Lies

by DemFromCT

By now, you've perhaps read the NY Times on going to war.

In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

You now understand why Bush is so desperate to keep a Republican majority. Toadies like Pat Roberts (Chair, Senate Intel) must quash all investigations of why we went to war and how the intelligence was used. Democrats in the House must be denied the power of the subpoena.

Otherwise, the American people, already unhappy about the war, will have graphic evidence of the difference between lies and bullshit.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

I'm not a huge Kurtz fan, but i do read him every day. This time, he sums up some major stories:

Have the media declared war on the war?

In increasingly aggressive questions to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, in a growing focus on the death toll in Iraq, in downbeat assessments on the invasion's third anniversary, many journalists now reflect the view that the war has gone horribly wrong.

[DemFromCT]

Oh, and kurtz throws in Goldberg:

National Review's Jonah Goldberg ruminates about Bush meeting the press:

"The best moment of political theater at the president's news conference this week came when that thespian carbuncle of bile, Helen Thomas, hung a question mark at the end of a diatribe. The 'dean' of the White House press corps all but called President Bush a lying warmonger who invaded Iraq for no legitimate reason.

"Thomas lost the exchange, but the sad truth is that her side has won the larger argument. Ever since the controversy over the '16 words' in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address -- in which the president alleged that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa -- the administration has been gun-shy about defending its original decision to invade. That's understandable, given the consequences of that episode: Not only did it make the White House seem inept, it made former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson and his very important hair a permanent fixture of the media firmament.

"It is now simply taken as a given inside this White House that having an argument about why we invaded Iraq is a political loser. So the president prefers to talk democracy, not WMDs."

That's the problem with defending the original decision -- all the endless speeches about the nonexistent weapons.

[Kagro X]

Time to investigate looking into an inquiry into the propriety of giving the president a warning so that we can probe the possibility of censure. After the elections, of course.

[DemFromCT]

Ahh, that's bullshit, Kagro. ;-) Bush's mistakes fall into the category of lies.

[DemFromCT]

BTW, does that mean if R's keep a majority, nothing can and should happen because there will be no investigation of an inquiry?

[Kagro X]

No. All it means is that you should wait to talk about talking about it until after the next election.

[DemFromCT]

sigh. I was afraid you'd say that.

well, at least congressional dems are experts there.

[KdmFromPhila]

It's telling that the media is, to quote Kurtz, responding to the sense that "the war has gone horribly wrong." There was never anything remotely right about it, morally or strategically. Perhaps they will examine the lies since polls now show that many Americans don't trust Bush. But the deeper problem is with the world-view/ideology that informs this administration and its supporters. Focusing on the war that went wrong reinforces the competence meme which in turn distracts people from

The case for war had to be based on deceptions because there was no rational argument for it. It clearly was not in our national interest. Moreover, it served as one of the pretexts for the creation of a president/king.

By not addressing those issues, the media will ensure that in 10/20 years, members of this administration will be rehabilitated or considered "experience" or "well versed in military matters." Result: Rumsfeld or Cheney proteges will do even more damage to this country.

[Kagro X]

I meant the 2016 elections.

[Mimikatz]

Meanwhile, far from DC the process of withdrawing consent from the current regime continues.

About the sepcial election in CA-50:

"But Republican and independent voters at Busby's house parties say the election may not be so predictable.

"'I'm voting with my head, and my heart,' says Sonya Johnson, a contractor and Republican from Escondido, who sat with a group of women.

"After listening to Busby, Johnson said, 'I'm totally impressed with her. ... I did a healthy contribution for her, and I'm going to volunteer.'"

"And Karl Kittrell, 80, a retired salesman and independent voter from Escondido, threw up his hands when asked about Cunningham, the Congress, and the elections ahead.

"The only thing he could be certain of, he said, is that 'we need a complete overhaul.'"

[libopinion]

That loon Clarice has a anti-Fitz screed up on the American NoThinker site. It's so over the top and unfair, she ends up making Kathryn Harris seem lucid and Ann Coulter mild-mannered. She blames Fitzgerald for every DOJ error in history, including a recent Dallas U.S. Attorney screwup (wtf?). This from a women who still believes Cheney's Atta lies and thinks Fitz did a bad thing by throwing the blind shiek in jail. What is it with neo-con women?

Tom Maguire at least tries to present a facade of fairness .... but linking to crazies like Clarice makes me wonder. They are talking about the entire DOJ being out of control. Are these people going to try to take down every branch of government? They went after the CIA, the State Department ... now the DOJ. Guess we will have nothing left but King George.

[Pilgrim]

Jonah Goldberg's characterization of Helen Thomas is highly offensive. I admire her greatly. I believe many do. I did not sense that she "lost" in the exchange. Bush treated her like he treated the Irish journalist prior to his trip to Ireland. People can see what it is that they are seeing in the behaviour of this prez.

Jonah Goldberg -- I rarely read him as I can't stand him -- specializes in writing stuff that reveals him as an underachiever who seeks to puff himself out with partisan slurs and nasty gibes.

[DemFromCT]

From National Journal on Friday:

Once upon a time, journalists told the people which stories mattered most. Now the people are leading the media.

[rich]

There is a remarkable Israel report published on the Harvard Kennedy School website by a Dean there and faculty member at U of Chicago (KSG faculty research papers). It documents a broad history of related issues, and was referenced in the last couple of days by both the LA Times and Boston Globe - critically, but none-the-less, but the material included is pretty astonishing.

[Chris Loosley]

Kagro, thanks for the satire, your comments are cracking me up. I guess you have to laugh just to keep from crying about the situation, right?