Who Is Buried in Bush's Speech?

i alwze idit for speling, becuz i no i kant spel. c.i.

Thursday's NY Times carries several different stories. The story of the sons of Saddam Hussein is covered in an interesting article, in which the army is quoted as being reluctant to show the photographs of the dead men - one reason being so that the Iraqis wouldn't think the U.S. was gloating - a statement I find a little strange. Rumsfeld says they'll show the photos - but doesn't say when. It sounds like there is not such certainty about the Iraqi's reactions. But then, wasn't it predicted - pre war - that the troops would be greeted as liberators with roses strewn in the streets?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/international/worldspecial/24IRAQ.html?hp


Interesting comments, PD. Could also be the House might be trying to pre-empt what they might feel is a strong democratic slant. But, in view of the fact that it is Colin Powell's son who heads the FCC - there might be stories within stories. And Rupert Murdoch, who already controls so much, and who gives so heavily to Bush and to the republicans - how must he be reacting? Do you think that terrible mess they made of the Jessica lynch story comes into this? It was mostly Murdoch and Fox with all the proposals.

And I agree - the State speech ramifications have taken on a life of their own. Given that there are so many culprits assuming blame - who really did write, vet, edit that speech? Can it be that nobody at the top should be there, because they don't know nothing?

Did you happen to notice that there was no one from the administration who showed up or spoke at her 'homecoming'? There was only one politician, the Democratic governor of West Virginia, and her brother, also an Army specialist. There is something significant about that.

Actually I recall that the synergy package proposed by CBS was the one that caught the most flak. Leslie Moonves, the CBS president, backtracked publicly about it earlier this week.

The reason the "16 words" won't die is because a president is held accountable for what he says. Because the whitehouse.gov site shows Bush reviewing the SOTU "line, by line, word by word" according to the photo caption.

Because he is an idiot, and everyone knows it.

A very valuable interview with Raymond McGovern, retired senior CIA official and one of the three signatories of the recent Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity report... http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8367

PDid, Not so fast; not everybody knows GWBush is a idiot. Why would he enjoy such a high performance rating if that were so? c.i.

CI - c'mon, start reading some newer polls. Those approval ratings have been in a steady decline, and now most of the polls are saying the democrats score higher in handling the economy than the republicans. And the highest I've seen anywhere for Bush is now 59%, which, considering he just won a war and all, is not so swift. Remember too, we haven't got a named democrat yet, either.

mamaj, It's just my impatience speaking; it seems Americans just don't get it or stupid, and I can't figure out which. With all the media talking about how this president got this country into war under false pretences, why does he still enjoy a 59 percent approval rating? I just don't get it. I won't be happy until it reaches into the low twenties. c.i.

Clinton had some interesting comments on Larry King, about Bush's speech.

KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?

CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.

First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.

(...)
We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way. But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence. Then they said on balance they shouldn't have done it. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think.
-------------------
The rest of the interview is on Crunch's The DNC Says What? thread.

Sofia, I think you're missing something. This administration had pre-knowledge before the speech that the yellow cake from Niger was based on fraudulent documents and/or that it was not conclusive. They still used that information to justify this war with Congress and the American People. It's not a small matter; it ended up killing thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of our soldiers, and spending billions of our tax dollars that could be better spent at home. That money should have been spent on improving homeland security, improve our school funding, and medical coverage for all of our citizens. c.i.

Did Clinton miss that, too? Everyone knows the intel was questionable, but the Brits who gave it to Bush still believe it to be factual.

Just because you can't prove something beyond a shadow of doubt, doesn't mean you had better not pay attention to it or that is is NOT true.

I'm not saying we should go off half-cocked at every whisper that floats across a President's desk--but what Bush said, IMO, was accurate. "British sources have said..." Misleading, yes. A lie, no. The anti-terrorism work in Iraq, I believe will be a great benefit to us, and to other countries, which were formerly terrorist targets. As bad as the carnage was--the long-term effects will be worth it. (To the US AND Iraq.) I felt like the world was being held hostage. I think the tide has turned against terrorism. I know many people remain unconvinced of a link between terrorism and Iraq. And, I am convinced they were linked. A bit of proof are the al-Quaida rats that scurried across the Iranian border--and who Iran says they have in custody.

I think, now that people are talking freer since the Hussien brother's deaths, we will hear and see much more of al-Quaida and weapons.

Sofia,

We have Al Qaeda in custody. Are WE linked to terrorists?

Heck, Sophia, how can I argue with a beaut like you? I'm at a distinct disadvantage. I'll post a chronology of events for your review. c.i.

Iran has them in custody--because they left their lovely resort in downtown Tikrit when we started dropping bombs. We drained their swimming pool...

ci-- I did a quick avatar change to throw you off balance. :wink:
Don't go to too much trouble with your chronology. I've read it, I just see it not quite as sinister as you may expect me to.

Sophia, This is a link provided by blatham on the other Iraq forum.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8416
c.i.

I think this LINK from the above says it all. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2918036,00.html
They did everything to include it. That's not a "honest mistake." c.i.

I think it's pretty comical for the right to use Bill Clinton as a reference.

Someone who really ought to know something about being disingenuous, after all... :wink:

In my books, an honest mistake is when somebody says something that at the time seemed the truth without any desenting opinion. In the case of those 16 words, there were many who questioned the veracity of the claim, but they went ahead and included it anyway. It will never pass my test of "honest mistake." I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. c.i.

Does anyone actually believe it was an "honest mistake"? I mean I know there are people out there who are clinging to support for bush still, but I bet they don't really believe it. See below -- the signature quote here. I think that's their choice!

I think it's pretty comical for the left to be trying to act like Clinton didn't side with Bush...

Well, damn, I suppose all liberals should just do exactly what the Big Dog says, not to mention what the conservatives want them to do...