W House efforts to reframe Iraq debate complicated by shifting explananati

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/23/national1701EDT0740.DTL

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House has teamed with GOP congressional leaders in an aggressive damage-control campaign to counter embarrassing questions about prewar intelligence and lapses by President Bush's national security team.

But the effort is being hampered by an ever-changing White House story -- from first blaming the CIA and then the British to new revelations by Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley that contradict earlier statements by his boss, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Two high-ranking officials -- Hadley and CIA Director George Tenet -- have publicly apologized for not doing more to keep out of Bush's State of the Union address a discredited British claim that Iraq was trying to obtain raw uranium in Africa.

The president has dodged questions over whether he takes personal responsibility for those words.

more

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. The benefit of this is they are really portraying themselves as liars

it calls into question everything they have ever done...now is the time to bring back up issues that were dropped such as HARKIN!!! He was given the benefit of the doubt on SO MANY THINGS.

Let the last two years run back by now that they are ALL GETTING CAUGHT in the lie.

[Wonder]

10. Yes but this has been clear for quite some time now.

I may not be abreast of the current popularity polls, however it seems the propaganda has not worn itself out entirely. At present if they succeed in getting this Iran hoopala a stir they still may find a way to fancy themselves around it. It will all depend upon the complicity levels of those demanding answers to all the hard questions.

It seems to me it can still go either way. It is amazing how good they have gotten in hiding it all in plain site. what is so ironic is these lies are the kind that really matter to me unlike that lie they hung clinton on (that good ole boy hiding behind his saxophone oh so slick and southern comforting). In other words it looked to me like they could have taken them down before the war, especially based on some of these lies that are being revealed, how much more obvious does it need to get. I guess the problem if the investigations persist in sincerity heads are going to roll on both sides.

[goforit]

2. Hmmmm......I'm sure the C.Right will be applauding all the WH murders!

I'm sure their fan club will believe all 500 different
stories they have to offer.

Pathetic!!!

[ColumbusGirl]

3. 16 words

They keep talking about these teeny little 16 words, as though it diminishes the enormity of the lie.

We went to war and thousands of people have died. People continue to die every day.

Only 16 words? I know several very anti * people who were swayed when they believed those 16 words.

History will not be kind to Georgie Porgie when it comes to his 16 words.

16 words indeed.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. It cuts both ways

Are 16 words insignificant? I don't think so; let's work with rough numbers. 225 American dead (is that about right?) and 10,000 Iraqis dead, total of 10,225 human lives gone forever. 10,225 divided by 16 yields about 639.

So 639 people died for each word that treasonous bastard uttered in that small part of the State of the Union address. Sure, the rest of the speech was a pack of lies too, but if they want to play the 16-word game, we can do that too.

[Stephanie]

9. If they want to ride all their chips on 16 words, fine with me

16 Words is the Blue Dress and the 18 Minute Gap in the Tape. 16 Words is something anyone can focus on - anyone can understand that those 16 Words were a lie. I think the 16 Words thing is a great gift to us.

[Wonder]

11. exactly! there is much reckoning to do

it goes back a long time.

[Scaramouche]

4. shifting explananati...

seems like a great name for a band...

[opihimoimoi]

5. Shifting Shibais, shifting LIES

is wot this is

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

7. Problem With The 16 Word Controversy

is that it is detracting from potential issues with the many other statements made by Bush and Co. leading up to war. By focusing only (or rather, so heavily) on the 16 words in the SOTU speech, Democrats are going to allow Bush to focus all of his excuse-making, wriggle-out tactics on this one lie. I don't understand why the statement regarding the potential for a chemical/biological attack from Iraq in 45 minutes is so shattering to the Blair government in Britain, but is barely mentioned in the U.S. In something the White House calls a "Global Message" which is periodically released, Bush on September 26, 2002 stated point-blank that Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes. THERE IS NO ATTRIBUTION TO A BRITISH SOURCE!!!!! It's still there on the White House website, for all to see. Why is there no mention anywhere of this??????? Instead of focusing on the 16 words, we should be blasting Bush on all fronts simultaneously, calling him on ALL THE LIES through which we went to war. From the White House website:

Global Message, September 26, 2002

The security of our country is the commitment of both political parties, and the responsibility of both elected branches of government. Elected officials are working for a strong Congressional resolution that sends a clear message: UN Security Council demands must be followed and the Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced.

The danger is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding facilities to make more. It could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb -- and, with fissile material, could build one within a year.

Iraq's regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups -- there are al-Qaida
terrorists inside Iraq. The regime also practices the rape of women and the torture of
dissenters and their children as methods of intimidation.

The President has made it clear: we refuse to live in a future of fear. We are determined to build a future of security and peace for the world.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-19.html

[grasswire]

8. Karl Rove...

...was able to "brand" the controversy as a "flap" over "sixteen words." By making that the frame of discussion, the damage was limited. Many people who aren't paying attention will only know of the sixteen words in the most shallow way, and probably discount them.

Never underestimate the WH strategists and PR machine. I'm afraid the Dems have nothing to compare.

[Wonder]

12. good point

the whole thing could be unraveled just on the sixteen words if that was really the intention and the Dems played their cards right.

The way you frame though a cynical, I find skeptism completely understandable, the WH is way too far out a limb to give it up so easily.

Most people I talk to end the conversation almost before it starts with "give me a break it was only 16 words that are meaningless in the big picture." You know those terrorists.

To really have the campaign pack a whollop the Dems really do need to start connecting all the lies going back to 9/11 in a way it would be palapable. If they do that the whole system would rock and the FACT IS many people are not paying attention and have let go by one lie after the other. Framed that way your call has merit, really what is the big deal it was only sixteen words, in the meantime it was a good thing getting Saddam.

I think it best to wait it out a bit more before I get all excited about all those heads that would need to roll. If that time would come who would be the leaders to put all the piece back together cause we are talking a complete shakedown and total reform.

[jamesinca]

13. Welcome to the DU aint no life nowhere

Nice post, I agree we should hit him on everything.

[DrBB]

14. Wow, good catch

I think the reason "45 minutes" hasn't been a big deal over here is that this wasn't a centerpiece for Shrump the way the nuke thing was. If you'd asked me before seeing this I'd have opined that he hadn't used it. But the nuke thing was their trump card. They can try to discount those 16 words but they can't change things like Condi's bit about "the smoking gun could be a nuclear mushroom cloud"--they played the nuke card prominently. And I've heard a lot of people say the 16 words thing is a distraction from their other lies, but their other lies are a distraction from still more lies, too, ad infinitum. A lot of us think that's their main contribution to fascist propaganda: Hitler had the Big Lie, which they've made use of, but their main thing is the Blizzard of Little Lies--you start to get a fix on one outrage and it is instantly supplanted by another and another in rapid succession so nothing ever gets any traction.

If 16 minutes is the bit that IS finally making some headway, I say run with it.

But this is a heck of a good catch. Certainly demonstrates that they were feeding off of Brit propaganda as well as generating their own. You should try emailing it to some prominent blogger/journalists if you haven't already--Josh Marshall, Joe Conason, any others you can think of--I haven't seen any of them mention it yet. and it definitely deserves wider awareness.