|
 |
July 13, 2003 WHO, ME?....Via Eschaton, here's an exchange between Tim Russert and Donald Rumsfeld this morning on Meet the Press. The topic — surprise! — is uranium:
I get it: he was just relying on the President of the United States! It's not really fair to hold him accountable for that, is it? Now, this would be just an amusing little cheap shot except for the fact that the push to oversell the uranium story almost certainly came from the intelligence analysts at the infamous Office of Special Plans. And the Office of Special Plans, as we all know, works for none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Posted by Kevin Drum at July 13, 2003 06:03 PM | TrackBackComments
in twenty years when I'm talking to my kids about this as they study it in history class I'll be able to say "I read the blog of one of the guys who dug all this stuff up and analyzed it." keep up the good work! It feels like we are re-living history with this. Posted by: Brian at July 13, 2003 06:14 PM | PERMALINKI'm still waiting to hear what the meaning of "is" is. This is such a circle jerk. We shared our 'intel' with Britain, they handed it back to us, we knew it wasn't true but hell, they said it, right? The administration is parsing this thing like a precocious four-year-old. "Oh, I didn't know you meant not to eat _that_ candy..." Grownups in the White House again my eye. Where are they, staffing the Oval Changing Station? Posted by: julia at July 13, 2003 06:47 PM | PERMALINKKevin, Great job on this story. Is Rumsfeld really saying, "You can't blame me for believing the President's lies?" Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at July 13, 2003 06:47 PM | PERMALINKFunny to watch the White House play hot potato. First Tenet got burned (all right, he's not actually a member of the White House), and now Rummy, Condi, and George are heavin that sucker around. Where will it stop? Dunno, but it's fun to watch from the cheap seats. Posted by: Emma at July 13, 2003 06:49 PM | PERMALINKWhat should have happened next: MR. RUSSERT: And you tell the president what to say! Posted by: taktile at July 13, 2003 06:59 PM | PERMALINKLiars, incompetent liars. Liars. One must read the whole transcript, there are some wonderful howlers in there -- Russert went well beyond uranium . . . his waffling about force levels in Iraq, especially the gap between what Shinseki asked for, what we have in there and what was predicted, was truly pathetic. Posted by: Claude Muncey at July 13, 2003 07:38 PM | PERMALINKRumsfeld's waffling, not Russert's . . . Posted by: Claude Muncey at July 13, 2003 07:39 PM | PERMALINKI can't help but think that the "overselling" wasn't being done by Bush. All it will take is *ONE* piece of info from the British that uphold the statement. Just *ONE*. And this becomes just another example of the left emulating Chicken Little. There's so much fertile, fertile ground upon which to attack Bush!!! So very much!!! However, it seems like the democrats care more about the "Peace In Our Time" base having been right than they care about actually getting Bush out of the White House. Attack on the economy. But attacking on stuff that involves zero people who are "undecided", will fire up the base... and not much else. And this particular base did not do a particularly good job of winning over the undecided voter in 2002. I doubt that said fired-up base will get different results in 2004. Posted by: Jaybird at July 13, 2003 07:49 PM | PERMALINKJulia has this right: there's one little piece of information here and everyone is telling it to everyone else. A says it came from B, B says it came from C, and C says it came from A. On the internet we call these things urban legends and hand them over to snopes to investigate. In the Bush administration, they go to war over them. Posted by: Kevin Drum at July 13, 2003 08:21 PM | PERMALINKI can't help but think that the "overselling" wasn't being done by Bush. All it will take is *ONE* piece of info from the British that uphold the statement. Just *ONE*.-- Yeah, that would be nice. Unfortunately, it would also be irrelevant since the information would be *new* to the administration, and the only basis for the claim in the SotU was the bogus Niger story - you can't retroactively change that with new information that they didn't know about, that the British have refused to produce even as they are under fire, and that America has no access to. Now, what I don't understand is why you bring up all these things to attack, yet you don't see rank dishonesty as one of them. Sure, if only *one thing* happened in a lot of situations, Bush would be golden. If he just found Osama bin Laden, or a WMD, or Saddam, or an actual economic indicator aided by his tax cuts, or any number of other single things, it'd be okay. The problem is, this story would go away if the British would release their intelligence. However, they've had nearly a year to do so, and haven't - and still tacitly refuse to do so. The damage is done, and there's nothing the British can do to stem it. The confused web of deceptions aren't helping. Posted by: jesse at July 13, 2003 08:29 PM | PERMALINKLast year, there was the story of them sitting in a briefing when Bush asked, um, Tommy Franks a question, and Franks started to reply, and Rumsfeld reached his hand over and said: "Oh, you don't have to answer that." So if so, Rumsfeld outranks Bush. That's my urban legend, unsourced of course. Posted by: John Isbell at July 13, 2003 08:30 PM | PERMALINKOk, John, pretty good memory. Here we have the vignette, here we have the chain of command suggesting that Rumsfeld was, arguably, defending his place in the sort of command hierarchy of which his boss is so fond. We notice an antipathetic defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, sitting in a White House planning session with top military advisers, interrupting Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Meyers. When President Bush asked a pressing question: how long would the war with Iraq last? Rumsfeld put a hand on Meyers's arm, saying: "Now, Dick, you don't want to answer that." It is interesting to note that, according to the Constitution, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is only answerable to the president of the United States. Emphasis added. it is interesting to note that the Constitution may have been superceded on this point. Or, more reasonably, it may be Constitutionally permissible for the President to order a private to sweep the barracks, but it would be a horrible breach of chain of command protocol. Posted by: Tom Maguire at July 13, 2003 10:31 PM | PERMALINKAh, but don't get caught in the merry-go-round over the British information. Rememeber earlier this week, when Ari Fleischer was mousetrapped (finally) at a press conference, and it was admitted that there really wasn't any other evidence for the African uranium . . . Posted by: Claude Muncey at July 13, 2003 10:42 PM | PERMALINKThe Good Ship Condi: It's not the White House's fault, Tenet didn't say that it wasn't ok. Shrub: It's not my fault, the British said it was OK. And besides, the Iraqi people are free! Dr. Rummylove: Although it was factually true (the British said it)It's not my fault, I just said what the President said first. Shogun Tenet: It's my fault but not really 'cause we said earlier that it wasn't necessarily true. It is true, I didn't stab POTUS in the gut to keep it out of the SOTU, thus I take responsibility. Earlier today I caught the last 30 mins. of "Final Days," the dramtization of W & B's book. I tuned in right as Nixon (played by Lane Smith) is telling Kissenger (Theo Bikel) he is resigning the next day. Nixon says to Dr. K, "What have I done! How could a little burglary have lead to this?" Could it be the same for Bush? Will a little 16 word sentence destroy his presidency? Stay tuned and find out. Posted by: walter at July 13, 2003 11:21 PM | PERMALINKIt's actually pretty simple. Rumsfeld relied on the President, who relied in turn on Tenet. Tenet allowed the statement because it relied on the British, who had, however, been warned by Tenet's CIA that their evidence was unreliable, but since it was about the British it's OK. (Silly Brits, those bad teeth will do it!) What this all adds up to is that nobody's to blame, even if mistakes were technically made, except they weren't, because, again, it's only about what was said by the British, except that it's also quite possible, even likely, it could all turn out to be true. I hope that clears up the confusion, which is after all totally overblown in any case. Posted by: frankly0 at July 13, 2003 11:35 PM | PERMALINKI'm happy to see the Bushies squirming now. But I feel uneasy about the big picture. Remember back a year ago when the drums started beating for war against Iraq? Remember how Enron was in the news, and the big scam against California by the energy moguls, and Arthur Andersen, and several other collapses I've forgotten? At the time the Enron connections to W were so blatant that I really believed he started the Iraq rumble to distract us. What happened to all that stuff? It was serious. THere were serious corruption charges to be made against Bush and Co. - still are. Is the whole thing just too complicated for the general public and the media to follow? This war in Iraq is turning out to be every bit as bad for all of us (Americans and Iraqis) as I had feared. Can the Bushies be so absolutely clueless and evil as to have engineered it all to get out of the Enron mess? Let's hope that all you bright atheists are wrong and there really is some kind of divine or karmic justice that will work. I hope I live long enough to see it. Or maybe blog world is that Great Mystery that will inexorably grind out justice and retribution for our lying leaders. Leila Posted by: Leila A. at July 14, 2003 12:07 AM | PERMALINKBushCo: A Comedy With The Morals And Loyalty Of Tony Soprano Posted by: RonZ at July 14, 2003 03:57 AM | PERMALINKLeila, last year Republicans were asking (rhetorically), 'What did Bush ever do for Ken Lay?'. The implication is that, whatever Lay and cronies did with Enron, Bush wasn't involved. At the time the answer was 'Bush appointed Lay's choice as FERC head, to rip off California.".
I watched the interview too. There were some fairly aggressive, hard-hitting questions from a guy (and former Democratic operative) that two weeks ago was being accused of spewing Karl Rove talking points. Posted by: GREG at July 14, 2003 05:13 AM | PERMALINKI've just solved the bizarre Kissinger meltdown against Brzezinski on Blitzer yesterday. "Now, what I don't understand is why you bring up all these things to attack, yet you don't see rank dishonesty as one of them." I don't think that claiming the moral high ground on the issue of "honesty" will reap much political fruit for the democrats. To hell will the moral high ground. It backfired against Clinton with the whole Monicagate BS. it backfired against the "Peace In Our Time" left in 2002. I do not think that it will finally work this time in 2004. Posted by: Jaybird at July 14, 2003 07:02 AM | PERMALINKI'd forgotten I commented in Kissinger's meltdown in another thread (sorry). But I missed its significance, as I see it. Posted by: John Isbell at July 14, 2003 07:20 AM | PERMALINKIsn't it about time that the Office of Special Plans got placed on the hot seat, instead of the CIA? If you recall, the terms of reference for the limited Congressional inquiry specifically exempted them - other than Senator Roberts, does anyone really want to argue that CIA "incompetence" is the real issue here? Posted by: Dave L at July 14, 2003 08:01 AM | PERMALINKJaybird, Bush used the "moral high ground" to good advantage in 2000. Why do you think that the Democrats cannot turn that against him in 2004? Posted by: PaulB at July 14, 2003 08:25 AM | PERMALINKBecause they weren't able to do so in 2002. It's like the old saying, "Never appeal to a man's better nature. He might not have one. Appeal instead to his best interest." Right now, the left seems to be more interested in proving that the people who went to the anti-war rallies were right than in actually winning the election. Ah, well. At least the minority party has a better claim to the moral high ground... Posted by: Jaybird at July 14, 2003 08:37 AM | PERMALINKCondi-Lies-A Rice said on June 8: "We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time, in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken." But we know two things: First, CIA Director Tenet told Condi's deputy Steve Hadley last October to take the Niger uranium story out of Bush's Cincinnati speech. Steve sits next door to Condi, but I guess she thinks that's down in the bowels. Second, yesterday Condi-Lies-A switched her story. On June 8 she said the information was mistaken. Yesterday she said it was accurate. Which is it? And how do you know it's accurate when the British have refused to share that particular intel with us? The offending 16 words said that the British "have learned," not that they "said." As Daily Howler points out, that carries a clear implication that the information is true. But since you've never seen it, you don't know. So you have no basis to say that's it accurate. Condi-Lies-A will have a hard time getting out of this one. Posted by: John at July 14, 2003 09:41 AM | PERMALINKAn addendum -- "That particular intel" refers to some other report that the British claim to have, but which they won't share with us. Condi-Lies-A said yesterday that the intel referred to in the President's speech was different intel than the Niger uranium forgery. Read somewhere that the reason the Brits won't share it with us is that they were given it by some other country on the condition that they not pass it to the Americans, because they were concerned that we would use it as an excuse to go to war. Didn't work, did it? Posted by: John at July 14, 2003 09:45 AM | PERMALINKJaybird, you don't have to have been against the war to be pissed about this. I was for the war, but this faith-based intelligence is a serious issue. And it very well could tie in politically with the other things you mentioned, like the economy and homeland security, where the administration's rhetoric is also at odds with reality. The ideological rigidity that's on display with this intelligence problem is basically the same foundation for their faith-based approach to economics, where gigantic tax cuts are always the answer to everything. Posted by: Haggai at July 14, 2003 10:10 AM | PERMALINK"Jaybird, you don't have to have been against the war to be pissed about this." But it helps. The problem that I have is not that I feel that Bush is an upstanding gentleman and the best dad gum president Ronald Dad Gum Reagan. The problem is that I feel that this avenue of attack is analagous to the protesters who threw up on the sidewalks in order to communicate their feelings about the current administration. It may feel good for the participants but I suspect that more people are turned off than not. Given that British Intelligence did say X, trying to paint Bush as a liar for saying "British Intelligence said X" will not play well and the defenses against it will fit much more comfortably into a 30-second spot than the attacks will. Posted by: Jaybird at July 14, 2003 11:13 AM | PERMALINKPainting Bush as an outright liar--namely, that he said the Africa/uranium thing despite knowing that it was false--is not a winning approach, I agree. But that's not the only thing at stake. The problem is the culture of faith-based intelligence that was clearly at work within the administration in the run-up to the war, for which the President is 100% responsible. If the CIA goofed by not insisting that the statement be removed from the State of the Union speech, then who was responsible for putting it in? Rice didn't answer that when she was asked about it yesterday. Why was so much faith put in this British intel report when it centered around the most serious claim against Saddam, that he was actively seeking to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program? How did something so tenuous end up being hyped to the level that it did? All those things are fair game. It's not just a matter of whether Bush said "X" when he knew that "not X" was true. It's about whether anyone should be willing to take the administration's word for it on major issues when the reality ends up being so different from what they insisted it was. Posted by: Haggai at July 14, 2003 11:24 AM | PERMALINKYeah, but the subtle and nuanced approach that you are espousing will not get anywhere near as much attention as "BUSH LIED!!!!" and, as long as Fox News gets to choose between interviewing you and interviewing someone who has promised to vomit on-camera in order to express his displeasure at the LIES BUSH TOLD US ALL... well, don't sit by the phone. We all know that the way to bring him down is *NOT* to do stuff like throwing up on the sidewalks and blocking people trying to go to work. While attacking him for something technically true (if dishonest in presentation) isn't quite as bad as a pukeathon, making such an attack could result in a backlash nonetheless. And when there are avenues of attack that are a lot less likely to result in backlash (Ashcroft, unemployment, etc) that are getting nowhere *NEAR* as much play, going for the "Bush is a LIAR!!!" meme is overreaching. I think it'll backfire hard. Posted by: Jaybird at July 14, 2003 11:42 AM | PERMALINKBut who's vomiting on camera? The Senate intelligence committee Democrats who have spoken about this stuff in the past couple of weeks, like Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller, certainly haven't been over the top. I do agree that if there is someone to be found on this issue who will throw up on cue, Fox News and O'Reilly will put them on the air and present them as the only voice of opposition to Bush. We both agree that a puke-a-thon won't work, but I don't think the big name Democrats are taking that approach. This is a real issue, so that makes it even more important to keep it going with the relevant arguments (just like Kevin is doing with his posts) instead of trying to change the subject, thus leaving it entirely in the hands of the vomiters. Posted by: Haggai at July 14, 2003 12:18 PM | PERMALINKI get it: he was just relying on the President of the United States! It's not really fair to hold him accountable for that, is it? No more than you're to be held accountable for posting the various false news stories over the past few months that you've later corrected, Kevin. I seem to recall a confederate wreath laying thingie...... Posted by: Ricky at July 14, 2003 01:32 PM | PERMALINKI keep having these awful nightmares of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, with the WMDs on first, a Nigerian scam chain-letter on second, and an Al-Qaida connection on third. Then Fleischer grounded out, Tenet hit a sacrifice fly, Bush keeps walking on balls, and credibility strikes out swinging. And the worst part is, they keep demanding they have one more out. I think it's time we let John Kruk smack them around a bit. Posted by: Cowboy Kahlil at July 14, 2003 02:00 PM | PERMALINKRicky: "I get it: he was just relying on the President of the United States! It's not really fair to hold him accountable for that, is it? No more than you're to be held accountable for posting the various false news stories over the past few months that you've later corrected, Kevin." Then, Ricky, you'll be wanting to inform the White House to fess up, as you note that Kevin did when he received bogus information, instead of pretending that they didn't screw up here. That seems like elementary, six-year-old accountability, which I'm sure you encourage in American Presidents. N'est-ce pas? Posted by: John Isbell at July 14, 2003 10:15 PM | PERMALINKJohn, I guess we can't accuse Donald Rumsfeld of taking the fall for his President. Posted by: Decnavda at July 15, 2003 09:57 AM | PERMALINKHe who gives up freedom for security deserves neither. Posted by: Levy Robert J. at May 3, 2004 08:55 AM | PERMALINKBabes N Cars - Cute GirlFriend - Chix With Dix - Cheer TryOuts Posted by: Free xxx gallery at June 21, 2004 07:59 PM | PERMALINK[In] mourning, it is better to err on the side of grief than on the side of formality. Posted by: Takahashi Retsu at June 30, 2004 10:30 AM | PERMALINKI have found the best online pharmacy for buying Generic Viagra online
8519 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 09:58 PM | PERMALINK3471 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 8905 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 12:07 PM | PERMALINK6806 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 03:56 PM | PERMALINK5477 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 01:21 AM | PERMALINKSite Map of www.jiaowangxing.com
Cashmere yarn
Posted by: cashmere sweater at August 14, 2004 03:17 AM | PERMALINK 8788 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 06:41 PM | PERMALINK5684 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 16, 2004 10:52 PM | PERMALINK6182 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 5497 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 11:21 PM | PERMALINK7238 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 6868 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 05:00 AM | PERMALINK1454 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 09:50 PM | PERMALINK2497 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 05:47 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
