Powered by TypePad

« Discrepancies, Real And Imagined | Main | The Times Discovers Ari Fleischer »

July 26, 2005



Finally, I hear the Cavalry.

Les Nessman

"Since the chairmen are Republicans, these may not be the most comprehensive(sic) probes in the history of Washington."

It may depend on what undereported aspects they probe. I'd like to see the Wilson's answer a few questions, and I'd love to see many members of the press get a grilling; the kind of grilling reporters give others.


Can married couples refuse to testify against each other in Congressional hearings? How is the 5th amendment applied in non-criminal venues?

I realize I'm confessing dreadful ignorance here, but I doubt I've been taken for a lawyer.

DW West

Senator Roberts stopped the SSCI from investigating the Niger yellowcake forgeries, claiming that it would interfere with an ongoing FBI investigation. So we all know little that he cares about getting to the truth.

This is another smokescreen.

Mark Kleiman

As I predicted, the hearings are intended to protect wrongdoing, not to expose it. I'm happy because I think the attempt will backfire.


What are the chances that either Committee will interview witnesses whose testimony may not adhere 100% to the Party line?

Geek, Esq.

These hearings will be nothing more than Pat Roberts trying to torpedo Fitzgerald's investigation.

The idea for these hearings didn't orginate in the Legislative branch.

Tom Ault

  1. Unless something dramatic is revealed, the Plame hearings will be televised on C-SPAN and no where else. So even if Valerie Plame-o-Wilson is this decade's Oliver Northette, no one is going to see it but the political junkies who have already made up their minds.

  2. It's going to take some time to get the hearings going. Since the grand jury is set to issue indictments sometime within the next few months (IIRC, they are empanelled through the end of September, maybe October?), I think the indictments are going to steal any thunder the hearings may have. Of course, it's possible that the grand jury could indict administration officials who would then roll over and reveal a vast conspiracy, but given the way the administration has behaved so far, I don't think that's very likely.


SO who should Dems clamor to have on the witness list?

I think Ms. Wilson is a longshot, but I am stumped for nominees.


Since i) the White House wont comment on the ongoing investigation (except for when Gonzales goes on national TV) citing Fitzgeralds request not to discuss it, and ii) the White House has pledged full cooperation with Fitzgerald, I'm sure President Bush will ask Roberts to hold off on hearings into the Plame matter. Right?


Interesting divergence from paralleling Watergate. Then the onset of Congressional hearings called for rejoicing by the usual suspects.


What Martin? Don't want the truth out? What DW? Maybe Roberts has the results of the FBI investigation now. And he had a perfectly valid excuse to let them pursue the Yellow Cake mystery, then. I hope there are results.


Congress has refused to investigate the origins of the forged Niger yellowcake documents. Yet the claim of “uranium from Africa” that was based largely on those forgeries made it into the SOTU in January 2003.

But Congress does intend to investigate how information contradicting the President’s claim was leaked.

What hypocrites!

Geek, Esq.

First Schiavo, and now this. Further proof that the Republican Congress has absolutely no qualms in abusing their authority in order to disrupt and obstruct judicial proceedings and criminal investigations.

The Putinization of America under Bush continues. The Republican party in Washington is one big criminal enterprise.


TM-did you forget that the Dems have already held a hearing on this?

Of course, they had to use the basement, but start there for a witness list.


No Mac, the claim of 'Uranium form Africa' was not based on the forged documents, but if these Hearings are run well you and the rest of the American public will understand how you are wrong.

Mark, the wrongdoing exposed will be the CIA's, the MSM's, Wilson's, and possibly his wife's. Why should you rejoice, except for your deep seated urge to the truth?


Geek, Martin, and Mac don't like this idea. It's the cavalry, folks. Guilty consciences are coming home to roost. There'll be egg on the face galore.


You can hear the lynch mob faltering and muttering to itself. On this site, you can see it.

Joe Jackson

Most of you are too young to remember Watergate. I worked in the Pentagon at the time. The Pentagon has this huge public area, sort of a "mini-mall", with bunches of stores. Another thing the mall had was TVs here and there mounted on the walls.

During the Watergate hearings, the Pentagon mall was packed with people trying to watch or catch a few minutes of the hearings. The scene will be identical once the Plamegate indictments are handed down and the trials begin.


Kim, what was the "uranium from Africa" claim based on? Reports from the British government that our government and our intelligence service were not shown. The British had access to the forged documents. Is there is anything else behind their claims? Why don't we find out?


Who had the motive to forge and distribute documents about uranium from Niger? It would be easy to pin it on someone just out for the money. But maybe they were the product of a group trying to influence US foeign policy. Such as?

- An exile group looking for the US to overthrow Saddam and install them in power?
- A foreign government with interests in the region?
- A group within the US allied with one of the above, or working on their own to shape policy?

How IS that FBI investigation coming along?


Mackenzie..read the Butler report. The British had both the forged documents and other sources. They stand by the others.


Lamont, or, since it was a bad forgery which makes it obvious it's a forgery, it could be someone trying to discredit our intelligence. Put it in the pipeline then the brownstuff would hit the fan when word got out the documents were forged.

Say a foreign govt. Say, oh, France?

Florence Schmieg

1. Why is Miller in jail? Can't quite believe it is to protect Rove or Libby.
2. CIA is still leaking to the NY Times quite regularly. Who?
3. Porter Goss is cleaning out the CIA. They don't like it. Is that connected to this?
4. Since the probe began before Bush got reelected, if he knew Rove was involved why would he PROMOTE him? Wouldn't he try to distance himself from it all?
5. The major administration figures no longer there are Colin Powell, Armitage, Ari Fleischer (who else?). May be nothing but who knows?
6. The CIA doesn't like being the fall guys for missing 9/11 and the Iraq stuff. State department hates the Bush approach to foreign policy. What involvement might this have in all of this?


Why won't the British share their intelligence source for this with us? Why did the President use 2nd-hand intelligence that his own people were not allowed to confirm? Especially when his own people knew that the one "hard" source they did have was a set of known forgeries.


Mac, we don't find out because British Intelligence won't reveal its source. One excuse might be to protect their source. You may invent nefarious rationales at will.


If the British intelligence was to be believed, then why did the Administration (Rice, Tenet, Fleischer) all state that the 16 words should not have been in the SOTU?


Syl, France was the last known suspect a year or so ago when the Italian contact was run to ground. Whether or not France was the origin of the Yellow Cake forgeries has not been confirmed to my knowledge. It is an attractive idea to imagine it as a French ridden stalking horse that they could nobble at will, or the last minute, as happened.

And what about the IAEA figuring out the forgeries so fast and the CIA like molasses on that Cake?


Mac, I believe the Admin initially believed that there was something to Joe Wilson's story. He'd been sent by the CIA after all. But when they discovered there was no there there, they regretted having rowed back sixteen strokes. Yet another example of the insidious nature of lies, the reptile, Joe. Remember, they didn't really know what to think of CIA analysis. There was little trust, and much reason for that. Hence: Roberts.

Fredrik Nyman

Are these hearings something the D's have been demanding, in which case it may well become another lesson on the importance of being careful with what one wishes for?

Regardless of who demanded them, I think it's a very bad idea to hold them before Fitzgerald finishes his investigation, since anyone compelled to testify (on pain of a contempt-of-congress penalty) would presumably become immune from prosecution afterwards.


Florence, I think Congress should HEAR you.


FN, no they have not been demanding them and the universal horror they have shown on hearing of Hearings contrasts instructively with the emotions felt at the onset of Congressional Hearings in the Watergate (Presidential assassination by disgruntled office seeker) Mess.

Tommy V

The hang-Rove crowd doesn't like this idea so that makes me wonder. That being said...

I just don't see the point. Why drag this out? Let Fitzgerald do his job .

(Mackenize, you need to update yourself with the SSCI report. Your information seems to be stick in a time before that)

Cecil Turner

"Especially when his own people knew that the one "hard" source they did have was a set of known forgeries."

That "hard" source wasn't even available until after the British dossier had been published. The initial source was the suspicious visit three years earlier, and subsequent reporting. Butler was unequivocal on the point:

[W]e have concluded that:
  • a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
  • b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
  • c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.
  • d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.

Steven J.

KIM - "But when they discovered there was no there there"

The ISG backs up Wilson's finding.

Steven J.

KIM - "Mark, the wrongdoing exposed will be the CIA's, the MSM's, Wilson's, and possibly his wife's. "

In other words, "a conspiracy so immense."


Steven J.

FREDRIK - "since anyone compelled to testify (on pain of a contempt-of-congress penalty) would presumably become immune from prosecution afterwards."

That's how North got his felony conviction overturned.


Please, SJ, which of Wilson's findings. The one he misinterpreted, the one he lied about, or the one oh I could go on and on. You deceive yourself about Joe. He's a liar.

The there there that I'm talking about is the charge that his findings were ignored.

Oh silly, I said wrongdoing by the CIA, by Wilson, and by the MSM. I didn't say they conspired. That must be from your mind. "Little Smiley Face".

Steven J.

KIM - "Please, SJ, which of Wilson's findings. "

The one that was the basis for this report:

(U) On March 1, 2002, INR published an intelligence assessment, Niger: Sale of Uranium is Unlikely. The INR analyst who drafted the assessment told the Committee staff that he had been told that the piece was in response to interest from the Vice President’s office in the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal.

PAGE 42, SSCI report

Steven J.

KIM - "The there there that I'm talking about is the charge that his findings were ignored."

"But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy."


Alright, SJ, think. Does your citation back up the idea that the administration ignored Joe Wilson's report?


Kim, your characterization of Joe Wilson as a liar is getting stale.


Did Plame Bomb the Chinese Embassy?


Certainly not a stale as his lies. Show me why you think he is not a liar, and show me why his lies are not central to this whole mess. Now, what is stale? So stale Congress wants to investigate it? And V and J at the top of the list of witnesses? I can't say it often enough, the persifalsge of Joe Wilson has emplamed us all.

Whew. Stale. Fah.


KIM - "Mark, the wrongdoing exposed will be the CIA's, the MSM's, Wilson's, and possibly his wife's. "

As an exercise, lets construct an alternate universe – where Kim and some others apparently reside.

a) Everyone in the Washington cocktail circuit knew that Joe Wilson’s wife worked at CIA including the six reporters to whom certain administration officials chatted (in an offhand manner) after the reporters initiated the conversations by answering their telephones. The reporters somehow managed to “dig out” information on something of no real importance (and they must have conspired because they all “dug out” the same information – even though it was well know already). In fact, these conversations primarily dealt with entitlement reform. Besides, people gossip about the status of CIA employees all the time, so the criminal referral for revealing this information reveals the common hatred for our President shared by the CIA, the MSM and Joe Wilson (who is a lying grandstander), and maybe a connection between them;
b) Karl Rove was rather surprised (“You heard that too?”) that Matt Cooper didn’t know the well known fact that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA as a glorified secretary. She was either the connection between Wilson and her superiors or managed to convince her superiors to send Wilson to Niger to cover the CIA’s obvious wrongdoing in not finding evidence to support the known information on Iraqi nuclear ambitions. Did I mention Joe Wilson is a lying grandstander?;
c) Joe Wilson lied about what he had found in Niger by not reporting all the vast commercial and other contacts between Iraq and Niger and by not reporting that Iraq was seeking uranium in other parts of Africa as well. It was important to highlight the lie (but not as important as entitlement reform!) because the Times (doing their part as fellow haters of the President) had printed the lies of that incompetent buffoon who got a free trip to “tropical” Niger. He didn’t find anything because he didn’t want to find anything and the CIA didn’t want him to find anything. Not surprising from a lying grandstander like Joe Wilson;
d) The Iraq War was fought in order to bring democracy, mom, apple pie and the American way of life to the terrorists in Iraq who attacked us on 9/11. Besides, Saddam was a bad man who was just itching to give nucks to bin Laden, and we should have been welcomed as liberators for getting rid of him. All the trouble in Iraq is the result of the MSM (continuing in their role as Bush haters) talks about car bombs and casualties and not the “good” things happening in Iraq.
e) We know Saddam was seeking uranium in Niger, in the rest of Africa, and that he had reconstituted WMDs in “…Tikrit and that area”. The CIA should have been able to provide the proof of what we knew – the proof of the “imminent threat” of “weapons of mass destruction program related activities”. That they didn’t is proof of their wrongdoing! Instead, we got grandstanding lying Joe Wilson who said he didn’t find evidence in Niger to support the sixteen words. The British have “proof” beyond the forged documents and Joe didn’t want to find it! I’ll bet he really did! Lets have hearings and ask lying Joe Wilson!

Steven J.

KIM - "Alright, SJ, think. Does your citation back up the idea that the administration ignored Joe Wilson's report?"



The "Wilson is a liar" thread is just a side show intended to focus attention on a trivial matter rather than the real story underlying the cover-up:

1. Forged documents were created and distributed in an attempt to influence our foreign policy.
2. An Administration with little real proof of WMD's grasped that unfortunate straw and ran with it.

Kim, why not ask the RNC to update their talking points so you have some fresh material?


Alright SJ, why do you think so?

Alright, Marianne, let's find out who composed the Yellow Cake Letters and why.

Alright, TT. Yes you too can have a rich imagination.

Steven J.


I think the Bush Administration ignored the Wilson finding because it did not fit in with their desire to go to war.


Let the nekkid macarena begin!


Yes there were forged documents and Joe Wilson testified before the senate intelligence committee about aspects of them that he should not have known---and supposedly did not see. (then claimed he "misspoke")
Valerie Plame in her e-mail said her husband had many french contacts----she debriefed him in Paris after his trip---- a conspiracy nut like me could connect some dots here.

Steven J.

BETHL - "she debriefed him in Paris after his trip"

Where did you get this tidbit?

DW West

Tom, back to your original posting. For additional Congressional witnesses I would add the following names:

George W. Bush. He revealed the secret information that Saddam had been trying to buy uranium from Africa. Who knows what British sources were burned?

Dick Cheney. He has often referred to the contents of classified intelligence reports in his defense of the WMD claims.

Colin Powell. He went to the UN and revealed many of our intelligence secrets. Maybe he would like to discuss where he got that intelligence.

Seven Machos

I know. I'm beating my head against a wall, but I have to respond to some of this...

1. Joe Jackson: Welcome back. Did you bring my star? You said that "the Pentagon mall" will be "packed with people" watching the hearings. I highly doubt it. I bet C-SPAN's ratings won't even budge. You are living in a past that is long, long gone. Also, if Joe Wilson or some low-level civil hack is indicted, will America be watching?

2. Mac: British intelligence was accurate. The Administration should not have backtracked on the State of the Union speech. Do you seriously believe that Saddam Hussein was not trying to acquire uranium?

3. Tex: How do you know Karl Rove was surprised? He was more likely making a mere statement. ("The Cubs lost." "Oh, you heard that, too.") I thought you were all about FACTS, man. I think you are making a hugely unwarranted assumption here.

4. Tex again: Exactly. The Iraq War was fought to bring "democracy, mom, apple pie, and the American way of life to the terrorists in Iraq who attacked us on 9/11." husseinandterror.org. Our enemies realize that it will be a crushing blow if we are able to normalize Iraq. I know you probably don't believe in a quaint thing like enemies.

5. Wilson is a liar.


Is it against the law to reveal faked intelligence? How about just plain run-of-the-mill incorrect intelligence?


Saddam already had up to 550 tons of yellowcake. He didn't need more because he did not have the facilities to process it.


My concern is that Congressional Hearings will turn into a circus - a mirror of the issues about which we bicker on daily basis - without resolution. Look at the 911 hearings. Who amongst us had any sense of closure when they were completed? Here we facing an enemy who plots daily to do us harm and we are obsessed with slapping eachother around.

Ok. I'll admit, I'm crabby today. Carry on dear friends.

Seven Machos

D-Dub: So, basically, the entire administration should be thrown out because it has leaked classified information and the CIA is a knight in shining armor doing good? Is this what the Left is now arguing? What weird Twilight Zone have we entered?

Also, again, I urge the Democrats to express their true feelings now and through 2006 and 2008. Tell America that Bush and Cheney and Powell should face hostile congressional questioning because they communicated to the American people. Bush LIED!!!! Blood for OIIIILLLLL!!!!

Steven J.


"But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about." -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03

Paul Wolfowitz's interview w/ Vanity Fair: Link http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."

Seven Machos

Mac: So, clearly, we shouldn't have invaded and the entire war was premised on LIES!!! No blood for OIIILLLLL!!!!

Steven J.

LESLEY - "Here we facing an enemy who plots daily to do us harm "

Yes and the Bush Administration had an incompetent psycho (Bolton) negotiating with the Russians about disposing enough plutonium to make 8,000 bombs:

"Now with Bolton no longer in the job, U.S. negotiators report a breakthrough with the Russians and predict a resolution will be sealed by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin at an international summit in Scotland next month, clearing the way to eliminate enough plutonium to fuel 8,000 nuclear bombs."


The Bush Administration also outed a mole in Al-Queda for political gain:

Leak Allowed al-Qaida Suspects to Escape
Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani, was nabbed in a July 13 raid in the eastern city of Lahore. His capture was a signal victory for Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. He led authorities to a key al-Qaida figure and sent e-mails to terrorists so investigators could trace their locations.
But on Tuesday, two senior officials expressed dismay that the arrest of Khan made it into the media too soon - reported first in American newspapers on Aug. 2 after it was disclosed to journalists by U.S. officials in Washington.
"Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaida suspects ran away," one of the Pakistani officials said on condition of anonymity.

FINALLY, the Bush Administration outs a covert CIA agent for revenge. (Plame)


So, SJ, what was the Wilson finding, that the administration ignored.

Tommy V

"Saddam already had up to 550 tons of yellowcake. He didn't need more because he did not have the facilities to process it."

Where did you get this information? This is the first I've heard of it. This would be a total difference-maker in all discussions involving Iraq.

Steven J.

KIM - "So, SJ, what was the Wilson finding, that the administration ignored."

I told you.


Now this is just what the (unlicensed witch) doctor ordered.

Since most of the players in this poorly crafted pilot for a bad soap opera are reporters, this gives the Congressional committees a chance to send even more of them to jail; this time for contempt of Congress. This isn't to say that some good might come out of this multi-threaded account of seemingly unconnected events.

Perhaps the hearings will condense the multiple narratives down to just a couple; one for those who believe that no crime has been committed and one (or more) for those (not in Washington) who believe that every one in Washington who participate in leaks, no matter what, should go to jail (of course, if the latter were true Washington would be empty).

Seven Machos

Steven J: An analogy:

Person A kills Person B. At trial, the prosecution bases its entire case on a theory that Person A killed Person B for money. In fact, it was because Person B was having an affair with Person A's spouse.

My questions for you: Did Person A commit a crime? Was the State right to prosecute? Should Person A be retried in light of the prosecution's case, or get to walk free?

I think the war was sold horribly and not run particlarly well at the outset. (Not for the reasons you might think; I think too little violence was used.) However, the anit-war crowd and the tar-Bush-under-pretense crowd is by far the greater of two evils.

Steven J.

TOMMY V - ""Saddam already had up to 550 tons of yellowcake. He didn't need more because he did not have the facilities to process it."

Where did you get this information? This is the first I've heard of it. This would be a total difference-maker in all discussions involving Iraq."

"Before the war began last month, the vast Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center held 3,896 pounds of partially enriched uranium, more than 94 tons of natural uranium and smaller quantities of cesium, cobalt and strontium, according to reports compiled through the 1990s by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency."

U.S. Has Not Inspected Iraqi Nuclear Facility; Site That Contained Uranium
Was Looted After War; [FINAL Edition]
Barton Gellman. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Apr 25, 2003. pg. A.14


Tell me again, I didn't get it the first time.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "I think the war was sold horribly"

We were lied to.


I'm not sure the 500 tons makes much diff, T, I've heard that, too. I think it was sequestered by the UN inspectors.

Seven Machos

Steven J., I have lost all respect for you.

It's amazing to me how people on the Left can mentally imagine individuals into terrible people. John Bolton "an incompetent psycho"? Please. You may not like the man but he is certainly a competent diplomat. He has had a distinguished career in public service and he has an academic pedigree that almost certainly puts yours to shame.

Certainly, it is NOT beneath the Left to call people names and make immature ad hominem attacks.


SJ, the NYT outed Noor Khan. Get with it.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "You may not like the man but he is certainly a competent diplomat."

Bolton's British Problem
Fresh complaints of bullying dog an embattled nominee.
By Michael Hirsh
May 2 issue - Colin Powell plainly didn't like what he was hearing. At a meeting in London in November 2003, his counterpart, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, was complaining to Powell about John Bolton, according to a former Bush administration official who was there. Straw told the then Secretary of State that Bolton, Powell's under secretary for arms control, was making it impossible to reach allied agreement on Iran's nuclear program.
Perhaps the most dramatic instance took place early in the U.S.-British talks in 2003 to force Libya to surrender its nuclear program, NEWSWEEK has learned. The Libya deal succeeded only after British officials "at the highest level" persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team. . The White House agreed to keep Bolton "out of the loop," as one source puts it.

Seven Machos

Right, Stevie. No one thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He certainly was not seeking to acquire them. He certainly wasn't connected to terrorists.


Tommy V

""The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree..."

Steven, did you even read that line? Do you understand what it means?

"the Bush Administration outs a covert CIA agent for revenge. " You honestly think that, don't you? You actually think they belived what they were doing hurt national security and they just didn't care. They were more interested in revenge.

If you really think the people in the White House are that evil, that they don't mind people dying so they can line their pockets, that they risk lives by "outing" undercover agents because of op-ed pieces, that they steal elections and concoct global wars for their own greedy needs...

Well, I can certainly see why you would be upset. Frankly, if you honestly believe the above I don't understand why you're not MORE upset. Why aren't you MORE upset?


Neo - thanks for addressing my concern. I feel alittle better and pray you are correct.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "No one thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

POWELL, 2/24/2001: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"

"The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained." Powell, 5/15/01

"He [Saddam] does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Rice, 7/29/01

VICE PRES. CHENEY:Saddam Hussein's bottled up. http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-

"In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' " GEN.
ZINNI, Wash. Post, 12/23/03


Hey, TV, give him a break. He's had a lot to be upset about lately.

Seven Machos


1. Oh, well then, you're right. You've proven it. Bolton is clearly an INCOMPETENT PSYCHO.

2. Jack Straw is an appeasing tool. Think things through for just one second instead of copying and pasting willy-nilly: did the Allies come to an agreement over Iran's nuclear program. What was that agreement? How did it work out? Is Iran a greater or lesser threat insofar as nuclear weapons?

Bolton was right.


SJ, selective quoting will get you nowhere. You know damned good and well that there are quotes all over the map from everyone about Saddam and WMD. So get honest, if you can.

Seven Machos

Stevie: Look, pal, nobody lied to anybody. People were simply wrong.

I can't keep beating my head against a wall here. However, I do feel compelled to remind you that Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate and President Bush was reelected in 2004. The American people don't believe you. They think YOU are lying. Or they think you are wrong. Or they just don't care about you.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "They think YOU are lying."

Poll: Public sees Bush as less trustworthy
Associated Press Writer
Jul 19, 7:33 PM EDT
Half of those in the poll taken by the Pew Research Center, 49 percent, said they believe the president is trustworthy, while almost as many, 46 percent said he is not. Bush was at 62 percent on this measure in a September 2003 Pew poll and at 56 percent in a Gallup poll in April.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "They think YOU are lying."

Poll: Many Doubt White House Cooperation in CIA Leak Probe

Most Say Rove Should Lose Job if He Leaked Classified Information
Analysis by GARY LANGER
July 18, 2005 — Just a quarter of Americans think the White House is fully cooperating in the federal investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity, a number that's declined sharply since the investigation began. And three-quarters say that if presidential adviser Karl Rove was responsible for leaking classified information, it should cost him his job.
Skepticism about the administration's cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it's lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll.

Seven Machos

Steven J: Clearly, you'll be vindicated in 2008 when the American people repudiate Bush by not electing him to a third term in office.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "They think YOU are lying."

Restoring Order Balances Bush Criticism
ABC News

A record 57 percent also now say the administration intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Tommy V


If you read his post you will have noticed that he was referring to the election not a poll, which flows up and down with time.

It's also important to note that when he said, "they think YOU are lying" he didn't mean literally you.

Also, please add some analysis to your quotes as I don't always know what they, how out of context they are, or what information was known at the time, etc...

Somebody else was doing that before, using lots of links, trying to establish an authority about themselves, but these things need to be a part of a larger whole to make much sense to me.

Seven Machos

Man, where were these people in November? Crazy Americans. So mercurial. Just think: if you could ONLY have had the timing right, 57 percent of the American people would have voted for Kerry. Right? Right???


Ah, SJ, but it appears they misunderestimated Saddam's threat.

And your poll, if accurate, demonstrates the need for better MSM coverage, perhaps Congressional Hearings, to set the record straight.

Steven J.

KIM - "it appears they misunderestimated Saddam's threat."


Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed.

Steven J.

TV - "Also, please add some analysis to your quotes as I don't always know what they, how out of context they are, or what information was known at the time, etc..."

If you think they are out of context, prove it.


What is it about "wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability" that you don't understand?

Are you missing everything else in the Duelfer Report and Rossett's reporting that details the measures he was taking to get WMD? Are you selectively quoting again? That is intellectually dishonest and I'm tired of pointing out the manner in which your style resembles Joe Wilson's.

Steven J.

TV - "these things need to be a part of a larger whole to make much sense to me."

OK, I'll give it a try.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq as early as Feb. 01. You can see the memo that Paul O'Neill got about the meeting here: http://loadedmouth.com/node/1261

When 9-11 occurred, there was a big push to find out if Saddam had anything to do with it even though we knew it was Al-Queda.

In addition to the Downing Street Memos, there are 3 US reports that Bush had determined to invade as early as March 02.



Jim E.

"And your poll, if accurate, demonstrates the need for better MSM coverage, perhaps Congressional Hearings, to set the record straight."

Yes, if the poll numbers are too out of whack, everyone must clap louder to support Dear Leader. And we must do more reports on the all the cars that aren't exploding in Iraq. And maybe we need a return to John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts. Bravo kim!

Steven J.

KIM - "the measures he was taking to get WMD?"

"We know for a fact there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003

THE PRESIDENT: Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. 3/6/03


No, Jim E, it's lets poll just the right sample to get a result we like. You're getting sarcastic, and ignoring the fact that Joe Wilson lied and a whole lot of fools still believe him. That's the record that needs setting straight and your sarcasm describes MSM tactics more than it does the politicking of the right-wing.


Long-time lurker here, but I have a question. In order to believe the theory that Rove outed Plame to penalize Wilson who was exposing the Bush Administration's cover up for the faulty WMD case, doesn't that mean Tony Blair was in on the conspiracy as well?? Or am I missing something??


SJ, haven't you seen the quotes from prominent Democrats attesting to WMD in Iraq. I'm telling you, selective quoting as you practice it, is meaningless. It's dishonest, please stop it.

Jim E.

"lets poll just the right sample to get a result we like."

Ah, so now Bush is a victim of the poll companies, too?

A conspiracy so immense . . .

Jim E.

"It's dishonest, please stop it."

YOu have a problem with direct, in context quotes from the Bush administration? They're the people in power, ya know. (Or maybe you don't know -- you seem more concerned with the media and poll companies than the party actually running the country)

Funny, I don't see you EVER scolding liars like Seven Machos . . .

Steven J.


(U) Conclusion 16. The language in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.

( ) Conclusion 24. In responding to a letter from Senator Carl Levin on behalf of the Intelligence Community in February 2003, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) should not have said that "DELETED of reporting suggest Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger," without indicating that State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) believed the reporting was based on forged documents, or that the CIA was reviewing the Niger reporting.

(U) Conclusion 26. To date, the Intelligence Community has not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa as stated in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Likewise, neither the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) nor the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which both published assessments on possible Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium, have ever published assessments outside of their agencies which correct their previous positions.


The comments to this entry are closed.