|
 |
July 17, 2003 WHITE HOUSE IN "BATTLE MODE"....Man, the press is finally calling them the way they see them. This is from Friday's Washington Post:
Sure, it's only on page A12, but it's a start! Read the whole story for more. And prepare yourself for an epic blizzard of "additional facts" coming from the White House over the next few days. Should be fun. Posted by Kevin Drum at July 17, 2003 10:07 PM | TrackBackComments
The White House yesterday sent Republicans on Capitol Hill a sheet of talking points titled "Why Saddam Hussein Was a Grave and Gathering Danger" and reprising evidence about the former Iraqi president's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. "We are only beginning to uncover the truth about the Iraqi regime," the sheet says. can't. . .respond. . .without blastfax!!!! Posted by: edub at July 17, 2003 10:29 PM | PERMALINKRove: All hands to battle stations! They're still promoting the same "evidence"? They're like a smoker whose first action after losing a lung is taking a drag... Posted by: Jonathan at July 17, 2003 10:41 PM | PERMALINKSlightly OT, but it just occurred to me that the whole "only 16 words" excuse is a bit soft coming from the same people who didn't seem to mind that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" is only eleven words. Posted by: Will Matthews at July 17, 2003 11:22 PM | PERMALINKMore damning evidence: "During the Clinton administration, the CIA's annual reports to Congress on the global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction routinely cast Iraq as a problematic footnote -- a country worth keeping an eye on but not an alarming threat. But the tone of the reports changed dramatically after George W. Bush became president, with increasingly longer narratives suggesting that Iraq was hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. In 1997, the first year of the congressionally mandated reports, the CIA devoted only three paragraphs to Iraq, noting that Baghdad possessed dual-use equipment that could be used for biological or chemical programs. There was no mention of a nuclear weapons program. By last year, the latest reporting period, the section on Iraq ran seven times longer, warning that "all intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons" and that the country could produce a bomb "within a year" if it got its hands on weapons-grade material. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last week that no significant new evidence about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction had been uncovered during the current administration. Intelligence sources agreed. The question of whether the CIA buckled under administration pressure as the White House prepared for war against Iraq has become even more sensitive in the wake of acrimonious finger-pointing on why Bush included in his State of the Union address an admittedly erroneous claim that Iraq had been shopping for uranium in Africa." http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia0718,0,2936686.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines Posted by: nameless at July 17, 2003 11:25 PM | PERMALINK"Additional facts" may be coming out of the White House, but heaven help you if you want to send any questions to the place. "Under a system deployed on the White House Web site for the first time last week, those who want to send a message to President Bush must now navigate as many as nine Web pages and fill out a detailed form that starts by asking whether the message sender supports White House policy or differs with it." Posted by: Linkmeister at July 17, 2003 11:29 PM | PERMALINKRe: Nameless' post at 11:25. I have never heard this said explicitly,
but if you think back to 2002, when the whole dirty Iraq snowball
started rolling downhill. Does anyone remember how phony the whole thing
felt back then? When the Bush administration started jabbering about
Iraq in the summer of 2002, I remember being immediately suspicious
about the whole thing. How did we go from Afghanistan and Osama Bin
Laden to Iraq and Saddam Hussein? Mmmm...Bush, Texas, Iraq and yes oil.
When we talk about our "national interest" we're talkin' crude. The
black blood of our economy. BTW. Once the Bush administration took over, we would have fought this war regardless of whether 9-11 happened or not. Posted by: Another Bruce at July 18, 2003 12:42 AM | PERMALINKOn a tactical note, it has seemd to me that the Bush administration has not shown a knack for defense, in the few times they have had to go on the defensive, dating back to the arsenic in drinking water issue. I think it is a truism that you can't be good at something you don't practice from time to time, and this is where the so far untroubled run of administration victories may prove to be a liability. Posted by: etc. at July 18, 2003 01:39 AM | PERMALINKBruce--yes, I remember when this mess started, it felt pretty phony. At the time we started blowing Afghanistan, I was (reluctantly) in favor of the operation, because I bought in to all the goofy things Bush said at the time, and I was still freaked out about 9/11 (like most of us were). By the way--oil is part of it, but this thing is bigger than even oil. etc.--you're absolutely right. They're like the Rams from a few years ago--spectacular offense, terrible defense. Their whole operation is collapsing like a house of cards, and they look like three monkey f***ing a football trying to figure out how to hang on. Posted by: nota bene at July 18, 2003 02:00 AM | PERMALINKSpeaking of playing defense, have you seen what's up with Alabama AG Pryor's nomination vote? Atrios' Lambert has it: http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1365364 And the back story on the RAGA is even better. Check out Ignatz (sam Heldman) at The money grafs from the WaPo article he links: Republican state attorneys general in at least six states telephoned corporations or trade groups subject to lawsuits or regulations by their state governments to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions, according to internal fundraising documents obtained by The Washington Post. One of the documents mentions potential state actions against health maintenance organizations and suggests the attorneys general should "start targeting the HMO's" for fundraising. It also cites a news article about consolidation and regulation of insurance firms and states that "this would be a natural area for us to focus on raising money."
Things are tough all over, eh boys? Posted by: epist at July 18, 2003 02:12 AM | PERMALINK"That would represent a change in tack." They meant: "change of tactic." Very sloppy. Very...uh...tacky. Posted by: tristero at July 18, 2003 02:52 AM | PERMALINKtristero: Seems right to me. Whereas tactic implies one of many, tack implies an opposite approach, taking a whole new direction. Posted by: theCoach at July 18, 2003 05:00 AM | PERMALINK"By the way--oil is part of it, but this thing is bigger than even oil" Oh, hell, if it was all about oil, I could accept it, up to a point--oil is a legitimate US interest; we can't afford to have the likes of Saddam mucking about with the world's oil supply (see 1991). But it's NOT about oil, exactly--it's more about crazy neocon theories and domestic politics (with maybe a lttle profiteering for GWB's buddies thrown in). Posted by: rea at July 18, 2003 05:42 AM | PERMALINKIf they don't start pimping the "He tried to kill my dad" angle in this batch of fresh, piping-hot evidence, I'm going to be very disappointed. Even better: they unveil the gala musical number "He Tried To Kill My Dad", Broadway-style, in the Rose Garden. Posted by: Norbizness at July 18, 2003 05:43 AM | PERMALINKWhatever happened to the "responsibility era" that Bush pledged would begin with his presidency? So much for upholding the integrity of the office. As uplifting as Blair's speech was, it doesn't detract from the emerging fact that the administration's case for war, in all its variations, was wholly fraudulent. Posted by: Aaron W. Benson at July 18, 2003 06:08 AM | PERMALINK>>And prepare yourself for an epic blizzard of "additional facts" coming from the White House over the next few days. This should be fun - always useful to identify the operatives marching lockstep dutifuly and mindlessly repeating and disseminating the current talking points Posted by: Andy at July 18, 2003 06:13 AM | PERMALINKHistory is not going to absolve Tony Blair or George W. Bush over this matter of alledged Iraqi WMDs. Every day, week, and now month that nothing turns up further lowers their credibility, to the point where there will be hardly any left. Blair's lame attempt to change the rationale for the war is something he should be thrown out of office for, IMNSHO. Posted by: David W. at July 18, 2003 06:20 AM | PERMALINKIf they don't start pimping the "He tried to kill my dad" angle in this batch of fresh, piping-hot evidence, I'm going to be very disappointed. Agreed, Norbizness. The amazing thing about that fact is that it could have been used as part of a non-bogus case for war! Namely, if Saddam had succeeded in assassinating Bush the elder back in '93 or '94, whenever it was, there would have been a very good chance of a US war to topple his regime. And Saddam's fingerprints were all over the assassination attempt, he barely bothered to try to conceal it. So the point is, deterrence with Saddam is a pretty dicey proposition, because he was willing to take an enormous risk with his regime just to get some revenge of a purely personal nature. It doesn't prove that he was undeterrable, but it does raise serious questions about that. Ken Pollack pointed this out leading up to the war, and I thought, "That makes sense. Why didn't the administration ever say that? Oh, yeah, they went with 'he tried to kill my dad'...that's a much more convincing way to put it." Posted by: Haggai at July 18, 2003 06:41 AM | PERMALINKIt's a front-page link on the web, along with a bunch of other
stories. The (apparently) dead UK scientist who challenged Blair's dodgy
dossier is only on TV today. They found a body. I'm not making this up. The Economist is running a very long-winded editorial about Iraq. They are trying hard to justify their support for the war and put the best face on the whole mess. Here's the link- http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1923421 Posted by: peter jung at July 18, 2003 07:00 AM | PERMALINKThat would represent a change in tack One of the few people who uses that phrase properly. Most people make a change in tact. Kevin must be a sailor. Posted by: Pug at July 18, 2003 07:08 AM | PERMALINKFollowing up on its efforts to blow CIA ops' cover to discredit its critics, the White House is now outing a reporter as gay and...wait for it... Canadian! Posted by: Sven at July 18, 2003 07:27 AM | PERMALINK"One of the few people who uses that phrase properly. Most people make a change in tact. Kevin must be a sailor." Look at the shoes, look at the shoes. Posted by: jdw at July 18, 2003 07:30 AM | PERMALINKtheCoach: "tack - Well...Actually that definition is for the intransitive verb form, but the reporter (not Kevin, btw) uses it as a noun. Usually, when it's used as a noun I've seen it deployed thus: "That would represent an entirely new tack." The nautical metaphor is apt because in sailing, you "change tacks" when running before the wind, which is a complete change of direction, as part of a strategy to sail upwind via a "zig zag" course. I 've never noticed the usage "a change in tack" used in sailing literature, which would imply some kind of a change within a given tack. That would be quite imprecise. To make such an adjustment, you'd either "trim" or "let out" your sails. "Change of tack" could work, but considering that he drops the metaphor like a hot potato (pardon me!), I think the reporter meant either "a change in tactics" or "a change of tactic." By the way, does anyone know if obsessive compulsive has a hyphen? Posted by: tristero at July 18, 2003 07:39 AM | PERMALINKAs a sailor myself, I admit that "change in tack" sounds odd, but I'd definitely know what someone was talking about. As an additional oddity, it is possible to change tacks without changing direction if the wind shifts significantly and suddenly. Ah, wouldn't it be nice if we could discuss politics exclusively in metaphors? :) Posted by: Mev at July 18, 2003 08:18 AM | PERMALINKMore from the same WaPo article: "People have been challenging the president's credibility for
partisan political purposes," a senior administration official said.
"There's nothing that gets this White House more in battle mode than
that. We have no idea how long it will last." Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor yesterday that Democrats had "sacrificed the national interest on the altar of partisan politics and are making accusations that are grossly offensive." Interesting. Neither comment refutes the validity of the accusations ... the only claim is that the accusations are partisan and offensive. Posted by: Gautam Vallabha at July 18, 2003 08:31 AM | PERMALINK"Tack" is understatement. It's more like JIBE JIBE JIBE! (Boom smacks Condi in the forehead) *splash* Posted by: squiddy at July 18, 2003 08:43 AM | PERMALINKThe unambiguous use of the term is that a sailboat is on the "starboard tack" or "port tack" depending on which side of the midline the boom and mainsail are on. One of the main racing rules is that boats on starboard tack have right-of-way. The verb is intransitive and can refer to one change of tack, or a series. When sailboats are going to windward, they move most efficiently when they are pointed about 45 degrees off the direction of the wind, so a change of tack involves a 90 degree change in the direction in which the boat is moving. That's the source of the metaphor. Posted by: Roger Bigod at July 18, 2003 09:00 AM | PERMALINK"By the way--oil is part of it..." CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml good ol' buzzflash Posted by: d at July 18, 2003 09:03 AM | PERMALINKThis is the headline I want to see: America tacks to port - details Skipper to Scupper I'm no sailor - I get seasick. Posted by: Aggrieved Pride at July 18, 2003 09:10 AM | PERMALINKWow, that Gay-or-Canadian story is appalling...but I love the "so-what" tone of the WP gossip column. Other than that -- W's administration has had such an effect on me that I no longer particularly believe in SH's plot to kill Bush 41, and I used to. Posted by: DonBoy at July 18, 2003 09:44 AM | PERMALINKJohn-- Josh Marshall suggests suicide, but then says "Even if that's what happened here though, when people at the center of scandals like this turn up dead it raises the drama level, the media fascination and 'heat' of the story almost immeasurably." No kidding. Wonder if people are going to make Vince Foster comparisons? Posted by: nota bene at July 18, 2003 09:46 AM | PERMALINKRoger Bigod: "so a change of tack involves a 90 degree change in the direction in which the boat is moving. That's the source of the metaphor." Exactly and well put. Thanks. Posted by: tristero at July 18, 2003 09:47 AM | PERMALINKOoh! The first "facts" are coming out! Apparently, a CIA intelligence assessment from October cites compelling evidence that Saddam was trying to reassemble a nuclear program. What a relief that Our Great Leaders weren't lying when they said so. Now the only problem is, why did the CIA believe something we now know to be false? Posted by: Grumpy at July 18, 2003 10:59 AM | PERMALINKGrumpy... the release said that Saddam might be able to get a nuke sometime in the next decade. Maybe the White House misread that to mean the next election? Judical Watch just got the first set of papers they got from Cheney's Energy Commision. Guess what? Iraq is carved up nicely showing who would get which oil fields to exploit. The plot thickens. Posted by: M. L. Foster at July 18, 2003 01:33 PM | PERMALINKThe definition is... "A boat is on the tack, starboard or port, corresponding to her windward side." Windward is defined: "A boat's leeward side is the side that is or, when she is head to wind, was away from the wind. However, when sailing by the lee or directly downwind, her leeward side is the side on which her mainsail lies. The other side is the windward side." So, if you're backing your sail while close-hauled, your tack is defined by where the where the wind is coming from, not where the sail is. Also, jibing is sometimes safer than tacking in certain conditions. :) Posted by: Mev at July 18, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINKCorrection: the first AP bulletin said it was a CIA assessment. The CIA reference was deleted after I posted my remark. Minus that, I'd guess the conclusion comes from the OSP. Posted by: Grumpy at July 18, 2003 02:55 PM | PERMALINKDon't worry that other people don't know you; worry that you don't know other people. Posted by: Blinn Anne Isacowitz at May 3, 2004 12:20 PM | PERMALINKPeter North - Nebraska Coeds - Milssa Lincoln - Tranny Trouble - Rate My Tranny - Cum Swapping Bitches - Naughty Therapy Posted by: Free sex sites at June 21, 2004 09:35 PM | PERMALINK
Best XXX Sites - 1062 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: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 02:30 PM | PERMALINK1378 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 25, 2004 01:26 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
