LIARS

[Disagreeable]

Liars are outed. Finally, the media is highlighting the dishonesty of the Bush Bunch. CBS news last night had a similar story on Bush's dishonest speech and the Washington Post follows up today. Let's see now, was it 40% who said Bush should be impeached if it was shown he lied to get us into the Iraqi war? I wonder what the percentage is after these latest reports are digested by the American people? Excerpts; link below; my emphasis.

"President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.
Neither assertion is wholly accurate."

"But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions."

"But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.
In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote."

"Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."
The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power."

"Hadley, in his remarks, went further. "Congress, in 1998, authorized, in fact, the use of force based on that intelligence," he said. "And, as you know, the Clinton administration took some action."
But the 1998 legislation gave the president authority "to support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein" by providing assistance to Iraqi opposition groups, including arms, humanitarian aid and broadcasting facilities."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html

 

[wdcook]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012238.php Washington Post demeans Bush, stumbles upon a truth

The headline in today's hard copy edition of the Washington Post reads "Bush spars with critics of the war." The sub-title is "Exchanges with Democrats take on campaign-style tone." The Post is referring to the president's long-delayed response to those who claim that he and his administration lied about the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. As the Post's Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus grudgingly admit, the administration did not lie -- "Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" and Bush didn't claim that that there were no exceptions to this view.

Thus, a non-partisan paper would headline the story of Bush's defense of the integrity of his administration by saying something like "Bush responds to critics" or "Bush defends administration's handling of pre-war intelligence." But the Washington Post isn't non-partisan. It is a pro-Democratic spin machine, even on issues where it knows that the president's position is correct. So it tries to make the president sound like he's engaging in partisan quibbling rather than finally responding to charges which, in their strongest form, cast him as one of the great villains of American history.

The Post also misleadingly presents itself as above the fray. If Bush is sparring, he's sparring with the Post as well as with the Democrats, to whom the Post refers in the sub-title.

The sub-title, of course, is intended to further demean the president. What could be more tacky than resorting to a "campaign-style" tone. The president is supposed to be leading the country, and here he is engaged in the dreaded "permanent campaign," sparring with the Democrats.

But here the Post has stumbled upon a truth, and one that I suspect frightens it. Last year at this time, Bush's approval rating was approximately 50 percent. This rating was due in part to the fact that the Republicans had put on a convention, and run a campaign, in which they got their message out. But after the campaign was dismantled, the field was left essentially to the Democrats, their friends at places like the Washington Post, and outright liars like Joe Wilson (conservative bloggers can't serve as a counter-balance by themselves, although we can hasten the growing distrust of the MSM, and the shrinkage of its profit margins). Thus, Bush's rating has diminished by about 10 percent points despite the absence, as John has noted, of events that would rationally explain the gap.

The media-pounding phenomenon, by the way, explains why Republicans tend to get a major bounce from their political conventions, while the Democrats tend not to. The public hears Democratic talking points on essentially a daily basis on network newscasts and in papers like the Washington Post. Thus, hearing the same points at a convention has little or no impact. The public is less likely to hear Republican talking points except at their convention.

By the same token, when a Republican president finally attempts to cope with months of pounding, it's not surprising that it reminds the Post of a political campaign -- the only time that Republicans defend themselves on a sustained basis. The Post's nightmare is that the president will return to campaign mode, which means nothing more than effectively getting his message out. But I don't think this "worst-case scenario" will materialize.