Alright my friends (Bush supporters and those who have not been so hoodwinked), Michael Kinsley of the Washington Post has said it well. On guard, those who will defend the purveyors of lies!:
The president says he has not lost his confidence in CIA Director George Tenet. How sweet. If someone backed me up in a lie and then took the fall for me when it was exposed, I'd have confidence in him too..."
To quote my friend Choses, and his friend before him: "SHITSTORM" It just doesn't ever stop...
Read on good brothers and sisters:
Or More Lies From The Usual Suspects?
By Michael Kinsley
The Washington Post
Wednesday, July 16, 2003; Page A23
Once again a mysterious criminal stalks the nation's capital. First there was the mystery sniper. Then there was the mystery arsonist. Now there is the mystery ventriloquist. The media are in a frenzy of speculation and leakage. Senators are calling for hearings. All of Washington demands an answer: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? No investigation has plumbed such depths of the unknown since O.J. Simpson's hunt for the real killer of his ex-wife. Whodunit? Was it Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with a candlestick? Condoleezza Rice in the Situation Room with a bottle of Wite-Out and a felt-tipped pen?
Linguists note that the question "Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" They speculate that the two questions may have parallel answers. But philosophers are still struggling to properly analyze the Grant's Tomb issue -- let alone answer it. And experts say that even when this famous 19th century presidential puzzle is solved, it could be many years before the findings can be applied with any confidence to presidents of more recent vintage.
Lacking any real-life analogy that sufficiently captures the complexity of the Speech-gate puzzle and the challenge facing investigators dedicated to solving it, political scientists say the best comparison may be to the assassination of Major Strasser in the film "Casablanca." If you recall, Humphrey Bogart is standing over the body, holding a smoking gun. Claude Rains says, "Major Strasser has been shot! Round up the usual suspects." And yet the mystery of who killed the general is never solved.
Ever since Watergate, a smoking gun has been the standard for judging a Washington scandal. Many a miscreant has escaped with his reputation undamaged -- or even enhanced by the publicity and pseudo-vindication -- because there was no "smoking gun" such as the Watergate tapes. But now it seems that standard has been lifted. You would think that on the question of who told a lie in a speech, evidence seen on TV by millions of people, might count for something. Apparently not. The Bush administration borrows from Groucho: "Who are you going to believe -- us or your own two eyes?"
The case for the defense is a classic illustration of what lawyers call "arguing in the alternative." The Bushies say (1) it wasn't really a lie, (2) someone else told the lie and (3) the lie doesn't matter. All these defenses are invalid.
(1) Bushies fanned out to the weekend talk shows to note, as if with one voice, that what Bush said was technically accurate. But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush didn't say it was true, you see -- he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpicking, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business -- he said they "learned" it. The difference between "said" and "learned" is that "learned" clearly means there is some preexisting basis for believing whatever-it-is, apart from the fact that someone said it. Is it theoretically possible to "learn" something that is not true? I'm not sure. But it certainly is not possible to say that someone has "learned" a piece of information without clearly intending to imply that you, the speaker, wish the listener to accept it as true. Bush expressed no skepticism or doubt, even though the Brits qualification was added as protection only because doubts had been expressed internally.
(2) The Bush argument blaming the CIA for failing to remove this falsehood from the president's speech is based on the logic of "stop me before I lie again." Bush spoke the words, his staff wrote them, those involved carefully overlooked reasons for skepticism. It would have been nice if the CIA had caught this falsehood, but its failure to do so hardly exonerates others. Furthermore, the CIA is part of the executive branch, as is the White House staff. If the president can disown anything he says that he didn't actually find out or think up and write down all by himself, he is more or less beyond criticism. Which seems to be the idea here.
The president says he has not lost his confidence in CIA Director George Tenet. How sweet. If someone backed me up in a lie and then took the fall for me when it was exposed, I'd have confidence in him too.
(3) The final argument: It was only 16 words! What's the big deal? The bulk of the case for war remains intact. Logically, of course, this argument will work for any single thread of the pro-war argument. Perhaps the president will tell us which particular points among those he and his administration have made are the ones we are supposed to take seriously. Or how many gimmes he feels entitled to take in the course of this game. Is it a matter of word count? When he hits 100 words, say, are we entitled to assume that he cares whether the words are true?
Posted by Maria at July 17, 2003 10:53 AM | TrackBackI'll agree with you on one thing: if there was any doubt, as there obviously was, then the big, bad statement should have been left out of the speech. Bush also shouldn't be throwing blame around; it was his speech and he should ultimately take responsibility for it. When I was a supervisor in the AF I didn't blame my troops when something I allowed them to do didn't turn out well; the person in the leadership position needs to take responsibility for the actions of the people under him.
However, I really don't think he lied. There's a lot of reports coming out lately that believe the British, who still stand by their assertions, had more to their intelligence than just the false documents. The speculation is that they may have gotten the information from French intelligence (contradiction in terms), which seems reasonable since Niger is a French colony, and because of agreements between intelligence agencies aren't allowed to reveal the true source.
My personal belief is that Bush included the infamous 16 words because he was given access to the real intelligence and may have had reason to believe that the true source would be revealed eventually. If it was the French, then he should have known better since their major policy seems to be to discredit us under any circumstance. Bottom line, I don't think he lied at all but can't reveal the true source. He had enough justification already and should have left the statement out of his address.
Personally, I think both sides are jumping the gun; this hasn't played out yet and in the end one of the sides is going to be awfully embarrassed, and I don't think it'll be the president (at least not on this issue). No one has any real evidence that he lied any more than anyone has any evidence he didn't, and I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill, just like they did with Clinton's famous "is" controversy. In the end, the world is still a safer place without Saddam Hussein, and no one can deny that.
If you really want to attack Bush I'll give you a few real bullets that I won't argue:
1) He needs to quit being so secretive; it would be in his best interest to start giving more speeches to the people to let them know what's going on. I think this is the true reason his polls are slipping; he's making the same mistakes his father did.
2) He needs to do something about North Korea. Next to Iraq they are the biggest threat, and it could be argued that they were a bigger threat. He's not proactive enough on this issue, and if he doesn't do something we're going to end up with a nuclear-powered maniac on our hands.
3) He needs to do something to reign in the ridiculous spending going on in Congress. The war on terror by itself doesn't justify the huge increases in the deficit; a lot of members of Congress used the war as a way of slipping their pork into the spending bills and it needs to be stopped.
In the end, I still support Bush, but as you can see I can still be objective about it. If you want to attack him at least use arguments you can back up.
Posted by: lee at July 17, 2003 11:28 AMAll of my arguments can be backed up. By the truth. Thanks.
"No one has any real evidence that he lied any more than anyone has any evidence he didn't, and I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill, just like they did with Clinton's famous "is" controversy. In the end, the world is still a safer place without Saddam Hussein, and no one can deny that."
But you can't argue with people who don't think it's a big deal to lie to the entire world about something VERY, VERY IMPORTANT involving the lives of thousands of people. This isn't a blow job and I think it's sad that people insist on reverting back to that as if it has something to do with the issues at hand. I honestly don't think the world is a safer place without Saddam. I don't think it made any fucking difference at all. If we couldn't get rid of him without killing all those people and sacrificing the lives of so many soldiers, then the world is not any safer. Not for all those people who are dead. And if he didn't have any WMD, which it appears he didn't (and I don't know when it became the responsibility of those who never believed they existed in the first place to prove that they DON'T exist, when they still haven't been found...), then he wasn't the threat that we were led to believe he was. Therefore, with or without him, the only people it makes a difference to are his people who will not have to suffer under his rule. Now they have to suffer under ours. To the rest of the world, it is not an even remotely safer place.
Posted by: Maria at July 17, 2003 11:50 AM"Bottom line, I don't think he lied at all but can't reveal the true source. He had enough justification already and should have left the statement out of his address."
Give me a break. And no, he didn't have enough justification. Not if there are no WMDs.
Posted by: Maria at July 17, 2003 11:53 AMI can't resist the bait.
The problem was one word, not sixteen. He said, "the British have *learned*" when it would have been better to say "the British have *concluded*."
The British government still stands by its intelligence on this matter.
Posted by: Graham Lester at July 17, 2003 11:56 AMAbsolutely right Graham. The fact that the British still stand by their intelligence is enough for me to believe that there was more to this than the fake documents. There's no one denying that Saddam wanted to develop nuclear weapons, so why does it seem so impossible that he was shopping around for uranium?
Maria, you seem to have missed the point. What you are stating as "the truth" has never been proven. You seem to be basing your arguments on slanted opinions and editorials because you have a bad "gut" feeling about Bush, and no evidence to the contrary will ever be good enough for you. This may be fine for Dionne Warwick and her circle of friends, but I form my opinions on verifiable facts, and nothing on this has been proven to be true or untrue yet.
If anything should be troubling to you, it's the fact that the WMD's haven't been found yet. Not because it points to the president "lying" about them, because it doesn't; the whole world, including Saddam himself back in 1998, said he had them. The fact that they haven't been found worries me because now we don't know who has them and what their intentions with them are.
You may think the US is some big evil empire, but if you honestly believe that the Iraqi people are just as bad off under our administration as they were under Saddam's there's something seriously flawed with your logic processes. The "thousands" of people who died did so under him; our troops and administrators aren't throwing people into meat grinders and slaughtering the families of our political enemies. Do you really have no compassion for such terrible human rights violations?
You also missed my point with the Clinton analogy; I thought it was wrong to blast and impeach him over a blowjob too. I didn't care if he was having orgies in the oval office; big deal. I don't like him because of his actions, or lack thereof, as president. My point was that this argument over the Niger thing is as ridiculous as the Clinton "is" controversy.
Posted by: lee at July 17, 2003 12:32 PMPS - Wishing I hadn't left BH yet? Don't hate me because I'm stubborn :)
Posted by: lee at July 17, 2003 12:33 PMI don't hate you Lee! And I don't believe the US is a big evil empire, but I do think that the Bush Administration does not care how many lives are sacrificed in order to accomplish what is on their twisted agenda and I think their actions have shown that. Smoke screens going up every which way, warped information, fishy circumstance piled ontop of fishy politics...
I don't base my thoughts or feelings on other people's opinions Lee. I base them on what I see happening in the world around me. And what I see is that this administration cannot be trusted to convey the truth to the American people or to the world. That is enough for me to withhold my support, because if you support Bush, you can't possibly know what it is that you are REALLY supporting, because everything is so goddamn foggy with them. And I don't think it's a fucking accident that he doesn't address the people enough or that the administration is so secretive. I think it's deliberate and deeply troubling.
Posted by: Maria at July 17, 2003 01:19 PMMaria, I agree with most of your last posting and can't argue your feelings on the matter. To a level, what you've said about Bush can be said about any politician, let alone the president, although I'll acknowledge that Bush's level of secrecy in his dealings is greater than any president I can remember, and he needs to do something about it before he goes the way his father did. I don't defend him on the secrecy issue, and in fact said as much in my first posting.
I will add my own "gut" feelings on this issue though. My personal feeling is that Bush doesn't have any terrible hidden agendas and that his actions are based completely on a desire to protect the country from terrorists. I got that gut feeling from the look on his face and in his eyes the day he first surveyed the scene of the 9/11 tragedy. That day affected us all deeply, but I think him more so because he was president and commander-in-chief when it happened. I think he feels responsible since it happened on his watch, and I think it's a completely understandable and human response and he just wants to make sure it can't happen again.
Of course, I have nothing to base this on any more than any of you have to base your opinion that he's stupid and dangerous. I still support him because overall I think he is doing well and I believe he is the best person for the job when it comes to national security, and in my opinion that is the most important job of any government, especially since 9/11.
Anyway, that's my two cents on the issue.
Posted by: lee at July 17, 2003 07:53 PMI think it's pretty naive to believe that Bush had no ulterior agenda - such as furthering his own political career and gaining support from the American people which was previously absent. It worked didn't it? There is no better way to get the people behind their president than to have a war.
"That day affected us all deeply, but I think him more so because he was president and commander-in-chief when it happened. I think he feels responsible since it happened on his watch, and I think it's a completely understandable and human response and he just wants to make sure it can't happen again."
Are you serious? I honestly don't believe that Bush has done a single thing to thwart terrorism. All he has done is perpetrate violence on others who had nothing to do with terrorism and due to supposed "homeland security" people are being detained without the right to a fair trial or even a fucking lawyer. If George Bush wanted to do something about terrorism, he wouldn't have been on vacation the entire month of August 2001 while important intelligence was being received and ignored. Fuck him. He's responsible. And he SHOULD feel bad that it happened on his watch, because I believe he could have done something to prevent it.
Now he is dumping hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars into this war every single day while OUR country is in dire straits. He can't even give what he promised to humanitarian aid because all our tax dollars are being spent on KILLING. This is an outrage. His presidency is an outrage. And yes, I feel that in my heart and in my gut as much as I see it in the fucking headlines every single day. I don't live in a barn where I receive small tidbits of information and jump to wild conclusions. How much more evidence do you need that he is dangerous? People are dead, people are poor and suffering, people don't even have proper healthcare, come to New York and check out the schools. We can't even afford to educate our kids in this country. But he's spending MY MONEY on his games. His administration is richer than any other before it. The corporations who he protects escape criticism and profit massively. He doesn't care about me. He doesn't care about you. He doesn't care about poor little Iraqi children or Afghanis or all the people who are dead because he had to show Saddam who is boss. He doesn't care. That's what I see in his eyes AND IN HIS ACTIONS and in his endless half-truths and all the shit that he sweeps under the carpet and gets away with. He's not an honest man. He can't be trusted.
Posted by: Maria at July 18, 2003 12:25 PMP.S. To say "none of these things are fact, none of this has been proven, etc.", many of his misdeeds are not proven because he is a reptile and he GETS AWAY with his lies. It was proven that he knew Kenneth Lay after he claimed that he didn't. Why would he lie about that? Because he assisted Enron in perpetrating a fraud? Because he didn't want to be associated with someone who did so? Why does he lie and why does he get away with it? Because it all gets brushed off. Because he's invincible. It's not right. Clinton lied and he ended up on the chopping block. Why hasn't Bush ever ended up on the chopping block? Because people don't mind corporate fraud as much as they mind blowjobs...?
And even when it is proven, those who support him just brush it off too, like, oh that's no big deal, what are all these crazy liberals so worked up about? We're worked up about the fact that this megalomaniacal liar is running our country!
Posted by: Maria at July 18, 2003 12:31 PMOK, I don't know what news you're watching but it must not be the same as mine; sounds like you get yours through Hollywood. I'm with you on the corporate issues, but that's not something new with this president and probably isn't something that's going to go away with any of the next ones, not to mention members of Congress, regardless of their political party. He's not on the chopping block like Clinton was? Give me a break; I've been hearing "impeachment" all over the news from the liberal candidates. Personally I think they're all going to look stupid (well, they all already do) when David Kaye comes back from Iraq with his WMD report, but we'll have to wait and see.
In any case, you're entitled to your OPINION as much as I am. You may think I'm naive, but I think you may need to cut back on the Tom Clancy books and movies a bit; you're seeing way too much conspiracy, but I've been around a few years longer than you and I'm seeing pretty much the same thing I've seen with every administration since I was a teenager.
Watch the news a little more objectively; Tony Blair's speech to Congress yesterday was great, and I saw a couple good interviews with members of the senate intelligence committee concerning their interview with George Tenet (both Republicans and Democrats) and an excellent one with Alexander Haig on Hannity & Colmes. He had some interesting comments about our country's lack of real statesmen.
You're worried about where billions of our tax dollars are going? Fine: look at congress. Both parties have been on a spending spree since 9/11, and that's where the waste is, and that's where the accountability has to be made. I don't care what you say about the war on terrorism; I spent 12 years in the military and I've been around the world and had access to intelligence before. If you really believe Bush has done nothing to thwart terrorism you are really incredibly naive. Sure is funny how the terrorists are flocking to Iraq to take on our military instead of attacking our homeland. Those billions are dollars well spent. Would you have rather he sat on his ass and did nothing? That's what Clinton did, and it gave the terrorists the courage to commit mass murder on 9/11. Bush has done a lot to discourage terrorism; Clinton is the one really responsible for 9/11. Fuck Bush? Lady, you are clueless.
Posted by: lee at July 18, 2003 05:01 PMWell it looks like we are just going to have to agree to disagree aren't we?
I think we've both made it pretty clear where we stand, and as always, nobody here is changing anyone else's mind. By the way, I did see Tony Blair's speech and he is definitely a great speaker. That doesn't make me feel any differently about these issues.
As for conspiracy, honey, conspiracy is not just a word. And I'm sure with all of your experience you must know that well. Anyone who has ever read John Stockwell or any other former CIA agent knows that conspiracy is alive and well in Washington. Why is it considered naive to believe in conspiracy when it's been shown time and time again that it is often the wind beneath the wings of government? I think it would be naive NOT to believe that a conspiracy is probably present when there are so many unanswered questions and an ever changing agenda with respect to the war in Iraq and the supposed war on terrorism.
ANYWAY. Lee, thank you for the enlightening debate. I always like hearing what you have to say even if it sends me into a momentary tizzy. :o)
Posted by: Maria at July 19, 2003 10:24 AMI still love you too :) I don't think it's naive to believe in conspiracy, but I think it's naive to place so much emphasis on it for this one president, and to think it's doom for the world because of this one man. It's been going on throughout history and I'm sure it will continue no matter who's holding the high seat. I already made it clear I don't support everything Bush does. Believe me, if the dems could offer a decent replacement I would vote for him/her, but I don't see any hope in those 9 stooges currently up for nomination.
Well, we know where we stand, so let's move onto something more fun since my whole reason for coming here was to get away from this stuff. You've had me in a tizzy too dear! Let's talk about the circus; I love clowns :) OK, OK I'm just teasing!!
PS - One last word; Tony Blair is a great speaker, and if you don't know it already he's as liberal as they come. Iraq and the war on terror are probably the only thing that he would ever have in common with Bush, and I found that to be a particularly enlightening point when considering how I felt about all this. OK, that's it I promise!
Posted by: lee at July 19, 2003 06:42 PMGreetings Maria et al!!!
I am gonna go off topic here but I've been away mostly for several weeks on the Vineyard. I decided in a weak moment to expore the latest threads on "BOYCOTT HOLLYWOOD"
Seems I've pissed "American Girl" off :-(
Read this!!!!
*******************************************
And I repeat myself to you: get one yourself. You must have something better to do tonight than to antagonize message boards you despise. I, at least, like to have halfway-civilized discussions regarding current topics, and if someone not-so-civilized comes along, then it is my hope that person is dealt with accordingly.
I happen to be a moderator, and it is my responsibility to make sure conversations stay in line. What is your excuse for being here, if you obviously have little if any use or respect for the opinions expressed here?
I personally hope you find one soon. I have better things to do with my night than trying to play the role of troll-bait.
**********************************************
AND THIS:
**********************************************
Chose...
In the future, you will refrain from telling me directly what to do, or I will deal with you in a calm fashion that I guarantee you will be less than pleased with.
You did not "merely respond" in this innocent manner you would like to believe. Rather, you were your antagonizing, goading self.
If you want me to calm down, you will not tell me what to do. Your accusations of me "doing what I accusing you to do," and demands to "stop and calm down" have me so enraged that my hands are shaking to the degree that several typos would hardly surprise me in this case.
Do you really want me to calm down? Then you will leave me alone and you will stop, or at the very least develop a respectable attitude to replace your condescending one. Otherwise, I will be more than happy to show you the door.
***********************************************
CHRIST! That oughta shut me up huh???
I'd like to BITCH SLAP THAT little MORON :-)
__________________
She is really a psychotic fucking biaaatch.
"Do you really want me to calm down? Then you will leave me alone and you will stop, or at the very least develop a respectable attitude to replace your condescending one"
In BH speak, "respectable attitude" translates into "an opinion that does not clash with mine" Can you say "mental institution?" I think you should torment her with your "condescending" opinions until she cracks and has to be committed. Hahahaaa!
Posted by: Maria at July 28, 2003 03:00 PMWould willingly do as you request Maria.. but alas I have been exiled.
LisaS has given me the ol' heave-ho ;-)
Why do I feel somehow honored??
Check out what I wrote at the "The Craziest Thing" thread here at BBD.
Sasha says we all should form a "BANISHED BY BOYCOTT HOLLYWOOD" website.. hehehehehehehe
Posted by: Chosesinconnues at July 28, 2003 06:06 PM