Shock of the Day: The Times Thinks Bush Lied
It must be nice and cozy this deep in the cocoon:
The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It’s obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein’s weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.
Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that “it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.” We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.
“It’s obvious that the Bush adminstration misled Americans”, says the Times. “It is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.” That doesn’t even begin to make sense; Bush is the revisionist here? Don’t believe the historical record, believe the Times!
Honestly, I don’t know why the DNC and the New York Times don’t just get it over with and combine operations – it would sure save a lot of overhead.
“The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.”
What fact, left out, would have changed a Senator’s vote? Please, editors, do something called investigation.
Who sanitized it?
The Times implies it was Bush and advisers, but names no one. Ask the Times for the evidence that the President had, but that Senate Intelligence didn’t and you’ll draw a blank.
I know that the Times is out of touch with reality, and by their argument, I need not provide proof of this-I can just present it as fact.
Has the left offerred up anyone who worked in the Intelligence Community who can state what they are selling?
Who in the intelligence community was dismissing the beliefs about WMD’s? To degrees maybe, but not at the wholesale discounting that the Times would have one believe.
apparently the left is getting skewered on the ‘push-back’.
This is a ‘slam-dunk’ argument in their face, and they still can’t accept it. Go after Tenet first if you want to make a case, but don’t skip the entire process, to find blame at one point.
GOP Goes After Weathervane Hawks
GOP Goes After Weathervane Hawks
GOP.com isn’t messing around. It has unveiled a new video:
I’m sorry to report that I have discovered in myself an inability to reconcile these two thoughts, as presented by the Times:
“The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.” (ah, if they sincerely believed it then it can’t be a lie, right?)
“It’s obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein’s weapons…” (misleading is a form of lying, right?)
Can any of you folks help me understand this?
If you can’t prove your theories, there is always the NYT editorials to carry the flame.
Kristoff wrote this baby, as Dowd peeled the grapes for him and pinch, but no one wanted to put their name on it.
Clearly if Judy Miller misled the NYT staff, then the WH did too…
The question is simple: Why did BushCo choose not to include the significant dissent he was presented with when it came to the Niger claims, the aluminum tubes and the claims of the AQ informant?
‘the significant dissent’
Why hasn’t a dem produced this ‘significant dissent’?
does it exist?
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249%7Ctop%7C08-09-2004::17:46%7Creuters.html
First paragraph-
“Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.”
funny for a Vietnam Vet not to think much of reissuing the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution…
and he would have done it ‘even if there were no WMD’s’. Glad he didn’t get elected.
I guess the two sides of this argument are left to shout at each other.
In the lead up to the war, virtually everyone believed that Saddam was a threat and that his regime possessed WMD and was pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Which is not to say there was no dissent, the record shows that there was. But the preponderence of the evidence against Saddam was overwhelming, bi-partisan, and accepted throughout the world, including at the United Nations. That record is clear too. We now know that it was wrong. So either they were all liars or none of them were. Misinformed, mistaken? Sure. Liars? Nope.
I’m in agreement with you Steve. Our best guess was wrong.
Good reason to put the ‘estimate’ in the NIE.
tenet’s ‘slam dunk’ statement was for show? Dems can’t reconcile the statement so they ignore it.-Isn’t that what they are accusing the WH of doing?
(In all honesty, I harbor some suspicion that there still some WMD’s, but they were moved into the Bekaa Valley in Lebanaon/Syria.)
Breaking news: The White House says the NYTimes lied.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051115-1.html
I love their new “Hypocrite of the Day” program.
Fighting The Fifth Column
It is good to see. It is good for America to have dissent. It is also good to have see the dissented upon fight back with the facts.
AJ at Strata-Sphere asks Can Conservatives Rally Together?
Yes. But they need a leader. Nice to see we finally have o…
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]