I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
We should never say "I told you so." but we should always say, "What'd I tell ya!"
The editorial page has been fairly harsh on BushCo for some time. It's the rest of the paper that seems to be "fact-challenged."
any guesses as to when MSNBC will be issuing Phil Donahue a public apology . . .
Don't hold your breath waiting for Bush to come clean, as the Times asks in the last paragraph. Not going to happen.
And they're dead right about the boy who cried wolf, a/k/a Tom Ridge. When you overuse the "terror" threat language, sooner or later, it's going to lose its meaning, and then what are you going to do when it's the real thing?
Ghost,
When hell freezes over, of course.
Steve
PS They also owe Ashley Banfield one as well.
So what, exactly, is the Times saying? The peaceniks were right - the chickenhawks were wrong? Bush / Cheney: They Can't Stop Lying? Or just Worst. President. EVER.
In any case, I wish they'd start saying it a little louder, and not just on weekends. And purge their staff of the professional liars that helped enable the chickenhawks.
I don’t know about the NYT gets it right kind of spin, to me it don’t look like anything close to them getting it right, to me it looks like NYT panting and moaning as usual to spin stuff the way they think it will help them.
.....
DUH! Also slams BushCo for making up the whole Iraq/Saddam connection and continuing to repeat the lie.
There's no place in hell hot enough for the Bush crew mother-cheneyers.
Every news outfit in the world ought to see through the fog. Conclusion: Shrub and Dick are liars, liars, liars.
Especially the whole thing of it was all the CIA or it was mostly the CIA simply is not flying out here, because what we all recall is that what we heard from the CIA was calm, careful analysis, they weren’t the ones panting and moaning and lurching from town to town snarling about disarming Saddam of WMDs.
.....
People went tumbling to the polls to give Dubya the authority because Dubya was the one lurching and snarling and yawling from town to town about WMD.
.....
Phil Donhue was the woist, after taking his positions, he actually thought we Should go busting along right in, he was totally useless.
.....
What will Jody Wilgoren and William Safire Say?
Meanwhile, is this a new nickname for Bush, "The Smirking Cipher"?
OT, The Onion tells Cohen, Kristoff, Goodman, and all the other hand-wringing "liberals" on what's really wrong with F911.
Heh heh.
People expect when the President goes around lurching and snarling and making claims that he has done a thorough job and checked everything out fine, now he is sitting like a deer in the headlights and saying, who me, it was those guys over there, oh yeah, sure, that is going over real well.
.....
"The committee said the analysts who had produced that false apocalyptic vision had fallen into a "collective groupthink" in which evidence was hammered into a preconceived pattern. Their bosses did not intervene."
"collective groupthink" has pretty much defined the NYT/SCLM's collusion on the Bush administration's atrocities thus far.
Physician, heal thyself!
Minnie, the media mavens knew he was a liar and a drooling idiot to boot, and thought it would be a hilarious joke on the American public.
Meanwhile, I am thrilled that the Phillipines hostage has been released 
.
.....
Meanwhile, I am thrilled that the Phillipines hostage has been released
And in Freeperville they lament that "the Phillipines could not give head to War on Terror."
The reason "Group Think" is even a problem is that we are governed by "President NO Think".
Bush & Cheney have created more cynics than six years of Nixon.
I'm so, so glad the New York Times and the rest of the hand wringing war whores are going after Big Dick, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and their Office of Special Plans full time, big time.
Oh, wait a minute? They're not? Never mind. Whores will be whores.
"Phil Donhue was the worst, after taking his positions, he actually thought we Should go busting along right in, he was totally useless."
I don't disagree with your point, but you're missing mine. MSGOP's stated reason for firing him was that they didn't want an "anti-war" voice on their network. So, in essence, they fired him for being correct about the war, so they could install yet another war whore (Joe "Ratings Killer" Scumborough) into their right-wing lineup.
Do any of the stories about the CIA's bad intelligence discuss Cheney's trips to the CIA -- apparently to pressure then to pay more attention to the now-discredited Iraqi defectors? Do the stories talk about the Office of Special Plans?
It must be obvious by now that there is a coup underway in America. From the television airwaves to the newspaper headlines to the magazine covers, the leftwing media have revealed their anti-Bush bias to such an extent that it is appalling and embarrassing. At no other time in the history of this nation have the mass media made such a blatant attempt to control an election. Liberals control 85 percent of the mass media and can only muster approximately 50 percent of the votes. What would the "polls" say if there was anything resembling fairness in reporting? That is precisely what the left fears the most - the people. Which is why the leftwing media are engaged in a coup to steal this election by propaganda, fear mongering and flat out lies. Why is the Republican party not fighting back?! It is high time conservative Republicans took off the lacy pink gloves and got down to bare knuckle alley fighting with these gluttonous Michael Moore clones of the liberal left. They want a brawl. I say it is high time we gave them a brawl they will never forget. I am sick and tired of my good, conservative Republican name getting pole-axed, pimped, pulverized and persecuted by the perfidious, partisan, repellent prigs of the pompous press.
Sovok, good point, it is totally hilarious, the panting goes on, except now it is about oh my, how did this all happen, let’s try and find out, oh sure, they are looking real credible, Not.
It was like the group think all happened someplace else, who us, why you looking at us, and don’t forget the dweeb poodles at the WaPo. NYT op ed was actually mixed, many folks did caution about busting in or tumbling over ourselves.
.....
Best were the dweeb heads who insisted that Bushie must ***know something***
Oh yeah, that was when the CIA folks were telling us the other side and cautioning us.
.....
Lemocks, is that supposed to be a spoof or is it the real thing.
.....
Main thing is that of course the press creds are pretty thuddy thud thud but Bushies creds are even more thuddy thud thud.
.....
Especially anytime the press starts panting about something, it sets off a real skepticism wave, that is just something they are gonna have to deal with especially the real hyperventilators like the NYT and WaPo.
.....
Why is the Republican party not fighting back?!
Cause they're yella. YELLA!!
What about the fact that Nero and his handlers were planning to invade Iraq from the first days of their occupation of the White House?
Paul O'Neill has told us about Iraq invasion plans discussed as early as their first week in office.
And we know already that part of Cheney's super-secret energy task force documents includes an item called "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Fields."
So it is obvious that these bastards had a hard-on for Iraq well before 9/11. Their assertions that 9/11 made them "re-evaluate" the threat of Saddam Hussein are transparently bullshit.
Also, through Seymour Hersh and others, we've heard about how the intelligence agencies were abused into providing the most war-favorable information that was available.
Finally, when the invasion began, of all the places that the Bush regimed claimed were housing Saddam's WMD, not a single one was secured by the invading troops.
Not one.
That is perhaps the clearest possible evidence we could have that they knew they were lying about all of it.
Either they were lying about it, or they wanted those awful weapons to get into the hands of terrorists.
Whichever option you pick, it's unacceptable. They all need to be in jail.
Seraphiel, just to add another voice to the ones you mention: Richard Clarke made it clear that immediately after September 11, they were looking to invade Iraq.
If they knew where the WMD's were, why didn't they pull them up immediately and show the world? They didn't because they couldn't, because there were no WMD's.
just about 20,000 brownskins and a thousand white/european types blasted to kingdom come....so,no biggy
"just about 20,000 brownskins and a thousand white/european types blasted to kingdom come....so,no biggy"
Reminds me of that excellent Carlin routine where he talks about our role in the world. "We blow up brown people . . . that's what we do . . ."
You gotta love the way the NYT Editorial decries the fact that people in the future might not believe an administration gearing up for a preventive (they still call it preemptive?), but war on similarly or even more feeble intelligence.
Why the fuck would that be a problem?
If the intelligence is not there, chances are that the administration hasn't got any additional information and that there is no need to go to war at all.
Anybody else nauseated yet by the pronouncements from on high by these Arbiters of Reason.
Yeah, I mostly agree with the editorial slant, but every word drips with an apalling arogance that I find
difficult to stomach.
And, oh yeah, Judith Miller.
Of course, like always, the Democrats blew, and are still blowing, this golden opportunity. Before Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, and the rest voted for the Rape of Baghdad, they should have said this: "Okay, Chicken George, we'll give you your little war, on the condition that you agree to publicly state that you will be held personally accountable for every life taken and every dollar spent in the event that no WMDs are found."
Oh, but that would have required foresight and political savvy on the part of the Democrats. Silly me . . .
But sheriff W said "the intelligence was darn good intelligence". Saddam was thinkin about making WMD. See, the intelligence was so good it was clairvoyant.
On a serious note, what could be the pact among senators to delay the reckoning on the administration's role till after the election? Impeachment vs imprisonment?
Joe "Ratings Killer" Scumborough...
Think you mean: Joe "Intern Killer" Scumborough, right?
Do any of the stories about the CIA's bad intelligence discuss Cheney's trips to the CIA -- apparently to pressure then to pay more attention to the now-discredited Iraqi defectors? Do the stories talk about the Office of Special Plans?
nine
nine
NightLine last night brought up Cheney's visits to the CIA and a whole host of commentators stated that of course the WH made it known to the CIA what it wanted to see.
I liked a posters comment from yesterday about how the busheviks still, to this day, insist that Saddam had both the intent and the capacity to make WMD.
Yet, in fact, he did no such thing, despite the intent and capacity.
W and his whores are toddering idiots, yet the media just let them continue to salivate. Its time for America to shoot the rabid dog dead by voting these assholes out.
"Think you mean: Joe 'Intern Killer' Scumborough, right?"
That's what I originally had written, actually, but we all know that ratings are more important than people . . .
You've got to read Josh Marshall's dismembering of Susan Schmidt's WaPo piece on intelligence report. Sort of like Jet Li, but with a blog entry.
I'm embarrassed by the rethugs who go on TV and in print defending Bush. They look so fucking dumb. Bush seems to have a singular talent for making anyone who backs his policies look like an utter fool. Just ask Blair.
Ahmed Chalabi=stove-pipping. Now that's "Group think".
It's all beginning to unravel. Grab your beer and a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show.
My reply to The Times:
Thanks to the New York Times for answering the question of where its editors spend their time.
An editorial of July 9th, 2004 states that, in regards to Iraq policy, "By late 2002, you'd have had to have been vacationing on Mars not to know what answer Mr. Bush wanted." And yet the NY Times treated the decision to go to war with about the same level of skepticism as Mr. Bush.
Meanwhile, anyone who read the European press knew that key weapons inspectors such as Scott Ritter and Mohammed El Baradei had debunked most of the Administration's claims, that there were serious reasons to keep the focus on Afghanistan, and that the British government's dossier to go to war (presumably parallel to the U.S. government's information and cited by Colin Powell as proof) had been plagiarized from an ancient student essay.
All of this is ancient history. What is not is the Senate intelligence report as yet one more failure of this government. The New York Times characterizes the report as "a welcome demonstration of both [candor and leadership.]" This is ludicrous. The Senate Democrats have admitted caving in to the Republicans just to get the report done. This is candid? This is leadership? Rather, it was cowardly and deceptive.
One has to parse the editorial far too closely to get a sense of the reality underlying the report. The CIA, being a club for conservative white men, was unable to field agents in Islamic countries. It didn't have enough translators. The FBI (another conservative white man's club) was grossly politicized, such that its head was not sharing information with President Clinton, much less the CIA. It may have had a spy in the translation department; we'll possibly never know, since Sibel Edmonds has been silenced. John Ashcroft, rather than repairing the problems, was sending field agents to bust prostitutes in New Orleans and arrest Californians using marijuana medicinally. The Department of Homeland Security is a joke.
Where is the courage? Where is the leadership?
And then there's the New York Times, which not only led the charge to war, but continues, with disgraceful pieces like James Risen's CIA Held Back Iraqi Arms Data, to divert attention from the systemic nature of the intelligence failures.
Where's the courage? Where's the leadership?
One thing is certain. It's not on Mars, where the editors of the New York Times seem to reside.
Sincerely, etc
I got called a moron in another thread for mentioning the Susan Schmidt article, so I'm glad JMM is on it, and he is right that it has political, but not legal relevance. If the Plame indictments come down we can expect more of this: (from the Reuters article)
"Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the president had lied to the American people, that the vice president had lied and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa," committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said in a statement of "additional views" signed by two other Republican senators.
Too little too late. The Times can simply never be trusted again.
JS
That's a textbook example of a right fine LTE.
Bravo!
The Times Sees Through The Fog?
How so?
From a logical standpoint, the addition of the graphs (Ridge) at the end seem to be there as an excuse not to draw the conclusion which is obvious - the President and his administration lied about the purported justification for war. The NYT walks to the edge...and steps back.
And somebody help me on this one: "By late 2002...the hawkish defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, wanted to set up his own intelligence agency to get the goods on Iraq that the wishy-washy C.I.A. couldn't seem to deliver." By late 2002 had not the SOD already established the OSP??? What's with the 'want to' crap?
Bah...
js,
Please send that letter to the NYT. Well-written!
So, let's see here. Cheney Rumpsfelt Neocon Office of Special Plans funnels false information to CIA. CIA funnels same false information to Cheney Bush. Cheney Bush goes to war. Congress agrees. Demos say, heck yes. Chaos supervenes. Congress investigates. CIA's fault. Cheney Bush exonerated. Congress exonerates itself. Demos say Heck, yes.
What the goddam fucking hell is wrong with Senate Democrats???? Did 'Uncle' Tom Daschle do a deal with Frist? ie Gets Demos to say Heck yes, in exchange for taking the heat off Uncle Tom Daschle's re-election campaign?. ]
I hope civil war and violent revolution are not the only ways to save this country. Do we have to dump the Demo party and build up the Greens to get any kind of fundamental change in the way business is done?
jim, "Do we have to dump the Demo party and build up the Greens to get any kind of fundamental change in the way business is done?"
The Greens are, sadly, probably never going to be a genuine alternative. No one is preventing them from building a grassroots movement except themselves. Until they have as many seats as the Congr. Black Caucus, no one should take them seriously.
But the Democrats of this generation are, far too commonly, pieces of %$#^, as evidenced by the four who voted with the Pubs to allow the DoJ to search your library records or the Senate Dems who voted for tax cuts and war.
We'll have to flush and flush and flush again until the water is clear. I think the successful strategy is to focus on districts that aren't Dem and build up a party there that isn't dependent on K Street and corporate money. MoveOn seems to do that, adopting candidates the official party doesn't.
Firenze, thanks.
Hecate, the letter was sent. The NYT knows.who.I.am.
BTW, what does the Oracle say about House races this November? What's the Diebold factor?
The Bush Analysis Market blog (www.freewebs.com/re-select) links to a few interesting tidbits. Like Powell and Rice proclaiming Hussein harmless in '01 and Rumsfeld stating the coalition didn't act on new evidence. Hence, the coalition acted on old evidence, evidence which proved Hussein wasn't a threat, according to the Sec of State and Nat Sec Advis.
If we could just stop those damn gays from getting married...
NS
Seems to me the Senate report is simply to exonerate Congress from having signed on to the invasion and reliquished all control to Bush. The Senators seem particularly anxious to show how they were misled by the CIA, and how they would not have voted for the invasion had they had correct information.
Hey, if you believe that, buddy do I have a bridge for you.
Blog whoring or product pimping, I dunno which is more annoying. I think there's another word for putting commercials in comment threads.
Why I Love The Minneapolis StarTribune, Reason #4568940986:
http://www.startribune.com/stori...61/
4869054.html
Editorial: Intelligence CYA/Senate GOP aims to help Bush
July 10, 2004
If anyone thinks the Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-Iraq war intelligence failures, released Friday, is all about making needed corrections to U.S. intelligence agencies and procedures, they're mistaken. This report is all about covering the Bush administration's posterior and getting President Bush reelected this fall.
More than a year ago, when the Senate Intelligence Committee began talking about doing this investigation, the Republican committee majority wanted no part of it. The Democrats wanted a single broad investigation, similar to the work of the congressional 9/11 commission, that looked both at how the flawed intelligence was produced and how it was used by the Bush administration.
To get any investigation at all, the Democrats had to settle for dividing the work into two parts. The first part, the basis for the report released Friday, investigated the intelligence failures themselves. The second part, yet to begin and conveniently due long after the fall election, investigates how the Bush administration used the intelligence to build its case for war.
There's more at the link above (free registration, or use www.bugmenot.com).
The Times Sees Through the Fog
How refreshing, Usually it the fog.
How refreshing. Usually it is the fog.
Hmmm.
Yeah, that librul press sure has pulled the wool over America's eyes...can't wait til the Repugs get some power in government so that we will have a balance like the founders wanted...
Let us not forget that PNAC wanted Clinton to invade Iraq, way before 9/11.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
