I learned how not to believe comprehensive theories.

Jack: I am very pleased to hear that your father backhanded you. God rest his soul.

If I had been your mother, I would have backhanded you as well. Just as (in a Verbal sense) I do here in these columns virtually every week.

Maternally,

Betty

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 14, 2006 5:04 AM
Comment #143345

In a book titled “Mole” by William Hood (formerly of the Roosevelt OSS) there is a discussion of the rumor that J Edgar Hoover (“Jehoover”) was made privvy to knowledge of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor - a story allegedly leaked to Hoover privately by another fellow named Popov - not the one who was the famous double agent who went by that name who was the subject of Hood’s non fiction book, but someone with the same name.

There is still debate about whether the rumor is true and why Hoover may or may not have ignored it. Maybe it isn’t true. That is one conclusion, and a fair one.

Nobody told my friend Rufus Zogbaum’s grandfather about it. When I was a kid I didn’t know exactly why Admiral Zogbaum was missing an ear and had scars all over the back of his neck and head. I wasn’t born until 1948. Later I saw photos of the Arizona and have been amazed he lost the privilege of going down with his ship, and equally as amazed that he lived at all.

I’m told that the Duke of Windsor once went into a Pub and was mistaken for someone else: “Mr. Johnson, I believe?” said the fellow who was mistaken.

“If you can believe that, you can believe anything…” replied the Duke of Windsor.

I think it applies to a lot of this thread, especially the notion that it makes no difference when the president lies to the public.

In Clinton’s case it was a private matter. Mr. In Bush’s case there is a long trail of bodies that followed his lies, many of them belonging to our best patriots who stood up when they were called and have died for what?

Posted by: Nick B at April 26, 2006 6:43 PM
Post a comment