Kurtz Cuts The Comedy - We <3 Nancy!

Howard Kurtz provides an overview of the MSM coverage of the Downing Street Debacle, but leaves out this gem from Nancy Pelosi, who has become my favorite Congressperson today:

She credited blogs for focus on the Downing Street minutes, which assert that “intelligence was being fixed” to build a case for war.

“The currency that you all have given the Downing Street memo is very important,” she remarked, though she admitted she had yet to read the document. “I think it’s further corroboration. I don’t think that it comes as any news to anyone, because the intelligence was never there to begin with.”

"Very important"!  Not quite important enough for her to read, and not important for its news value - "I don’t think that it comes as any news to anyone" - but very important nonetheless.

Where can I send my contribution?  With her and Howard leading the way, all is well with the world.

MORE:  OK, my daughters assure me that "<3" can only mean "heart", but to me it looks like a floppy ice cream cone.  Which also captues my view of Ms. Pelosi, but I worry about the widening generation gap.

UPDATE:  Lots more at Reason, but my fave excerpt from the Downing Street memo is the first paragraph:

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action.

Gee, the Brits thought so too - does that mean that they were also committed to war?  Or was a committment to regime change a different thing from a commitment to war?

Comments

[creepy dude]

I see parallels between the build-up to Iraq and the Ms. Schiavo matter from our right side friends.

The Downing Street Memos are sort of like Ms. Schiavo's autopsy report, i.e. documentary evidence that things were not exactly like some people said they were.

[Les Nessman]

Good point, c.d.

The Memos are documentary evidence that clearly show Bush was not committed to war-no-matter-what, but the Lefties persist in blatant moonbattery.

[creepy dude]

Good one Les-but re: Ms. Schiavo, you seem to agree with me-or else who were the moonbats in the Schiavo affair?

Certainly it was people like the execrable Delay who claimed Ms. Schiavo "talks and she laughs" or the moronic Mr. Frist who claimed the poor woman had good visual response based on his video diagnosis when the autopsy showed she was blind?

Should anyone be held to account for anything anytime anywhere?

[TiredofLiberals]

Creepy Dude, you're as dumb as all the rest. What all you idiots seem to want to ignore is the fact that those who wanted to keep Terri Schiavo alive asked for one simple thing: an MRI of her brain, which would have confirmed what we now know from the autopsy, namely that there was no hope of meaningful recovery. Had Micahel Scviavo not been such a dick, the MRI could have been performed and much of the controversy laid to rest. It wouldn't have stopped all the protests, but it certainly would have alleviated many of the problems, particularly those related to Congressional intervention.

[marko]

Can you check with your kids whether "I

Just curious . . .

[Ben Skott]

No problem with Bush pushing for what is a very just war, but I wasn't terribly impressed with the GOP's behavior in the Schiavo affair. That said, you can't really compare the two events, they are apples and oranges.

[creepy dude]

TOL-I can only imagine what an MRI of your brain would reveal. What's the limit of resolution on those thing?

[filou]

It's funny that the right would string up Kofi Annan for crimes suggested in emails, and smear him by repeating "oil for food SCANDAL" at every opportunity, and call for his resignation... while the fact that the President blatantly deceived the public in word and deed for months, as corroborated by the DSM and multiple sources (common sense? "curveball" anyone? where's the 9-11 commission on EXECUTIVE branch conduct leading up to 9/11?) doesn't bother you a bit. Why don't you admit that you just don't care why and how we went to Iraq? you just like the war, it's not important why we went. It's not important that the President treated us all like simps for months. One last thing: prove your enthusiasm and join up, the services need more bodies for the sand box...

[TallDave]

sorry filou, there is still zero evidence anyone was deceived by the Bush admin on WMD

[TallDave]

Oh, and the military is 80% rightwingers. But don't join, the military doesn't want you anyway.

[ed in texas]

I'm mostly inclined to stay out of this, but...
TOL, are you aware of the trip to California TS was taken on, for experimental treatment? (Check the timelines, I'm not making this up)
Said experimental treatment was the placement of 'hypothalamic stimulator electrodes' , a non-FDA procedure. Putting someone with said electrodes in an MRI would have been a life-ending experiment. (Think blender) This is why none of the attending doctors asked for an MRI.

[max]

well, unlike congresswoman Pelosi, I have read the memo. The paragraph in question is actually qualified later in the memo. It's evident that C's perception of the administration's state of mind was not regarded as definitive. Read it for yourself, it's only a few pages.

My reading of the memo is that the administration had devised an analysis, strategy and plan for dealing w/ Iraq prior to approaching the UN and UNSC. I'd bet/hope that the Clinton administration had developed Iraq scenarios as well, as had the first Bush administration. This is what the NSC is supposed to do.

[jim]

Tiredofliberals

The Schiavo autopsy report specifically notes that an MRI could NOT be done of her brain. There was a lead or wire inserted in there such that an MRI would have cooked her brain much like metal in a microwave. That MRI stuff has always been misdirection.

[irritated dude]

Creepy dude:

There is a difference between cortical blindness and blindness occurring before the occipital cortex, as in the optic nerve or eyes. The brain stem reflexes are still there! That means she would blink or flitch if you threw your hand in front of her, AND she would visually follow moving objects! The residual brain stem function was the confounding issue in that to the untrained person, or trained casual observer (just seeing a clip without a long observation or physical exam) the person looks conscious. So get off your high horse here! BTW, where is the reference for Delay’s "quote" like an actual transcript?

[tiredof liberals]

Creepy Dude: I see that you have the standard techniques of liberal debate down pat: when the argument is lost, turn to personal attacks. Well done.

I understand that as a leftie you have no use for such trivialities as "facts" and "truth," but I'll try to explain this to you anyway. What Congress did was ask the courts to review Mrs. Schiavo's case from the start, to request a new, unbiased guardian be appointed if it were determined that Michael Schiavo could not act in the best interests of his wife due to personal conflicts, and to ask for pertient medical testing to be undertaken. They did not ask that she be kept alive permanently. They did not try to "ban" the Florida courts from having her tube removed.

The courts, for their part, saw this as an attack on their sphere of influence and fought what they saw as undue legislative intervention, and many legal scholars agree.

None of this changes the fact that Congress NEVER addressed the issue of whether she should be kept alive indefinitely. Likewise they never addressed her permanent medical condition, or the ultimate legality of depriving someone in a reduced mental state of life. They merely asked that the information we now know from the autopsy be found out BEFORE the tube was pulled. That may seem like fascist intervention to you, but I tend to think your judgement is clouded by emotion.

The comparison to Iraq furthermore is, well, a stretch.

[filou]

Of course,"evidence" of administration deception is impossible. The DSM is as close as we can get. There are no secret policy memos outlining the plan to cajole the country into war, because that part was all informal. The point to anyone who has a brain or a conscience is that the intelligence for WMD's was not looked at objectively; it was culled; it was highlighted; they dug for intelligence that fit the policy. If you can tell me with a straight face that "intelligence came before policy," then you are simply a liar. I wouldn't even be angry, personally, if the admin. had made a case for war that baldly laid out the democracy-domino theory... but they didn't. They distorted, they issued hours of misleading rhetoric, they outright lied ("mobile weapons labs" "aluminum tubes" "al quaeda connection"). How can you stomach it?

[creepy dude]

TOL-see ed and jim's points above on the MRI.

ID-if you think that's what Frist meant-think again. The Delay quote is too famous for me to go track down for you.
Believe me-that's not the stupidest thing he said re: Ms. Schiavo.

[irritated dude]

Look, there are other test besides an MRI that could have been done, for example a PET/CT. The legal issue was not her precise medical state but would she have wanted to continue treatment. The legal finding of fact that she would not want to continue treatment would be very difficult to over turn. Her parents did not address that issue appropriately in court at the time.

[Robert Crawford]

The point to anyone who has a brain or a conscience is that the intelligence for WMD's was not looked at objectively; it was culled; it was highlighted; they dug for intelligence that fit the policy.

Damned Clinton administration.

[Jack Wayne]

TOL - I assume from this moniker that you think of yourself as a conservative. Here's a question for you. Is it conservative to abide by 1000's of years of precedence or is it radical to overturn those precedents? That is, in most societies since history began we can see that wives move from their parents family to their husbands'. Literally, in other times, they truly belonged to the husband (and still do in some societies). Taking the last name of your husband is a relic from that time. Today I think it works mostly both ways. The wife or the husband is assumed to "own" the other in times of trouble. Congress and Terri's parents were asking that social convention be turned upside down and the ownership of Terri be taken from her husband and given back to the parents. So, is that conservative or radical?

[Neo]

This Downing Street memo was supposed to be the first bread crumb in a trail of bread crumbs. The problem isn't that the bread crumbs have been eaten (that would have been more face saving), but rather that the trail has already been explored by more than one committee of Congress and at least one commission, all in a bipartisan methodical manner.
The memo rather than rendering new fresh meat, offers only precanned meat fit only for your dog or cat. This is the bait-n-switch at it's best, with the anti-war zealots getting to play the part of the angry consumer.

The "Tom Sneddon" reference was funny as all get out and spot on.

[filou]

what commision looked into mistakes made by the executive? not one. zip. zero.

[SaveFarris]

Jack, you're forgetting that Mike Schaivo had already "moved on" to the Mistress behind Door #2 and as such that "1000s of years of precedence" is pretty much irrelevant.

Or, to put it in terms even Hollywood Liberals can understand, should Brad be able to pull Jen's plug just because they're still technically married?

[irritated dude]

CD:

Dr. Frist is an M.D., and yes, from she short film clip she did have good visual response. But what does that mean. She will follow objects, pupils contract to light, etc. Does not mean anyone is home, but the propagada shown by her family was cherry picking, just like sound bites. From that clip, she easily could have had CP and not PVS.

I am not here to defend Delay, but it depends on how you define "talks and laughs." The gunts and squells she made may very well have sounded like talking and laughing to him.(You should appreciate that.) Severely brained damaged persons can who are still conscious can sound very similar,except it is purposeful.

[wlpeak]

Filou,
The 'Annan' emails can't be used to string up Kofi, but they do undercut the argument coming from the UN that Kofi knew nothing about UNSCAM. Which then undercuts Kofi's argument that only he, with more money, can reform the UN.

He should resign because he either knew nothing about one of the largest financial/ethics scandals in human history as it unfolded on his watch, or he did and is lying and attempting some level of cover-up. Nixon resigned for less.

As for PONTUS 'blatantly' deceiving the public, the Blair memo does nothing to prove this. We would have to know that Bush knew his intell was wrong but argued the case anyway for that to be true. That would mean, incidentally, that we would have to believe that Bush knew better than Clinton, the UN, most major intell organizations, the Press, and general conventional wisdom. Do you really think he was that smart?

And specifically on the Iraqi campaign, strategically and tactically, if you wanted to project military power into the ME, Iraq is the best solution. We need to be in the ME to be able to apply pressure to state sponsors of extra-national organizations like Al- Qaida. Whether that is the best strategy for dealing with the current threat I'll leave to another discussion.

Oh and FYI, I've lready served in the military and despise the argument that people in favor of a particular war are hypocrites if they don't join up. How many democrats joined for Kosovo, how many for Haiti? Will you now join the rightwing partisans and say the democrat party is full of hypocrites?

[SaveFarris]

Filou, let me point you in the direction of these guys. It was in the paper and everything.

[wlpeak]

Filou,
You arguments seem to be boiling down to the interpretation of intel. This is an art not a science. What we are getting are mainly leaks. Leaks are notorious for their unreliability especially when from the intel community. Beware resting your arguments on them.

Argue instead whether we should be dealing with the threat aggressively, or legally, or 'unilaterally', these are stronger arguments because they rest on reason rather than accusation.

[exhelodrvr]

My wife and I are both conservative, Protestant, Republicans, and we both strongly agreed that Michael Schiavo did the right thing.

[dakota]

wlpeak: What is the democrat party? Is it the same thing as the Democratic Party?

[TiredofLiberals]

Jack,
I appreciate your attempt to explain to me what does and does not constitute conservative thought on the matter. I understand well how difficult the Schiavo case was for "conservatism" to handle. The internal debate among conservatives, which has been lively and informative, serves as proof of the problems such cases as hers can create.

You are, in part, correct that the appeal to tradition (or "prejudice" as Burke would call it) was an important part of the reason why many on the libertarian right, including folks like Glenn Reynolds believed that Congress overstepped its bounds.

That said, conservatism is also part and parcel of a moral tardition that dictates that the preservation of individual life should be given priortiy whenever possible. In this case, the religious conservatives argued that it should not be man's (Micahel Sciavo's, the court's, whoever's) decision to determine whether Terri's life had suffiecient value to require its preservation. Instead, they argued that life, in and of itself, is precious and should be preserved.

Contrary to what the media and the left insist, this internal debate among conservatives proved conservatism's strength, not its weakness. That such internecine debate can exist is proof of the movement's stability.

As for the issue of a woman taking her husband's name, that's as much a function of proving the heredity of any offspring as it of "ownership."

[gt]

Commitment to regime change is different from commitment to war.

[wlpeak]

Wow,
You got me dakota. I bow to your insight.

[Scott Harris]

This memo is so bogus.

I would hope and expect that the US Military and the National Security Council has plans to invade Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, Venezuala, Tiawan, North Korea, Japan, Africa, Mexico, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Eastern Europe, Russia etc., etc., etc.

It is the professional responsibility of the Military to be ready to engage any enemy, anywhere, at any time. They can only do so if plans are made up before they are needed. Any suggestion that a plan to invade Iraq prior to going to the UN necessarily indicated a foregone intent is hopelessly naive. Of course, the US had a plan. And given the circumstances, that plan was probably more detailed than other plans for invasion elsewhere in the World.

The existence of even a detailed plan only provides a more realistic option for invasion. It allows the President and the US to make a more valid threat. Even if it was not expected, it was certainly sincerely hoped that Saddam Hussein would back down and capitulate without having to resort to War. And by trying to establish a broad coalition and by engaging the UN, it was hoped that Saddam Hussein would see the light, and enough pressure could be brought without having to resort to the "Plan."

Unfortunately, we now know that France, Russia and China were all conspiring against us and that France was even offering Saddam Hussein assurances that they could bring the US and Britain to heel without him having to capitulate. This error in judgment on the part of the French emboldened Saddam to his own detriment. Both the French and Saddam Hussein failed to recognize the change in American determination that 9/11 caused. Saddam trusted the French too much.

The real mistake was in not showing a united opposition to Saddam so that the full weight of international pressure might come to bear on the Iraqi dictator in the hope that such pressure might cause him to break. We can never know whether such pressure would have been successful. Given the history of the first Gulf War, we have sufficient reason to doubt that it would have been successful.

But we can know that the failure to "do everything we can to avert war" cannot be laid at the feet of the Bush Administration or the Blair Administration. It is the French, the Russians and the Chinese that subverted that effort. We can argue about whether or not there motives were pure or not. But it remains that Saddam Hussein believed that a reverse international pressure would avert the invasion because of the efforts of these three Security Council members. As such, he thought he had another way out.

I sincerely doubt that the full pressure of the international community would have caused Saddam to capitulate. Most likely, so did the French. So instead of bringing pressure on Saddam, they tried to bring pressure on the US and Britain. To many Americans, this was a supreme betrayal, regardless of the motives. It remains so.

But the idea that Bush & co. did not make an effort to avoid war is erroneous. What Bush did not do was entertain the option of backing down from Saddam Hussein. And in this, many Americans still believe he was correct. Saddam Hussein underestimated, as did Osama bin Laden, the courage and resolve of the American people and this American President - to his own destruction.

Trying to rewrite history to dismiss this is wrong.

[gt]

Scott Harris,

A majority of Americans think Bush misled them. And the number is likely to grow.

[filou]

We were told we had to go to war when and how we did because of an imminent threat to the United States from Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. What has become clear is that no one on the prosecuting end actually believed that-- that a threat was imminent. We could have toppled Hussein's regime at any time-- perhaps six months later, when we had a larger buildup of forces, and would ahve been in a better position to secure the country and avoid the costly looting that followed. What the DSM shows is that our allies had evaluated the Bush administration's mindset, and their assesment was in line with many of the war's critics-- that inspections could have continued for a longer period, that postwar planning was scandalously inadequate, and that there was no compelling reason to invade Iraq while the Afghan campaign was still incomplete. Finally, tell me with a straight face that the Bush administration made a case for war that prepared the American people for a ten to twenty year commitment to occupy Iraq and rebuild its infrastructure? When the public turns away from supporting the Iraq venture and political reasons force a withdrawal, you will blame the liberal media but I will point to the dishonesty of the bush administration.

p.s. the 9-11 commission wasn't allowed to investigate the executive branch, you sheep!

[creepy dude]

I wonder if Dr. Frist could diagnose my political attitude from one photo of my middle finger?

[R C Dean]

We were told we had to go to war when and how we did because of an imminent threat to the United States from Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs.

A blatant, umm, inaccuracy. If you recall, the debate was over whether we should engage in a preemptive war even though there was no imminent threat.

When I hit this kind of plastic turkey comment, I generally quit reading the rest of the post.

[Annoying Old Guy]

gt;

The key number isn't how many citizens think Bush mislead them, but how many care. Bush's primary fault is that he wasn't as slick about it as Wilson, FDR, Kennedy or LBJ.

[filou]

If you recall, the debate was over whether we should engage in a preemptive war even though there was no imminent threat.

No, a preemptive war is to attack a country that hasn't attacked us, because of an imminent threat. If there was no threat, as you suggest, then why would you attack at all? *cough* sophist *cough*

Give me a plausible justification for the run-up to the war, people!

[gt]

Actually RC Dean imminent threat was redefined by the Bush administration to include someone who was not a direct and immediate threat. From the official National Security Strategy of the US (dated Sept 2002):

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat -- most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

[SaveFarris]

Filou, where to begin?

1. First, "imminent threat"? Not so much.

2. tell me with a straight face that the Bush administration made a case for war that prepared the American people for a ten to twenty year commitment to occupy Iraq and rebuild its infrastructure?

At every turn, Bush has made carful mention of how this will take time and will not come easily or all at once. That you're ignoring it is your problem, not his.

3. And the 9/11ers weren't allowed to investigate the Executive Branch? What planet have you been on during the past year?

[Willboyd]

Here we go with the "Bush lied" meme again. Filou and qt belong to the shool of argument that says you can win an argument by just repeating an untruth enough times. Google a transcript of the State of the Union Speech - I won't do it for you - and reread the part where POTUS advocates action even though Iraq is NOT an imminent WMD threat.

[gt]

Sadly Willboyd and SaveFarris most Americans disagree with your interpretation. That's why support for Bush and his handling of the war has dropped so much. And why a majority think Bush misled them.. And why talk of early withdrawal (aka as defeat) is growing even among GOPers.

You can link all you want to any speech you want but it makes no difference. Americans know what they were told. And it turns out things were not quite so.

[willboyd]

qt,
If I understand you correctly, what you mean is that you think the abovementioned strategy of repeating untruths might be working for you. Unprincipled but honest. Is your participation in this forum today part of that effort?

[gt]

Yes Willboyd, you are right and most Americans are wrong. I wonder where they got the impression that Bush misled them? It can't have been the things Bush said such as WMDs and a threat that couldn't wait.

The good news is that most Americans can't be fooled all the time. They ahve come to realize how many flasehoods and misleading sattemenst the war in Iraq was based on.

[Crank]

Didn't we already commit to regime change under Clinton in 1998? Ahem, Iraq Liberation Act, ahem?

[filou]

yes, and I would add that this is the important part for supporters of the current strategy in the war on terror: the administration's lies are harming the cause. by not making the real case for invasion and preparing us for the reality of the war, the president has doomed us to failure as people will not continue their support under false pretenses.

[filou]

CLINTON DIDN'T INVADE IRAQ!

[willboyd]

I actually think even the idea that Iraq had no WMDs might be incorrect. It took me a few minutes, but I found my copy of the document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, The Assessment of the British Government" with a forward by Tony Blair. Sorry, no date. Anyway, Chapter 2, paragraph 3 recaps what Saddam acknowledged having after the first Gulf War: 19,000 liters of botulinum, 18,500 liters of anthrax, 2,200 liters of aflatoxin, 28.850 tonnes (Tons!) of mustard gas, 200 tonnes of tabun, 795 tons of sarin, and 3.9 tonnes of VX. I seem to recall that when the US demanded an accounting of these WMDs, Saddam's government replied that they had destroyed them, but lost records of said destruction. How sloppy. And to think of all those years Saddam kept his people groaning under sanctions. I suppose they just dumped them down a sink somewhere. Anyway, I recall that my brother was deployed in Iraq when US forces found the hidden Iraqi MIGs. Those planes are about 70 feet long, and probably weigh 65 tons or so. (Feel free to polish up those figures if you know where to look.) Anyway, what do you suppose is easier... Burying a 60 ton plane in the desert without US spy satellites catching it, or cacheing pallets of 50 gallon drums? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

[filou]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

300 billion dollars, 1,700 dead.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.