<p>And by the way Strick, for all your posturing about data, I don’t see much in any of your links. The one from the Washington Post is a poorly written opinion piece. </p>
<p>I’ve kept up with this story since 2003 and have read every article I can get my hands on to understand it. I don’t have a good memory for facts, nor do I write with ease so I’m not going to play your silly game of give me a fact so I can dispute it. The NIA report if I recall correctly does not dispute Wilson’s findings and the investigation regarding Libby is not about proving Wilson right or wrong - that is irrelevant to the case.</p>
<p>While it is tiresome to see Strick, Driver, and Fundingfather repeat their preaching to each other, it is also instructional. Would any of them have even thought of espousing the straining-at-gnats-while-swallowing-camels logic they cling to so desperately now if the president in question was - Bill Clinton? Obviously not. And yet they consistently lash out at anyone who has reached the conclusion - as a historically large number of Americans now have - that the administration is fundamentally dishonest and incompetent by accusing anyone who isn’t a virtual Bush love-slave of being a blind, naive, partisan.
You can’t reason with them - there is nothing that can convince them that the constant tally of death, debt, and deceit American has suffered under the Bush administration is anything but a media misrepresentation of this best of all possible worlds. Driver keeps cheerfully chirping about how those nasty liberals are going to get their comeuppance in the final reel. Fundingfather keeps warning darkly about “shoes about to drop.” They will keep whistling, as it gets darker and darker.</p>
<p>Truth is, Strick, Driver and FF were probably championing the $50M investigation of Clinton’s big lie, that ended with a stained blue dress.</p>
<p>Lies that compromise the security of our country, the safety of our servicemen and women, our national economy…pfffft…they seem not to care about those!</p>
<p>If the arguments sound repetetive, Liz, it’s because the same old stuff keeps being repackaged and launched at the president, with the hope that this time it will really, truly turn into the Giant Acme Super Bush-Destructo Rocket described on the package. You mentioned not having a good memory for facts, something common in the 3N crowd. So I’m going to help you, by showing just how poorly you all are served by MSM or Internet pied pipers (in this case, I believe it was Arrianna Huffington who led the parade) who keep raising your hopes and leading you all skipping and singing off to lala land–and exactly why the third N (that would be Naivete) is apropos.
<p>Add to this the fact that your old buddy “Fitz” of Merry Fitzmas fame has just issued a correction to his filing that had resurrected the old non-news. So now, you have not only old news, but incorrectly reported old news.
<p>When I read the latest from TheDad, Mr.B and Kluge I’m reminded of Slim Pickens in the final scene of “Dr. Strangelove.” Y’all enjoy your rocket ride down the canyon, hear? <em>poof</em></p>
<p>It is fairly common for people to minimize the faults of those they would like to be right, while magnifying the faults of those they want to be wrong. People on both sides of the fence did this with Clinton and continue with Bush only apologists have changed places with accusers and the quantity and implications of the mistakes have escalated. </p>
<p>I don’t think you need to magnify the problems of this administration very much. War, partying while Katrina victims drown, shooting people in the face…all seem pretty serious.</p>
<p>Against the wishes of most other world leaders, Bush led us all into a war he doesn’t know how to win. He has lied or repeated lies so often it is hard to believe that people still trust him at all. Look at him trying to sell his lousy prescription plan to the elderly. The people who would be dancing in the street if a useful program had been created are being pleaded with to participate. They ask, "Why did the Republicans prohibit federal agencies from negotiating cheaper prices? " The answer because this program benefits insurance companies more than it does seniors. </p>
<p>Recently they arrested a man for jumping the white house fence to run toward the President, they think he was crazy, because every congressman will tell you, the smart move is to run from this President. </p>
<p>Your same old, same old apologies have grown thin and sound a bit desperate. Thanks for at least throwing in Dr. Strangelove…that movie certainly could be tied to this administration’s approach to world peace.</p>
<p>Do you mean the NIE Report? I’m afraid you’re wrong. While the NIE report showed the divisions amoung the intelligence agencies over specific issues, the consensus was what the Administration reported. It’s hardly surprising that there were parts of the intelligence community that went against the consensus given the number and make up of the groups involved. Heck, my family can’t even agree where to go to dinner, how can anyone expect decision this complex to be unanimous?</p>
<p>As for that, the bipartisan Senate committee investingating Iraq read the NIE in it’s entirety, spoke to the individuals involved at length and is the best, main source for how wrong Wilson really was in all the details. Even if you believe that Bush fudged the data, the specific things that Wilson said are simply not true.</p>
<p>There is more one thing that I feel the need to point out. Apparently several people here haven’t actually read my posts. What I’m defending here, opposing here really, is a specific characterization in a news report that is clearly biased and intended to create false impression in casual readers who don’t get down to the last few paragraphs that finally get around to telling the rest of the story.</p>
<p>Words do have meaning. Intentionally using the wrong word to put pejorative label on an event is lying. Read carefully and don’t assume that what you’re seeing is the entire truth, not matter what the source or how much it validates your hatred of someone.</p>
<p>BTW, I supported Clinton until he looked in the camera and told the American people that he did not have sex with that woman. Once I understood the truth I realized that he didn’t have the slightest respect for the intelligence of the American people and he thought that one more lie would get him through this. That wouldn’t be any where enough to justify impeachment, but then, two counts of felony perjury, for which he was judged guilty, paid a heavy fine and lost his license to practice law for 5 years, perjury for whatever reason, would be. </p>
<p>Politicians lie, that’s to be expected. Senior officials have to tell the truth under oath, Clinton, Libby, or whoever else.</p>
<p>Nice bout of unsupported character assasination there, kludge. You don’t know me that well. You might even be surprised at the number of things I actually did support Clinton on. The real issue is a desire to sweep away the BS on both sides.</p>
<p>All true! But what the author doesn’t tell us, until wayyy into the article, in a paragraph a mere 3 sentences long was that two other expert fact-finding teams had examined the trailers, and concluded that they were in fact weapons labs:
So, two of three teams sent to study the trailers concluded that they were weapons labs, yet the WaPo writer insinuates that the administration was sitting on conclusive evidence countermanding its opinion, when in fact, the study cited was a minority opinion. The administration is “guilty” of listening to the intelligence consensus.</p>
<p>The article also disingenuously notes that the team members who spoke to them are afraid to reveal their identities, for fear of job retribution. As if the Pentagon couldn’t figure out which team was the one who disagreed with the other two. This is the quality of the journalism that fuels so much of the crap out on the Internet.</p>
<p>strick, I appreciate your interest in the truth. I shared your disappointment with Clinton, while I do not think elected officials should have to discuss marital infidelities with anyone other than their spouse, I do expect truth under oath. Perhaps you are being unfairly tied to the positions of others who seem to be apologists for this administration. People who would argue that Cheney didn’t shoot anyone, an old man just happenned to walk into buck shot. Why do you think people get you confused with these other apologists?</p>
<p>When I speculated above that the President retroactively released classified data to accomodate testimony you argued correctly that it was good enough for the judge. I would respond of course it was, if the President sent a note to a judge, he would have to accept it as truth. Who in Washington has the resources to legally challenge the President? Of course, If congress would spend half of what they put into finding a stained dress. we might have something.</p>
<p>I have seen it happen in a court room, people defending cads, get treated as if they were cads themselves. Do you think the timing of his announcement that he did remember releasing this information to be strange?</p>
What “timing” are you talking about? You mean the report from Dana Milbank in July of 2003:
How people see nefarious things into this is beyond me. Only in Alice in Wonderland would a person (Wilson) who tells a lie to promote a fallacious concept be a hero but the people who reveal the truth about the matter to expose the lie be the bad guys. </p>
<p>I guess it takes the same kind of peole who buy into this who somehow see a hunting accident as anything but a hunting accident and who portray it as if there was an intentional “shooting in the face”. Pretty sad commentary of the times.</p>
<p>Driver, I’m as appalled by the Washington Post report you mention as I can be. Yellow journalism at its best.</p>
<p>I also note that CNN Headline New repeated the report and never once mentioned the balancing paragraph way down in the report. I know the vast majority of readers won’t get anywhere near that far.</p>
<p>Again, these assessments, exercises in judgement by career analysts, not the Administration, aren’t easy. It’s always, always possible to find a dissenting opinion. Still choices have to be made and it’s never surprising when the choice favors the majority of the evidence or the response that addresses the more serious consequences.</p>
<p>Sorry, Mr. B, my response to you seems to have gone AWOL. I don’t find the timing or the nature of Bush’s response surprising or mysterious in the least. No point responding to something that anyone should be able to understand. It didn’t become an issue until the media misrepresented what happened despite the fact the information, as fundingfather points out, has been public for quite some time. Even Libby’s comments to Fitzgerald on the scoop he gave Miller.</p>
<p>Yep, I meant NIE - I’m tired - jetlagged and preoccupied with an important interview.</p>
<p>Driver, Bush is not particularly good with the facts or words for that matter -NNN’s are on both sides of the political spectrum. It’s a silly characterization - kind of like the playground taunt of “I know your are but what am I”.</p>
<p>explain to me EXACTLY the rational behind putting out the information the way they did, using a cover story, not directly sharing with the press, saying “don’t us my name”</p>
<p>I don’t care if you say they COULD do it, I would like to know WHY it was done that way</p>
<p>Why it was handled like that game, telephone…</p>
<p>please I really wnat an explanation…all I hear is that they had the right to because the president declassified it, but WHY WHY WHY did he tell Cheney to tell Libby to tell the Press…(sounds like middle school behavior)</p>
<p>anyway, what was the rational behind doing it this way…</p>
<p>Facts? those are irrelevant to this administration- check out Nasa, the new report on the trailers…gosh, the administration KNEW they did were not for WMDs but said it anyway…suprise surpise</p>
<p>On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”</p>
<p>Still, no answer as to WHY the “leak” was handled like the game of Telephone…</p>
<p>and some other stuff not posted from the WSJ article- even with a report ijn their hand, they told us otherwise…</p>
<p>“The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped “secret” and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.”</p>