NYT Editorial: Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

[Zen Democrat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?hp

To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

--more at link --

[Hissyspit]

1. Way to go for catching up, NYT!

Some of us knew it as it was happening. Ignored Judy Millers propaganda.

[RazzleDazzle]

13. Some here debunked JMiller's propaganda

eom

[dennis4868]

19. yeah....

it only took 2065 deaths for the NY Times to catch....GREAT WORK NY TIMES :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Hissyspit]

21. 2065 AMERICAN soldier deaths. Many more Iraqi civilians... nt

[Zen Democrat]

2. Final paragraph of editorial:

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.

[Cha]

3. "TEDIOUS"...is the

word for it..tedious and monotonous. No one could ever accuse bush of being interesting.

[Cha]

4. So happy they recorded the lies

of condiliar and colin powell(remember what Harry Belafonte said about him and the repigs were so horrified?)

"Mr. Cheney was not alone. Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old."

This is a little gem of an editorial..wonder who wrote it at the NYT?

[antonialee839]

7. It's good to see Monkey and Co. finally get the smack-down

they so richly deserve, but it sure comes a little late in the day.
Nice to see Condiliar and her mushroom cloud babble revisited.

[shockingelk]

5. WOW! ZING!

... misleading statements ... denial ... accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

... the same tedious deflection ...

... energetic effort at avoidance ... none of it has been true.

... The only part that is true is ... scary, not reassuring. The reports ... were old, some more than 10 years old ... except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

... dissenting opinions that were ignored ... sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

... Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working ... there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.

... a dubious report ... later shown to be false ...

... the absurd claim ... false tales ... disputed before the war ... from an unreliable drunk ... deliberate fabrication ...

... the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers.

... there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

... Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious.

... the report ... was false.

... they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments ...

... Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

[rodeodance]

9. good work

[hvn_nbr_2]

6. Has someone at NYT decided to do journalism?

Must have gotten tired of their name being mud, being called "the nation's paper of refuse," and "all the news that fits the party line."

[blm]

14. You got that exactly right. They're playing CATCH UP JOURNALISM -

because they know history is proving how complicit many of the media are with Bush's agenda.

[hvn_nbr_2]

18. I hope so and hope it's not just a temporary fakeout to trick us. n/t

[rodeodance]

8. "But that is scary, not reassuring."--begiling, dumbfounding, etc.

.....The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

[occuserpens]

10. Decoding the neocons

Decoding is a perfectly right term for dealing with neocon propaganda. As with any propaganda, both taking their statements literally and rejecting them wholesale is a mistake.What serious analysis needs is decoding using certain decoding models.

Also, NYT starts asking reasonable questions like "how that happened and why" - although "who did what, when and why" is much better. In general, all answers are already known quite for some time (hint: operation Rockingham), now all this needs to be brought to public domain.

Well, NYT would not be NYT without cert rain degree of self-confusion: they still talk about "sincere beliefs", never use correct terms for political forces - neocons, Likud, etc. So, I would not hold my breath, but this can be a small step in the right direction.

[Demit]

11. The NYT has a lot of balls for noting now that the aluminum tubes story,

hyped by their own reporter, "was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise".

Do they think we don't remember their own complicity?

[mom cat]

12. Amen to that. I lost confidence in them years ago...Their action now

is too late fow about 200,000 dead people,
and too little...what about a profound confession of guilt and a radical committment to exposing the truth of Bushco and the Puppet Masters....
Nothing else will suffice!

[Neil Lisst]

15. Someone has told him to "come out fighting" against Dems ...

And that is not going to sell to the public he has lost.

It's sort of like this ...

Have you ever been around someone you knew, or thought you knew, but then you saw them have a moment where they were yelling, and mean at their wife or kid or some poor waitperson? And after that, you never could look at them the same, because you KNEW?

That is where Bush is with all those middle voters he has lost. They saw him scream at his wife, and smack his kid, and now they ain't buyin' Mister All That.

[blm]

16. exactly right....the media hid his sociopathy before with lie after lie...

and the lies are no longer selling.

[Neil Lisst]

20. media can be sooo annoying that way

Like those who love the big star when he's UP and hate him when he's DOWN, whoever he or she is.

My revulsion for him is constant, roughly the same place I started.

[PennyK]

17. Ok, I know they screwed up BIG-TIME...

...but I still read The Times every morning. At least today I got this lovely goodie with my coffee. I brought it over to show my Mom, who can't stand the Turd-in-Chief. Beautifully written and laid out for all to see.