politicartoons:

Management (

jadeweasal) wrote in

politicartoons,
@ 2005-12-21 12:17:00

(Post a new comment)

	nacreousflaneur 2005-12-21 05:57 pm UTC (link)
	May 1: Downing Street Memo is published, pretty much proving that Bush lied us into war. Sigh. http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jadeweasal 2005-12-21 08:00 pm UTC (link)
	http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13416512.htm (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

nacreousflaneur
2005-12-21 09:19 pm UTC (link)

That still doesn't prove he lied. Jumped the gun, yes. Cherry-picked the facts and evidence to support his case, yes. Exaggerated and used words like "we know" when there was still some doubt, yes.

But Bush never manufactured erroneous data, nor pressured anyone to do the same; nor did he lead us into war with statements that he knew to be false. I fully believe he acted on what he thought was America's best interests, and it is only now in hindsight that we find out those assertions were incorrect.

So, in other words, by saying the the memo "pretty much prov[ed] that Bush lied us into war," Tom Tomorrow is a bigger liar than President Bush.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	musikinov 2005-12-22 12:09 am UTC (link)
	Psst. He didn't say that. The cartoon did. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	nacreousflaneur 2005-12-22 12:39 am UTC (link)
	Right. Tom Tomorrow, as in This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow, the creator of the cartoon. Oh, megiloth, where are you and your Cartman icon when I need you? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	musikinov 2005-12-22 12:44 am UTC (link)
	...who's views aren't necessarily those of the cartoon or any of its characters. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	johnraptor 2005-12-22 01:47 am UTC (link)
	"Jumped the gun, yes. Cherry-picked the facts and evidence to support his case, yes. Exaggerated and used words like "we know" when there was still some doubt, yes." Thank you. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	nacreousflaneur 2005-12-22 03:26 am UTC (link)
	I never disputed any of that. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	softside 2005-12-22 06:30 am UTC (link)
	I'm sorry, but consciously omitting data to make broad and certain statements is a lie. And Bush believing really hard doesn't absolve him of being wrong. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	goumindong 2005-12-22 11:03 pm UTC (link)
	Only if your are Catholic ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	shadowfox24 2005-12-21 08:32 pm UTC (link)
	But if they just repeat it enough times, the time-space continuum will retroactively change to make it true. "--and there's nothing even remotely funny about that." Or this cartoon. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	johnraptor 2005-12-22 01:50 am UTC (link)
	Kind of like how Bush and his peeps keep repeating the same lies over and over hoping that if they say them enough times, people will believe them. (Sadly, this is often true) (Reply to this) (Parent)

prock
2005-12-21 09:41 pm UTC (link)

Huh?

The Downing Street Memo isn't mentioned in that article at all? Not only that, but the subject of whether or not the administration lied isn't touched at all.

A couple of choice quotes:

Neither the Senate Intelligence Committee nor the Silberman-Robb commission considered how Bush and his top aides used the intelligence that was given to them, or whether they misled the public.

Whether or not Bush was aware of the Pentagon's doubts is not yet clear.

That's not much of a refutation. In fact, your article seems to actually support the case that Bush lied us into war.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

lib_seamus
2005-12-21 10:28 pm UTC (link)

Another good excerpt:

"In fact, before the war Bush and others often downplayed or omitted any mention of doubts about Saddam's nuclear program. They said Saddam might give chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to terrorists, although their own intelligence experts said that was unlikely. Bush also repeatedly claimed Iraq had trained al Qaeda terrorists in the use of poison gas, a story doubted at the time by Pentagon intelligence analysts. The claim later was called a lie by the al Qaeda detainee who originally told it to his US interrogators."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

nacreousflaneur
2005-12-21 11:50 pm UTC (link)

The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

...

On NBC's Meet the Press Nov. 13, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the intelligence given to Congress was "corrupted" and that Bush withheld information.

On this point Dean is incorrect. Wilkerson, who was State Department chief of staff during Bush's first term, actually said there was an "overwhelming" consensus within the intelligence community. He said the State Department dissented only regarding a nuclear program, not about whether Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons.

And then:

Silberman-Robb Report: These (intelligence) errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

One more time:

Senate Intelligence Committee: The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered “yes.” (p273)

Thank you, come again.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	prock 2005-12-22 02:23 am UTC (link)
	Well, since none of those quotes address the issue of whether or not the administration lied, I have to wonder what exactly you think it is you are trying to refute. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	nacreousflaneur 2005-12-22 03:18 am UTC (link)
	Hoooookay, let me spell it out for you then. 1. You tell me A. 2. I think, "Oh, shit, A." 3. In response, I tell everyone, "Hey, everyone, there's A. I'm going to do B. " 4. Later, we find out that A wasn't true at all. Now, you can argue that B wasn't a very good response to A, but you cannot say that I lied. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	prock 2005-12-22 03:33 pm UTC (link)
	Uh. Ok? (Reply to this) (Parent)

lib_seamus
2005-12-22 03:15 am UTC (link)

Truth, lies and intelligence (Boston Globe)

Bush's now discredited assertion in his January 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger -- an assertion a dubious CIA had previously warned the White House not to make -- is well known.

To revisit two others: Cheney himself claimed several times that lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service that spring in Prague. Cheney repeated that claim in a Sept. 8, 2002, appearance on ''Meet the Press," insisting it was credible, and again in January of 2004. We now know that the CIA raised doubts about such a meeting in both June of 2002 and January of 2003.

Several times in September of 2002, Bush, citing information from the British government, said Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.

Feinstein Releases CRS Report: Congress Did Not Have Access to Full Scope of Prewar Intelligence (American Chronicle)

Washington, DC – The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has produced a report that clearly rejects White House assertions that Congress had access to the same intelligence as the President in the march to war with Iraq, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced today.

Some reports regarding Iraq never made it to Congress (Baltimore Sun)

WASHINGTON // President Bush, in defense of his decision to use force in Iraq, contends that Congress supported the decision and that it had access to the same intelligence available to the White House.

Not true.

The president and his key advisers, usually about five or six principals, receive the CIA's President's Daily Brief (PDB) five or six times a week. It contains sensitive intelligence, including raw intelligence that is not seen anywhere else in the policy community or on Capitol Hill.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	nacreousflaneur 2005-12-22 03:23 am UTC (link)
	Okay, I'll concede that Bush lied when he said that Congress had the same information he did when they voted to give him the authority to go to war, if indeed that's what he said. Nevertheless, my fundamental point still stands. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

debergerac
2005-12-22 05:17 am UTC (link)

congress via the senate select committee on intelligence has oversight over -all- intelligence activities, this includes all intelligence provided to the executive and legislative branches ..

all intell provided to bush falls under this umbrella, congress is either lying or is admitting they failed to do their job, i suspect both are true ..

In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	prock 2005-12-22 03:34 pm UTC (link)
	Which fundamental point? That Bush didn't lie? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	shadowfox24 2005-12-21 08:35 pm UTC (link)
	Dec 5: The first of the bogus, politically driven charges against Delay is tossed out. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jadeweasal 2005-12-21 08:43 pm UTC (link)
	Oh yeah, because the specific crime he commited wasn't illegal yet. Wow. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	prock 2005-12-21 09:44 pm UTC (link)
	And the other charges stuck like glue? Nice silver lining. He's only guilty of N-1 crimes, not N! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	debergerac 2005-12-22 05:18 am UTC (link)
	what charges has he been convicted on ?? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	prock 2005-12-22 03:37 pm UTC (link)
	Good point. I was more than a bit careless in chosing my words. Replace "guilty" with "charged with". Good eye. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	king_of_space 2005-12-21 10:50 pm UTC (link)
	Well, looks like I'm still voting to the right! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	johnraptor 2005-12-21 11:25 pm UTC (link)
	Surprise, surprise. ;-) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	king_of_space 2005-12-21 11:41 pm UTC (link)
	lol (Reply to this) (Parent)

	somefantastic10 2005-12-22 12:44 am UTC (link)
	What can the right claim went right this year? seriously. (excluding Mr Roberts of the Supreme Court, because we really don't know how that turned out just yet.) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	nacreousflaneur 2005-12-22 03:24 am UTC (link)
	Oh, just a little thing called "Iraq's first election ever." (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	jadeweasal 2005-12-22 04:17 am UTC (link)
	I will agree that that is a good thing. It's just the path that got us there that I don't like. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	nacreousflaneur 2005-12-22 06:12 pm UTC (link)
	Fair enough. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Yeah, those motherfuckers are about to be real free softside 2005-12-22 06:41 am UTC (link)
	http://smh.com.au/news/world/us-hopes-of-secular-iraqi-state-fade-away/2005/12/20/1135032020005.html Instead, a religious alliance is in the box seat. These parties are already imposing a strict religious code on daily life across swathes of the country and are closely aligned with neighbouring Iran, one of George Bush's "axis of evil" enemies. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	zombiesmustdie 2005-12-22 01:14 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, I think its wonderful that Iraq is going to be run by Iran... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

nacreousflaneur
2005-12-22 06:15 pm UTC (link)

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, this right here is why I voted for Bush in 2004. He's a piss poor president, but you liberals scare the crap out of me.

Honestly, if human history had been run by liberals, we never would've left the fertile crescent. We would've said "We have no right to displace the native animals from their natural habitat."

Hell, we never would've even evolved from fish. The first minute any difficulty was encountered, we would have given up completely and crawled back into the sea.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

jadeweasal
2005-12-23 06:07 am UTC (link)

Now you're just being silly. We won two World Wars for gods sake. I just don't like people screwing other people (or other things for that matter) over. We shouldn't leave Iraq until it's stable, yes, but honestly we shouldn't be there in the first place. I feel I have a right to be pissed at us being put into that position.

And in the spirit of healthy competition, conservatives wouldnt have crawled out of the sea at all :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs