CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN all jumped Tuesday to publicize the claims in a new book by a left-wing journalist, Ron Suskind, that President Bush knew before the war Iraq had no WMD and that to justify the war the administration forged a letter to prove a connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda. The journalists were unfazed by denials from former CIA Director George Tenet, which they dutifully cited, nor the fact the letter couldn't have impacted the public before the war since it didn't become public until nine months into the war.
In the morning, NBC's Today showcased an “exclusive” interview with Suskind as Meredith Vieira trumpeted the “new bombshell book that claims the White House deliberately misled the American public about the case for war in Iraq. The author, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist.” (Geoff Dickens' NB post on that interview.) CBS's Early Show ran a full story and Wolf Blitzer made it his lead on CNN's The Situation Room.
In the evening, the NBC Nightly News aired a full report while MSNBC's Countdown, not surprisingly, led with Keith Olbermann's “cable exclusive” with Suskind on what MSNBC described on screen as “WAR CRIME” -- followed by John Dean on the imagined prosecutorial implications. NBC anchor Brian Williams saw “gasoline” being “thrown on a fire that's never really gone out,” as if the media aren't pouring it:
Tonight, gasoline has been thrown on a fire that's never really gone out. The accusation that the Bush administration badly misled the American public about the case for war with Iraq. In a new book, journalist Ron Suskind claims he has new evidence to show the case was more than a failure of intelligence -- it was, he writes, an out and out deception.
David Gregory proceeded to recount “the strongest accusation against this President, that he misled the American people about the case for war in Iraq” as well as the “explosive charge” that “the White House ordered the CIA to write a fake letter.”
Blitzer, who will have Suskind on his program Wednesday, opened the first (4 PM EDT) hour of Tuesday's The Situation Room:
Shocking allegations about the President's determination to invade Iraq. A brand new book claims the White House forged a key piece of evidence and turned a blind eye to another. This hour, the book's bombshells and the administration's adamant denials.
Unmentioned by Olbermann: That the book, 'The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism,' is published by HarperCollins, owned by the evil right-winger Rupert Murdoch.
The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes undermined Suskind's allegations as he observed, on the magazine's blog:
Ron Suskind has written another book. It's getting lots of attention. And the main charge is almost certainly false -- which is the same thing that happened the last time Ron Suskind wrote a book.
Hayes proposed:
To believe Suskind's account...you would have to believe: 1) that the Bush administration ordered the CIA, in writing, to forge a letter that was a rather obvious hoax; 2) that the CIA, hostile to the Bush administration and leaking against it at every turn, eagerly complied.
ABC's Good Morning America and World News had the good news judgment -- at least on Tuesday -- to not hype and give plausibility to the book's charges.
On Tuesday's Early Show, the MRC's Kyle Drennen noticed, news reader Russ Mitchell set up a full story:
A new book out this morning accuses the White House of trying to manipulate the intelligence used to support the war in Iraq. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more. Bill good morning to you.
From the White House, Plante began:
Morning to you, Russ. The book, by author Ron Suskind, charges that the Bush White House ordered up a fake letter from Saddam Hussein's chief of intelligence linking Iraq with the 9/11 attack and with an ongoing nuclear program, neither of which was true...
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide this transcript of the story on the Tuesday, August 5 NBC Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Tonight, gasoline has been thrown on a fire that's never really gone out. The accusation that the Bush administration badly misled the American public about the case for war with Iraq. In a new book, journalist Ron Suskind claims he has new evidence to show the case was more than a failure of intelligence -- it was, he writes, an out and out deception. Our chief White House correspondent David Gregory has more.
DAVID GREGORY: It is the strongest accusation against this President, that he misled the American people about the case for war in Iraq.
GEORGE W. BUSH, October 7, 2002: We cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun. It could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
GREGORY: In his new book, "The Way of the World," journalist Ron Suskind argues there was evidence before the war that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The source, Iraq's intelligence chief, Tahir Jaheel Habbush, who Suskind writes first met with British intelligence early in 2003, months before the invasion was launched.
RON SUSKIND, THE WAY OF THE WORLD: He clearly is offering the kind of evidence, the kind of testimony as to the mind of Saddam Hussein, as to the fact that there's no WMD.
GREGORY: Why didn't the administration heed the warnings?
SUSKIND: The President wants to go to war from the very first National Security Council meeting of his presidency. It was always a matter of how do we make the case.
GREGORY: Then-CIA director George Tenet said today the author is wrong. In a statement, Tenet insists that Habbush was considered unreliable. He,
quote, "failed to persuade his British interlocutors that he had anything new to offer in the way of intelligence." There is another explosive charge in the book. In order to bolster the connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Suskind says the White House ordered the CIA to write a fake letter from the Iraqi intelligence chief, Habbush, claiming that 9/11 ring leader Mohammad Atta trained in Iraq prior to September 11. Tonight, the White House calls that allegation absurd, and denies, as the President has repeatedly, ever misleading the public about the need for war. David Gregory, NBC News, Washington.
A longer excerpt from the blog post quoted above from Stephen Hayes:
....In his new book, Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a document reporting that Mohammad Atta had trained in Iraq in the summer of 2001, and that the CIA did so. On its face the claim is suspect, as anyone who has been paying even casual attention to White House-CIA relations over the past several years understands that the relationship has been frosty. The CIA resisted even minor requests from the White House regarding Iraq and terrorism -- including one instance in which the agency refused, for months, to label as "al Qaeda" the al Qaeda operatives in Baghdad in 2002. The Agency insisted on calling them "Egyptian Islamic Jihad" operatives despite the fact that EIJ and al Qaeda had formally merged years earlier and that EIJ had been the trunk of the al Qaeda tree for more than a decade. So this same CIA that for months resisted the more accurate description of these operatives in order to deny the Bush administration a political argument is suddenly acting on White House orders to forge documents? Um, that's unlikely.
And then there are the specifics of the forged document. The letter has Mohammad Atta training in Iraq at a time when he was shuttling back and forth between the U.S. and Spain. There are still gaps in the government's timeline on Atta's whereabouts, but not gaps that would allow him to go through serious "training" in Iraq for any extended period of time. And according to the original report on the letter, the missive not only included the report that Atta trained in Iraq but also advanced claims that al Qaeda operatives facilitated a shipment from Niger to Iraq. So this letter purports to provide evidence on two of the most contentious issues of the war...in three pages. It was clear to me, without ever laying eyes on it, that it was not only a hoax but a really bad hoax. It was so bad, in fact, that I never even made any phone calls to White House or CIA sources to check it out. (I recall laughing about it with one White House source over lunch.)
To believe Suskind's account, then, you would have to believe: 1) that the Bush administration ordered the CIA, in writing, to forge a letter that was a rather obvious hoax; 2) that the CIA, hostile to the Bush administration and leaking against it at every turn, eagerly complied.
Politico's Mike Allen, who broke the story, reported that Suskind "claims that such an operation, part of 'false pretenses' for war, would apparently constitute illegal White House use of the CIA to influence a domestic audience, an arguably impeachable offense."
Sounds damning. But it's hard to take the country to war on such "false pretenses" in March 2003 when the first report of the letter's contents doesn't appear until December 2003. And if the Bush administration went to the trouble of manufacturing such evidence isn't it likely they would have used it? That never happened....
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
*checks watch*
August 5, 2008 - 20:54 ET by candanceSome 12 hours and counting here, and no one has asked Suskind exactly how someone "actually involved" is not an original source.
Also waiting for the glowing coverage of Lone Survivor. Any day now.
Well Well,
August 5, 2008 - 20:56 ET by DelsaWho would have thunk it?
"Bush lied and people died?........Bla Bla Bla Bla.....
delsa
August 5, 2008 - 21:11 ET by MrShyBush HAS lied, and people HAVE died.
When asked if all the media BS has gotten to him, he's often shrugged and said it doesn't get to him. You know he's lying when he says that.
People have died on the battlefield in Iraq, thanks to the constant drumbeat -- from about day 5 of the war -- of "quagmire", "we're losing", "bring the troops home", etc. etc., by the MSM and Dems.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MrS... When asked if all
August 5, 2008 - 21:18 ET by bigtimerMrS...
When asked if all the media BS has gotten to him, he's often shrugged and said it doesn't get to him. You know he's lying when he says that.
Yep, you can see it in his eyes at different military functions that really get to him.
It isn't phony either.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bigtimer
August 5, 2008 - 21:28 ET by MrShyHi. And yeah, he's just too dignified to even recognize all of the nonsense and let it bother him. The guy just goes about doing his job, quietly. He's got to be one of the least full-of-himself Presidents we've ever had. Serious.
I think that's why he infuriates the left so much. He's not full of b.s. charm, or like a rock star. He's a down-home fella, making hard choices in what has to be the most demanding job in the world.
Although, there are times I wish he WOULD go all Clinton on reporters/MSM'ers and wag his finger at them. He won't even do this in his post-presidential life, I'll bet you everything. It's just not him.
Man, what a complete egomaniacal slimeball BJC is, when I look at all the interviews he's done and how he carries himself.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
whatsa matter Shy?
August 5, 2008 - 21:35 ET by candanceYou were less than impressed by this? I thought that was one of his more high brow performances, especially when compared to this.
But as for whining to the press about being smeared, Hillary takes the trophy for that every time.
candance
August 5, 2008 - 21:56 ET by MrShyYou had to do that, huh? :p
I'm all choked up, but in a barfing kind of way.
People (more often liberals) really are suckers for smooth-talking charlatans, aren't they? That slime bucket and his grating wife, Mr. Hope & Change Fist Bumper, Gleamy-Smile Carter, Handsome JFK, etc..
Outside of Reagan, Republicans have been easy-target bores, but that has nothing to do with being a good or bad president.
Bush #2 DOES have charm, but in a very this-is-me way, so that sort of backfires on him a bit. "They" think he's the ultimate charmer/liar, yet they're so off base it's not funny.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
What Bush has to look forward to next year.
August 5, 2008 - 22:12 ET by Biff McCainHow people react to your team when they don't have to sign a pledge of loyalty to get in the auditorium.
http://www.youtube.c...
I know how to win wars!
Um, no, Biff...
August 5, 2008 - 23:24 ET by MrShyHow mindless, liberal-thinking-indoctrinated university infants react to your team when they don't have to sign a pledge of loyalty to get in the auditorium.
But I like how you snuck in the all-encompassing "people". Nice try.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Right Shy - It's unbelievable how Biff is proud of it
August 5, 2008 - 23:34 ET by Dee BunkRepublicans don't go around booing and throwing pies in faces like their immature people do. They think that means their politicians are better. Biffy just doesn't get that it's the Republican people are who are better.
MrS... Plus what
August 5, 2008 - 21:45 ET by bigtimerMrS...
Plus what infuriates the press and the rest of the leftists that are political in this country is he will not back down on the war on terrorists, he truly wants to protect this country, he is steadfast on this...rock solid.
They should be grateful...but heck, they are the enemy within...they have done everything in unison to attempt to ensure our defeat with the tools they have...filthy traitorous ba$tard$.
They would just about die before saying the words "we have defeated the terrorists" or Victory is near...let alone just he word Victory!!!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt, obviously ur dems
August 5, 2008 - 22:27 ET by TruthMongerbt, obviously our dems desperately need to find some sort of way to be relevant
i myself would try suggesting new ideas for improving the country
but betrayal, appeasement, cheerleading for the enemy, and treason certainly is another way to go
Truth
August 5, 2008 - 22:33 ET by Cool Arrowbut betrayal, appeasement, cheerleading for the enemy, and treason certainly is another way to go
That's not another way to go, It's business as usual for the Dems.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
they must know what they're
August 5, 2008 - 22:38 ET by TruthMongerthey must know what they're doing...?
dunno
Yup Truthie
August 5, 2008 - 22:45 ET by Cool ArrowIt has already worked at least twice for the French. They're not speaking German anyway.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
This stuff is proving
August 5, 2008 - 21:07 ET by Richard RomanoThis stuff is proving tiresome -- how many more books need to come out? It's all a bunch of complete b.s.: Saddam was a murderous tyrant who butchered his people, started 5 wars, sponsored terrorism, and violated UN resolutions for 13 years. This is more than enough justification to rid the world of this monster.
You left-wing dimwits need to move on, seriously.
RR... Hear! Hear! I
August 5, 2008 - 21:23 ET by bigtimerRR...
Hear! Hear!
I absolutely could not agree more.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
YAWN
August 5, 2008 - 21:43 ET by TruthMongerthe left adamantly defended hussein
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
UN resolutions got some backbone
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
iraq is now a democracy
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
an ally to the US in the terrorist infested middle east
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
Iraqi's are free now
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
free from a vicious dictator
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
schools are being built
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
businesses are growing
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
peace and prosperity are spreading throughout Iraq
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
the region is more stable and secure now
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
Iran is further and further marginalized
MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA
the truth keeps popping back up
so keep it up lefties - for all of eternity:)
Ora pro nobis Truthie
August 5, 2008 - 21:53 ET by Cool ArrowBut instead of "MANTRA MANTRA MANTRA "
Can we use OOGA-CHAKKA instead.
I find it more soothing to my transcendentalist state.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
i'm easy cool in the
August 5, 2008 - 21:56 ET by TruthMongeri'm easy cool
in the agreeable sense:)
run with it
RR...
August 5, 2008 - 21:34 ET by Clear thinkerBesides, it was the Democrats that kept warning us about Saddam. This is the first time we listen to Dems and this is the thanks we get. Ungrateful b*******.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
it's time to
August 5, 2008 - 21:45 ET by TruthMongerit's time to moveon.org
back to the "stolen" 2000 election, or maybe katrina
The Dems not only warned
August 5, 2008 - 21:46 ET by dboThe Dems not only warned us, in 1998 Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act.
http://en.wikipedia....
democrats mislead for a
August 5, 2008 - 21:50 ET by TruthMongerdemocrats mislead for a living - every single day
i really don't see what their concern is all about
I had an argument with a
August 6, 2008 - 11:50 ET by TjexciteI had an argument with a troother about books that show some treason by the GWB et al. Why the wait and write a book about it rather than tell everyone as soon as one knows that the executive branch is criminal and should be jailed. No answer other than to make money which destroys the credibility and nullify the whole book.
Just like this book. It belongs with all other troother books, don't they have a their own area a yet. Along with all the Anti-bush and antigovernment and antiestablishment
But you know what?
August 5, 2008 - 21:17 ET by MidAmericaBut you know what? Who cares. Combat in Iraq is nearing an end and we are winning. Most people are not dwelling on what happened 5 years ago. And most people recognize the world is better off without Saddam in power.
Who cares? Many people care
August 5, 2008 - 21:50 ET byWho cares? Many people care if our government misleads us. In fact, it was the reason Bill Clinton was impeached.
At the time, the Bob Barrs' of the world howled at the moon about how any lie diminishes the credibility of the president and therefore terminally diminishes his ability to lead the country. If you can't trust the president, the logic went, the country is in a morally induced gridlock.
But in the current situation everyone here is willing to give the White House the benefit of the doubt on questions regarding honesty. It's not only about this pre-invasion of Iraq stuff. It also has to do with the politicization of the DOJ, falsifying environmental studies, blah, blah, blah.
This county was founded on an instinctual distrust of government power. That is the core principle of the Constitution; it is the reason for its existence. The Constitution is meant to protect the people from their government, even in a time of war.
Why are you guys so eager to jettison our core principles to protect the GOP?
Hey fk... Have you
August 5, 2008 - 21:54 ET by bigtimerHey fk...
Have you heard....Victory is near.
How do ya' feel about us winning against the enemy?
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
What does that have to do
August 5, 2008 - 22:04 ET byWhat does that have to do with honesty, dishonesty, and what I wrote?
Just wanted you to honestly
August 5, 2008 - 22:11 ET by bigtimerJust wanted you to honestly answer what I asked.
Simple as that.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
he does not appear very
August 5, 2008 - 22:16 ET by TruthMongerhe does not appear very happy about it
really undermines the Bush slanders i suppose
Oh, now I see your point.
August 5, 2008 - 22:20 ET byOh, now I see your point. The end justifies the means. As long as we win against the enemy then the initial dishonesty should be ignored. Do I have that about right?
bill was impeached for
August 5, 2008 - 22:19 ET by TruthMongerbill was impeached for purgery before a federal grand jury
highly illegal
get some actual evidence flashking
that's another thing this country was founded on
The terms "dishonesty" and
August 5, 2008 - 22:24 ET byThe terms "dishonesty" and "lying" are shorthand for "purgery." Sorry I didn't consult your thesaurus before I posted.
The swapping of my terms for yours doesn't change the thrust of my argument.
Flushking
August 5, 2008 - 22:03 ET by Cool ArrowDo you really think Nanzi Pelosi is trying to save the planet?
You really think the coward's way out didn't embolden our enemies to hit the World Trade Center AGAIN?
You really believe you should be buying carbon credits from Al Gore?
You really believe a young ethnic minority can't make it in America without the benevolent hand of the great white man's charity?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool...
August 5, 2008 - 22:07 ET by Clear thinkerThere you go again with the logical questions. When are you gonna learn?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
sorry Clear
August 5, 2008 - 22:11 ET by Cool ArrowI have these lapses of sanity. I fight them constantly as evidenced by most of my other posts.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Meds...
August 5, 2008 - 22:14 ET by Clear thinkerCool, I'm sure some of our more liberal friends here can turn you on to some meds that would help with that problem. It seems to work for them (insanity).
;-)
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
The questions might not be
August 5, 2008 - 22:16 ET byThe questions might not be illogical but they're certainly off topic.
Is it detrimental to this country if it's president is viewed by the majority of the population as dishonest?
Is it a good thing that most people believe that the justice department is crooked, that justice is no longer blind but blind drunk on its own partisanship?
ROFLMAO
August 5, 2008 - 22:25 ET by bigpapaWhat majority????????
hahahahahahahaha,,, that's rich... like those ABC polls?????
The only blind justice is the libs in circuit courts who always rule extreme left....
YOU are the one who is blind....
NOBAMA 08 !!!
Is it detrimental to the
August 5, 2008 - 22:31 ET by TruthMongerIs it detrimental to the democrats if they obsessively keep lying about our president lying? Siding with dictators and terrorists? The majority of the population seems to think so...
get some actual proof and then get back to us
it's the American way:)
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or not???
August 5, 2008 - 22:58 ET by bigpapabecause you're questions../ statement is... odd????
who is siding with whom and which majority seems to think so?
NOBAMA 08 !!!
what??
August 5, 2008 - 22:31 ET by candanceIs it detrimental to this country if it's president is viewed by the majority of the population as dishonest
Babe there's a big difference between how people and the reality in which they live. I could ask you the same of almost any situation....is it detrimental for Obama to win the White House when the majority of the country sees him as an elitist? Is it detrimental that we're not drilling in ANWR when the majority believe we should be?
That's about as pointless as saying it's bad to pass out carrots in kindergarden because none of the children really like them.
The American public isn't a
August 5, 2008 - 22:57 ET byThe American public isn't a kindergarten class that should be force fed healthy foods. That's rather Straussian; this idea that there are healthy lies, that the rubes can't be trusted with the truth and should therefore be mislead for their own good and the good of the country.
It's as antithetical to the spirit of a democracy as it gets, regardless of how tightly the leading lights in the current administration's early days embraced such theories of government -- Paul Wolfowitz is the first who come to mind as being on the record as a follower of Strauss.
Voters can't make informed decisions in the voting booth with all of these "healthy lies" in the air.
um kay
August 5, 2008 - 23:05 ET by candanceI never advocated "healthy lies" or ever implied that it was okay to mislead people. However my point was that public opinion is often not a very good indicator of reality.
Newsbusters exists as proof of that - the MSM tells us exactly what they want us to hear (there's this book that makes Bush look bad) and hides from us the stuff they don't want us to hear (the military found yellowcake in Iraq).
And also, most average Americans can't be bothered to keep up with politics anyway. Half of them still think the GOP is running Congress and less than that could accurately name the Speaker of the House.
People believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. You say Americans are smarter than children. In some cases I disagree.
Please use Google, a simple
August 5, 2008 - 23:30 ET byPlease use Google, a simple search, and you will see that the Yellow Cake you're talking about wasn't found. It was actually being sequestered and guarded by UN inspectors since the aftermath of the first Gulf War.
Just look it up. It's absolutely true.
Furthermore, I'm not saying that American adults are universally smarter than children. I'm saying that they are adult citizens of this country and as such have a right to the truth. Because in the end, this is a country, society, and government based on the idea of self government - a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
We can't govern ourselves and hold those we elect accountable without the unvarnished truth.
flashking
August 5, 2008 - 23:42 ET by MrShy"I'm saying that they are adult citizens of this country and as such have a right to the truth. Because in the end, this is a country, society, and government based on the idea of self government - a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
We can't govern ourselves and hold those we elect accountable without the unvarnished truth."
Flashking, Flashking, Flaaaaaaaaaaaaashkiiiing.....
This is precisely why there's a site like NewBusters.
Hopefully, as you continue to hang out here -- which is happening because it is true that those on the right are both right AND tolerant/open minded enough to engage and debate liberals when they join up -- you'll come to recognize the true pink elephant in the room, that's been lying through it's teeth and continues to lie, shaping public opinion to their ideology..... the bulk of the Main-Stream -Media.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Evening Shy. You have a new
August 6, 2008 - 19:33 ET by RukusEvening Shy. You have a new fan! That was so spot on! I wish I had writing skills like that! You are so right about the MSM, I'm so sick of them I don't even listen anymore, as I have posted before. Lib=lie! Spot on man, spot on!
"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"
I know flash
August 5, 2008 - 23:46 ET by candanceI know about that yellowcake being held by the UN. My point was that the American media never touched it, and furthermore I mentioned that as one example you'd already heard of - there's a lot more out there.
And again I never said anything about the hiding the truth. You keep miunderstanding me. You originally asked if it was detrimental for a large portion of society to think they're being lied to. I'm trying to say that when the government is being as honest as they can be, then they really can't help it if people don't believe them. You can't look at a lazy, uninformed, disengaged society and call their distrust of the president a legitimate problem.
I could just as easily turn the tables on you: isn't it detrimental that Congress' approval is nearly single digits? Superficially yes, but when you consider how many of those "unhappy" voters can't name their own congress critters or even tell which party is in charge, you have a different story.
Good Point Flash
August 5, 2008 - 22:31 ET by Cool ArrowI agree with you that the Justice Department needs to start enforcing the Immigration laws, start deporting all those illegals, prosecute the employers (I know you hate this brown slavery shamefest as much as I do), fast track bribery cases against Ted Stevens and William Jefferson.
Lots of stuff that can be done to clean up Justice.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
F-king
August 5, 2008 - 22:19 ET by RESTLESS 1"This county was founded on an instinctual distrust of government power.
That is the core principle of the Constitution; it is the reason for
its existence."
Then why is your side so damned determined to have govt. run every part of our lives? Why are you so afraid of "State's Rights", also in the Constitution?
Oh, and in answer to your question, where is your proof that Bush or his administration has lied? There was proof against Clinton, video and DNA.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
yay flash is here!!
August 5, 2008 - 22:20 ET by candanceI was wondering when the entertainment would show up.
(yes, it's your evil ex Cadence here to make your life miserable)
Many people care if our government misleads us. In fact, it was the reason Bill Clinton was impeached.
Um no sweetie, he was impeached for purging himself under oath in a courtroom.
any lie diminishes the credibility of the president and therefore terminally diminishes his ability to lead the country
This part, however, is true.
everyone here is willing to give the White House the benefit of the doubt on questions regarding honesty
Excuse us while we count verified stories of yellowcake and other weaponry found in Iraq. And please excuse us while we consider the sanctions imposed by the UN dating all the way back to the early 90s. Saddam's exploits have been well documented - and well hidden by the western media. Thus no need for "benefit of the doubt" because the proof is in the pudding.
It also has to do with the politicization of the DOJ, falsifying environmental studies, blah, blah, blah.
You can't just throw out random accusations and end with "blah blah" as if that's enough to make your point. The DOJ has always been staffed by people who are loyal to a certain administration. That's about as obvious as asking why a president chooses partisan supporters for his cabinet. Please show evidence that Bush was the first president to impose such a rule or admit it's nothing but a handy accusation. As for falsifying government studies, link please (here's a hint: Media Matters doesn't count as a reliable source. I hold myself to the same standard and only link to professional news outlets).
This county was founded on an instinctual distrust of government power
Says the guy who trusts the government enough to punish Big Oil, save the planet, and handle a multi-trillion dollar budget. Please. Tell us another joke before we stop laughing.
The Constitution is meant to protect the people from their government
But it isn't meant to protect oil company employees, gun owners, unborn babies, or tax payers. So in essense the Constitution only protects certain groups?
Why are you guys so eager to jettison our core principles to protect the GOP?
Why are you so eager to watch the federal government grow ever larger and more controlling - as long as it targets those people over there? Who is it who is really working to undermine the Constitution?
But on second thought...
August 6, 2008 - 09:07 ET by Karmacandance,
You were so correct when you wrote: ..."he was impeached for purging himself under oath in a courtroom."
You have a wonderful way with words :)
I'm confused
August 6, 2008 - 13:21 ET by wizardjrI thought he did that on her dress.....??
flashking
August 5, 2008 - 22:26 ET by MrShyFor us "eager-to-jettison-our-core-principle" GOP'ers (is that dramatic sounding hyperbole from the hypocritical left?) please tell how the government intentionally did things to mislead it's people, with regards to the Iraq war.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Libs aren't interested in truth
August 5, 2008 - 22:35 ET by jefflebowskiThey are interested in weakening the US by any means possible. They blame the US first and always while giving comfort to our enemies. To hell with them all!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Here's one example. Just
August 5, 2008 - 22:47 ET byHere's one example. Just the first one that comes to mind --
When, right on the heels of the Anthrax attacks, Senator John McCain claimed that according to his sources in the government those deadly spores were linked to Iraq on Meet the Press -- when your presidential candidate said that on national television, I think you could call it misleading.
When, in the same case, undisclosed high-level government sources told ABC news that the substance bentonite was detected in the anthrax, an additive they said linked this stuff to Iraq, and that little lie was told for days on the national news isn't that misleading? It was later learned that tests for such a compound were never conducted let alone produced a smoking gun for Iraqi involvement.
okay flash
August 5, 2008 - 22:56 ET by candanceYour examples are legit, assuming everything is as you stated (not trying to call you a liar, just don't remember that and am assuming your memory is correct).
First of all I refuse to carry water for John McCain, so if he made up a story like that it's not on me. Secondly I thought we were talking about Bush but you seem to jumping around a bit.
As for the rumors floating around ABC I'd like a link to examine the specimen further.
Thanks candance, I was
August 5, 2008 - 23:04 ET byThanks candance,
I was responding to MrShy's request that I offer an example of the government trying to mislead the public.
John McCain was at the time a high ranking senator, making highly misleading claims regarding this country's first bio-terrorism attack. The fear that followed fueled the public's support for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
well
August 5, 2008 - 23:10 ET by candanceIn all fairness it's a stretch to say that the Anthrax scare is what led to support for the war. Sometimes you guys like to pretend Clinton's Operation Iraqi Freedom never happened, the first Gulf War never really happened either, and the UN hadn't really been cracking down on Saddam for eons.
There wasn't any need to invent a scare to get support for the war. For a lot of Americans it was a no-brainer.
How stupid are the MSM talking heads???
August 5, 2008 - 21:36 ET by ScrapironI guess they forgot to check their own archives (film and recordings) of the 20+ democrats in the 90's saying streight out that Saddam had WMD and must be taken care of. If that fails they're simple minds they might just try the congressional record for actual hearings and a bill(s) passed and signed by Slick demanding the removal of Saddam and his WMD.
Not one person with an IQ above 'insane' should watch one minute of the Lame Stream Media lies. Find out the "Major" sponsors on each network and send them down the sewer with the Lame Stream Media. There must be a way of identifying the sponsors without actually watched any of the networks. The sewage plant might have enough chemicals to turn them into clean water.
I haven't missed a thing in the years I have ignored the idiots and refused to allow them to be watched in my home.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Great minds...
August 5, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Clear thinkerSee my post above!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
no scrapiron
August 5, 2008 - 21:44 ET by candanceYou're obviously missing a very important detail here....
Dick Cheney and Halliburton used their weather machine technology to find a way to go back in time. They returned to the 90s, planted evidence against Saddam, reworked Clinton's budget to remove the surplus, and hired Monica to seduce BJ.
Then they showed back up in 2003 ready to launch an invasion.
This is the only feasible explanation we have. Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler explained it all to me.
Is that the same weather
August 5, 2008 - 21:49 ET by dboIs that the same weather machine technology that they used to create Katrina?
Bush lied
August 5, 2008 - 21:38 ET by rick007Same old crap. The MSM is so stupid they can not even come up with something new to spew.
Obama speaks ,he lies and they overlook that.
Then theres three bandaid. I;m a war hero. HaHaHa
Oh yes I did not have sexual relations with that Lewinski woman.
Yet thay have no proof Bush lied.But they keep beating the drumb.
Oh yes what about the 400 tons of Yellowcake we removed from Iraq ? Joe Wilson.
Then there that dumb blond Plaim broad.
Opps!!! and what about the doctored papers about Bushes time in the NG.
And on and on it goes.
Twice Bush took them to the ropes and beat the hell out of the Democratic Libs.
Their just pissed because Acorn failed to come through for them twice. HAHAHA
and Dan Rather continues to
August 5, 2008 - 21:48 ET by TruthMongerand Dan Rather continues to push the National Gaurd scandal of gargantous proportions
ya know that fire has never gone completely out has it?!?!?!!?
can't some write another book about it please?!?!??!
a bombshell?!?!?!?
I'll do it Truthie
August 5, 2008 - 21:56 ET by Cool ArrowAs I remember 1973, they were offering us 6 month early outs with full GI bill benefits.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
well, I'm shocked
August 5, 2008 - 21:55 ET by FAQsI've been following this subject pretty closely, done a lot of my own research, and thought I'd done a fairly good job of listing the major events leading up to the war. And I'm pretty sure I have never, before now, heard that Atta supposedly trained in Iraq during the summer of 2001. This a major attempt at rewriting history.
This journalist won a "what kind of prize"??????
August 5, 2008 - 22:00 ET by bigpapaAny time I see a "blank prize" winning anything... I tend to get.... suspicious... regardless of party affiliation..
Especially when brother Gore has a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.... now that we know what that is worth...
Excuse me while I go to the mens room and wipe with my NOBLE PEACE PRIZE TP.....
Most of these idiots use ghost writers anyway.... so do not put stock in anything they say..
NOBAMA 08 !!!
dumb question
August 5, 2008 - 21:56 ET by gopsteveI always hear the word "acorn" tossed out as if everyone knows what it is about. I am up on politics and news, but I know nothing of acorn, except it's something shady Obama was/is involved in.
Help me here!
Anti GOP book =
August 5, 2008 - 22:05 ET by gopsteveAnti GOP book = "Bombshell!"
Anti Dem book = "Swiftboating"
I am really concerned about the future of the GOP. First, they are pretty much spineless, and the msm trumpet any bad news about the GOP and minimizes or ignores any bad news for Dems.
Obama, if he wins, will ruin talk radio and legalize millions of illegals, who will happily vote Dem.
indicted lefties = ACORN
August 6, 2008 - 13:34 ET by wizardjrACORN is ostensibly formed to sign up (register) voters. They have registered 872 graveyards, 377 pets, 24875 illegal aliens, and that's just this year. They never seem to find many Republicans to register. I seem to remember someone finding a load of registration forms that got recycled before getting registered. Seems none of them were Dimocrats.
If you Google ACORN you'll get the front story. If you add the word indictment you'll get the rest of the story. Funny how Google doesn't return the illegal activites with the simple scan. Looks like more fingerprint from Soros to me.
Barack Obama vs Saddam Hussein
August 5, 2008 - 22:02 ET by BarkerFirst of all, the 'Nets' credibilty went out the window a long time ago. They have none. It's just another election year hoax they'll get drunk on and then see the handwriting on the wall.
Secondly, in the process of going on the offense against terrorists, the United States has liberated 50+ million people from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in Iraq not only eliminated Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of the U.S., as a threat, it also freed millions of people from his tortuous rule. By targeting the Taliban in Afghanistan, it freed a people; it freed the girl being buried to her head and stoned to death for that most capital crime of smiling at a boy. Who longs for those days?
Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq. He said he was for the war in Afghanistan, but he's never said whether he would of sat down with the Taliban first. And would Barack Obama have met, without preconditions, with Saddam Hussein?
Peace in our time? I don't think so.
How to know Bush is honest
August 5, 2008 - 22:05 ET by WingletDriverMy brother is a cop. He jokes about having a "drop bag" (which is a small bag of marijuana) to drop at a detainees feet if they need something to pull him in (he really is just joking). Don't you think if Bush (and Cheney, Tenet, Rumsfeld, et al) faked the evidence to begin with, they wouldn't have planted evidence once the invasion was underway?
Really, this guy is accusing them of some crappy hoax (about as bad as Dan Rather's Natn'l Guard letter) but can't realize that all Bush has to do is set up some covert flight to drop some WMDs in the middle of one these facilities--only one C-5 or C-17 could deliver enough material. Bush and Cheney, after all, orchestrated a war under "false pretenses", have built "secret prisons" throughout the world, used rendition to torture innocents and were probably behind 9/11 to begin with. But these evil genii couldn't figure out how to plant evidence.
IMHO, the lack of evidence shows two things conclusively--the intel may have been wrong and Bush is an honest man unwilling to plant exculpatory evidence.
bombshell allegations?
August 5, 2008 - 22:45 ET by jondelwicheAnd here I thought the nets were
doing some John Edwards stories........
Bush had the "ba..s", Clinton's were busy doing something else
August 5, 2008 - 22:50 ET by wdhorningFirst, this numbskull failed to mention that there was a standing Congressional resolution to have an Iraqi regime change long before Bush 43 was on the scene. Clinton wanted it done too. Therefore, even if Bush made up a pretense, it was consistent with US policy. And when he says Bush thought about it before Afghanistan, well of course he did, because there was this standing resolution that it was on the USA's "to do" list. So he is actually praising Bush, but he is too stupid to know that.
Therefore, Ron Suskind's argument is "smashed to bits" by the above simple facts.
In fact, pretense or not, Bush did what Clinton did not do because Bush "had the ba..s" to get the job done. Clinton only used his to prove his manhood in another way.
Ron Suskind's book only contributes to a waste of trees.
Now, the facts:
One final comment, IMHO, Suskind should be
Just so everyone's clear on
August 5, 2008 - 23:55 ET by jdhawkJust so everyone's clear on what exactly is in the Joint Resolution Authorizing War in Iraq that the ibtards continue to cherry pick. You can find it here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Please someone remind the dufuses on the left that President Bush isn't and can't run for the presidency again. Unless, of course, they want to change the 22dn Amendment to our Constitution - fat chance . . .
Meanwhile, here is a thoroughly researched and foot noted book on bambi (aka 57 states) that you will never find the drive by media hailing as a blockbuster or hailing at all for that matter. It is The Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi. As of today, it has an Amazon.com Sales Rank: #6 in Books!
Nancy Pelosi's book has an Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1429 in Books - in other words - lower than whale do do . . .
(note I may have misspelled do do - is it hyphenated?)
jdhawk
August 6, 2008 - 00:01 ET by MrShyThat's a good sign, that that book is flying off the shelves...
It tells us lots of people are on the fence about him, at best, and quite suspicious or worse... and this can only help come November.
Also, yeah, only Fox (what a shock) is giving the book any coverage. If there was one about McCain, it's obvious it would get more attention.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
*cue twilight zone music*
August 6, 2008 - 00:25 ET by candance[on the set of "Today" in an alternate dimension]
Teaser, 8:00 AM - A bombshell is dropped on the Obama campaign, and the findings could be lethal. Author Jerome Corsi will join us.
Intro, 8:02 AM - Good morning everyone. Barack Obama is a danger to America and a Marxist in disguise. Those are just some of the allegations being brought in a new book written by investigative author Jerome Corsi. He joins us in the studio.
So tell us Jerome, what prompted you to write this book?
Barack Obama has been skating by on good looks and a heavy dose of charm, and I felt like it was time for someone to look beyond that.
How did you go about writing this?
I thoroughly researched Obama's own books, spoke with eyewitnesses in Chicago, and checked public voting records of his service in the government.
You bring up some pretty major accusations in here. You claim that Obama has tacitly approved of his cousin in Kenya using violence to advance a political goal. You also link Obama's first campaign to money they got from Tony Rezko. How hard was it to find these details?
Oh I had to dig pretty deep, to talk to a lot of people, but eventually the truth came out.
Obama's campaign has already issued a statement calling your book a "pack of lies." What do you say to that?
I'd say that denial fits in well with my portrayal of him.
[both chuckle]
Well it certainly is an interesting read, and it'll be fun to watch these events unfold in the coming weeks. Jerome, thanks for coming in today.
[commercial break]
*****************
Meanwhile, back in REALITY... an internet search for "Obama book Corsi" shows silence from the media (with one exception from Fox) and a handful of lefty sites already attacking it. an internet search for "Bush book Suskind" shows everything from ABC News to the Washington Post.
candance
August 6, 2008 - 00:42 ET by MrShyWhy are you both teasing us AND depressing us with this utopian, alternate-universe, where the media is fair and doesn't shill for one candidate?
Btw, have you thought about screenplay writing? You're dialogue is very realistic :) But, again, I read it and thought "OMG....." and then came your dreaded asterisks and punch line below them, and my heart sank. :(
:p
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
LOL
August 6, 2008 - 00:53 ET by candance"Btw, have you thought about screenplay writing?"
Well I AM a freelance writer, or did you forget? My political satires (stuff I usually only share with friends) get rave reviews. One of my classics involves Ann Coulter and a blue car...I shall have to find it for you.
PS - Utopian is a poor choice of wording there, as Thomas More's Utopia was actually a book about socialism.
leaping loops of logic
August 6, 2008 - 00:15 ET by JWFThe book will never close on this one, will it? Anthropologists and historians will be pouring over this one 1000 years from now.
Why didn't Alexander just stop at one point and say, "Ah, it is enough, let's go home"?
Why did Roosevelt turn his back on the troops in the Philippines and say "That Hitler dude, gots ta stop him first".
Why did Bush, despite having no love from the MSM, go after Saddam when he knew the MSM and lefties were go completely apedoodoo?
One more time, we were still at war with Saddam Hussein, he had only signed an armistice, and violated that early and often.
You do not need a pretense to resume hostilities, you only need one man to stand up and say "Enough!"
I did not ask "Why?" in 2003 or any year thereafter. I asked "Why did it take so long (to go back in)? "
My question now is "At what point do we start calling these people out for what they are, liars?"
Right JWF
August 6, 2008 - 00:28 ET by Cool ArrowEvery time an Iraqi radar site technician powered up, he knew he was still in a war.
And when Clinton sent Cruise Missiles to bomb Iraq on 12/16/98, regardless of his personal reasons for doing so, those Iraqi's understood the war was not over.
There was no Second Gulf War.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Truth check for unprofessional LIBERAL Main-Stream-Media!!!
August 6, 2008 - 00:52 ET by TheTruthDemocrats in their own words based on the same intelligence supplied by Clinton leftovers on going to war with Iraq. . .
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Video. . . Democrats on going to war with Iraq
TT... Thank you. What
August 6, 2008 - 00:59 ET by bigtimerTT...
Thank you.
What more can one say...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
who said it?
August 6, 2008 - 05:18 ET by gordonAnd I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own mandates. Do not find refuge in excuses and equivocation. Stand up for the rule of law, not just in words but in deeds. Not just in theory but in reality. Stand up for our common goal: either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.
While they're at it
August 6, 2008 - 05:26 ET by Cool ArrowThe UN can quit chousing up all the cute little children they can find in third world countries.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
These lame sobs have no business...
August 6, 2008 - 07:41 ET by ThalpyThese lame sobs have no business representing anyone--ever. Sandy Berger should be in prison.
Isn't it amazing
August 6, 2008 - 07:54 ET by c5thenHow the MSM will allow an author to claim that a letter that surfaced in December of 2003 was used by the administration in March 2003 to "dupe the public" by the administration not mentioning it at all?
That has to be the best and most complex conspiracy in history.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Exactly
August 6, 2008 - 08:24 ET by cocodrieNothing is impossible in the radical left-wing whacko mind. Michael Savage is right "Liberalism is a mental disorder."
It Is Clear...
August 6, 2008 - 10:14 ET by Wildcatter1980...that the far left--and likely the Democrats, too--will be making the upcoming election about the bashing of Bush and the Republican Party any way they can.
Why? To take attention away from their completely vacuous candidate and to stir up their base to actually go and vote in November.
In fact, the Obamassiah can't admit that the surge has worked in Iraq and the situation is very much improved there because all those far left loons would become apoplectic. The Obamassiah is too beholden to the DailyKos- and MediaMatters-types and thus cannot afford to anger them by acknowleding the realities of current-day Iraq.