« More Failure In Iraq | Main | Condi's Jewels »

August 30, 2007


Note that the public's conclusion matches emptywheel's and mine.

Poll: Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report

I'm past the point of expecting honesty from the Bushies - but it is good to know there are career people trying to liberate the truth.

I hope that the lying brings all who have associated with the liars down, and down hard.

The Bush administration spends so little of its energy on getting things right (health care, NCLB,government contracts and oversight, oh and bridges) and so much on image management and fact manipulation--if somebody did a cost-benefit, time management analysis, it would seem like just trying to get it right would be more efficient. And besides, the images they manage are so tacky. It may be theater, it may be kabuki, but it's not done at all well. Which is to say, how dumb do they think we are?

I'll bet the WH is in panic driven overtime between now and the release of the "official" version (had to call in an army of temps from Regent University?). They were probably 90% done rewriting their fantasy version when this hit this morning, if they hadn't just invented their own before even seeing the first draft. It would be fun to see the headcount and working hours in the WH for the next few days.

From AP:

Stung by the bleak findings of a congressional audit of progress in Iraq, the Pentagon has asked that some of the negative assessments be revised, a military spokesman said Thursday.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said that after reviewing a draft of the Government Accountability Office report - which has not yet been made public - policy officials "made some factual corrections" and "offered some suggestions on a few of the actual grades" assigned by the GAO.

Jeez, I go to comment on DemFromCT's thread, and I get directed to EW. She is truly a magnetic personality!

Katie, I agree with what you said on the first post on the original thread...where are the American people and why don't we stand up...? Like I mentioned in another post on another subject...seems Marches and Protests are a thing of the past. Okay so we use votes then...it's more PC I guess...well then folks we have to use it I guess...we need to convince even Repub's to do it as well...even though it's probably easier to convince a slice of American Cheese.

Mighty Mouse....because they don't care about us...never did never will, they are not the party for the "People" but the party for the "Rich"...they only seek to further their own endeavors and the hell with the rest of us. It's a sad thing the average poor joe shmoe Repub does not even realize they are handed 'fluff' on top of their 'undesireable intentions for the wicked'. Hmmm kinda like a Cream Puff desert..that really has Devils Food filling for the center.

PC had the same issue with the five year employment law and promises of employment beyond that law. It also applied to the five year no intelligence law(for PC PCVs as opposed to PC employees - the law does not apply), not classfied, classified and return from overseas federal employment.

They figured out what to do with all the military coup juntas they signed a memorandum of understanding with and kept the agreement in force(see URL).

PC is pushing for twenty years and a pension for medical employees, but they asked to be classified first(how PC employees get around the five year employment law - see director PC Tanzania), which has become the standard for employment and beating the five year employment law; the question is where the Hatch Act fits in here; promising employment based on being classified, how one gets classfied, and promises of employment once classified(or a promise to be classified) and how the Hatch Act is applied to a non classified federal employee after they are beyond the five year employment law and classified or non classified.

There is also the IIPA five year law and how that applies to non CIA agency federal employees, PC and and PCV; but is should be obvious that it is a problem when applied to non CIA agency employees as both Ames and Plame where violations related to non CIA agency employees; both did not follow the law under IIPA because they felt it involved agency, the DoJ and Dod did follow the IIPA for the non CIA anency emplyees, but found that it was a violation by CIA agency employees; that was the point in the IIPA for the non CIA agency employees - CIA was the problem, which is why they aere asked not to violate the IIPA.

The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version


From AP:

Stung by the bleak findings of a congressional audit of progress in Iraq, the Pentagon has asked that some of the negative assessments be revised, a military spokesman said Thursday.

Am I the only one who didn't know that Cassandra's new gig is working for the GAO?

Senators are outed.
Whistleblowers are blowing whistles AND talking.

We're winning!

It is important to note that bush* received LEGACY's C's not gentleman's C's. If you think about it for a moment it is a profound difference.

A gentleman's C's is still an earned C.

Truthiness is no longer on the menu, all we have left is puree of truthiness. Good thing Democrats has no teeth.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad