Boy, the NYTimes today is dead on. They know exactly what Bush is doing.

[Brotherjohn]

"But the way the inquiry is emerging so far suggests that Mr. Bush may be merely trying to change the subject until after the election. Mr. Bush should not be able to deflect debate by saying he is not at liberty to discuss the failures in Iraq because he appointed a panel to look into American intelligence."(http://nytimes.com/2004/02/03/opinion/03TUE1.html)

You can bet that's going to be his default mode every single time the opposing candidate or the press brings this up. It's good to be the king!

But as the editorial points out (and thankfully people are starting to say it out loud), "the question of whether top officials exaggerated intelligence on Iraq or, worse, pressured analysts to hype the threat from Iraqi weapons programs deserves to be a central issue this fall." OF COURSE it does! That is so obvious that it is laughable that those proposing the commission are ignoring it.

It's as though Michael Jackson were put in charge of the state child welfare department and appointed a commission to investigate the problem of neglected children in California and, when asked about allegations of child molestation against him, he were to say "I've appointed a commission."

We can't let him get away with this tactic. Anytime he tries to pawn off such questions by saying "I've appointed a commission", the Democratic candidate should say "Well, Mr. Bush, the American people are having a little investigation themselves. It's called an election. They render their verdict on November 2nd, and they are entitled to the evidence required to render this verdict."

It is now blatantly obvious that they took us into war under false circumstances... circumstances that they knew were false or, at the very least, questionable. Yet they led us to believe that this evidence was unquestionable, that this evidence was rock solid. Here's hoping that, despite all the spin, the people are smart enough to see this.

[ewagner]

1. Great post Brotherjohn!

Your insights are right on the mark!

How come our "independent media" hasn't screemed bloody murder over the very thought of Bush investigating himself?

Maybe this article is a good first step.

[Brotherjohn]

11. It's also not just Bush investigating himself. It's that they're ignoring

... the elephant in the room: that it's not a question of whether the intel was wrong, but a question of how the Bush administration misrepresented the evidence.

This is clear as day. There is so much documented evidence that they repeatedly made claims which either ignored caveats from intelligence agencies or outright ignored evidence which was clearly to the contrary. This included most if not all of the key claims they made to support their contention that Iraq had WMDs.

Niger uranium deal - Known to be a forgery before the war. Known to be likely untrue a year before the war, as determined by the CIA.

Aluminum tubes - Disputed from the beginning by the U.N. and U.S. intelligence before the war. The best experts we had, DOE, said they were not suitable for use in uranium enrichment, as did the U.N. The U.N. was on site and determined that the tubes matched specifications EXACTLY for conventional artillery rockets which Iraq had used before (they eventually even found order documents verifying the purpose of the tubes; I have heard they were available on the web).

Iraq / Al Qaeda connection - Disputed by the CIA long before the war. Disputed by most other sources (except those in the Bush administration). Ridiculous on its face because the organization cited as the "connection", Ansar Al-Islam, was an avowed enemy of Hussein operating in Kurd territory, outside of Hussein's control.

Iraq WMD program - U.N. inspectors on the ground concluded that Iraq showed no signs of re-starting a nuclear weapons program, or even related activities. They had also concluded, in 1998 before leaving, that they had completely dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.

Iraq chem/bio-weapons programs - The Bush administration often cited testimony from Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, as proof of specific types and quantities of chem and bio-weapons that Iraq definitively HAD. They ignored his assertions, IN THE VERY SAME TESTIMONY, that all of these weapons were destroyed shortly after the Gulf War. The best they could have said was that, although Iraq has claimed they have destroyed these weapons (the Bush administration never even pointed this out), they have never provided definitive proof that they all were destroyed. This is what the U.N. was saying, and they were in the process of gathering this proof.

The list goes on, and on, and on....

It is so obvious that they cannot ignore it indefinitely lest they suffer great peril politically. It likely falls, however, entirely upon the Democratic candidate to keep the questions coming and to keep this issue on the front-burner.

[emanymton]

2. Don't Get Your Hopes Up ...

Corporate media, including NYT, are not going to bite the hand.

[westerby]

9. I agree. They never question a war beforehand.

they could have been a lot more skeptical before the war, not after, when it is too late.

Is there a system? Never attack a coming war?
(1) Tonking gulf. Oops, probably they faked the incident. Perhaps we should have been more alert.
(2) Incubator story (courtesy Hill & Knowlton) regarding Iraq. Oops, obviously they faked the story. Perhaps we should have been more alert.
(3) Iraq II: WMD story. Oops, perhaps they faked the story.

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. I tell ya...

If people aren't smart enough to see this,

I will lose a LOT of respect for the American people.

[Brotherjohn]

5. They saw through the impeachment. Bush's poll numbers are dropping...

...precipitously. I'm getting more confident every day that, despite what the media says about it, the people see through it all.

[spooky3]

4. Good point. Maybe our candidate should say, "Fine; I'll go ahead and

talk about it. Feel free to correct me if I say something wrong." :-)

[BOSSHOG]

8. Roger that Spooky

And this would apply to other issues:

Apparently cheney's energy task force included representatives from halliburton and one of the task force's goals was to have bush take the oil fields in irag by force if necessary; thus ensuring halliburton no bid contractrs. If there is anything wrong with this statement mr cheney, please provide documentation to the contrary.

karl rove provided bob novak info about Ms Plame solely for the purpose of punishing her husband. rove called novak because he knew it would be published by the republican operative. If this statement is not true karl, prove it.

[lovedems]

6. I sent emails to my senators Dick Durbin and Patrick Fitzgerald

and to my represenatative John Shimkus politely expressing my outrage at bu$h appointing his own commission. I mentioned that this administration is making a mockery of democracy and the "checks and balances" system that is suppose to be in place.

I must say, I have contacted John Shimkus (R) on numerous occassions and he always sends me a letter, hand signed, addressing my personal concerns. At least I know he is hearing me, he just doesn't always listen.

[Brotherjohn]

14. We should ALL do this. I'm composing one now.

Make sure to point out that central to the investigation should be whether or not the intelligence was mis-used and exagerrated by the Bush administration.

It's not the intel that led us to war, it was how the Bush admin used the intel... and how they often made up their own and ignored intel (from the CIA, from the U.N....) that did not jibe with their political goal. It should concentrate on OSP and Pentagon intel as much as the (scapegoat) CIA.

[Martin Eden]

15. My Illinois representative in Congress...

...is also a Republican: Judy Biggert. I've written her twice, and both times I recieved a form letter in which she stated her position.

The first time, I urged her to vote against the Iraqi War Resolution. I knew she would vote for it, but my jaw just dropped by what her letter asserted (not verbatum, but essentially):

9/11 showed us how devastating it is when weapons of mass destruction are combined with state-sponsored terrorism

I wrote back pointing out to her that box-cutters are not WMD, that al Qaeda wasn't a "state", and that if any state sponsored these terrorists it was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. I also let her know I would be voting for her opponent in the next election.

Again, I petitioned her to vote against the latest Bush tax cut, and her form letter asserted the tax cuts provided the average family with $1,126 in tax relief.

This time I didn't bother pointing out to her that the average of $1,126 is like saying that the average annual income of people sitting in the Wal-Mart cafeteria is $5 million/year -- when Bill Gates sits down at the counter with them.

It's discouraging when your representative in Congress is either stupid, delusional, or a bald-faced liar -- and thinks you're stupid enough to nod along with her nonsense.

[IowaBiker]

7. "It's a cover up!"

That's all *'s opponents have to say.

He's made sure he's covered up his involvement until after the elections.

His party can't handle the truth, not with an election in process.

A better part of the American public will see through that.

The hopelessly lost wil continue to have faith in the devil.

--Brian

[carolinayellowdog]

10. Not just Bush; McCain is just as bad

At least three times I've heard him INSIST that the results of the inquiry not be available until after the election. The reason being that the findings might have a political impact. DUH-- the manipulation of intelligence had a political impact 100% to Dubya's advantage. To withhold the truth until after the election would pile one crime on top of another.

[KC21304]

12. Bush and Co. surely tried to use the issue before the 2002

elections. They went for maximum political impact then.

[Brotherjohn]

13. I'm not sure if I disagree with that. It's as the Times point out...

... it runs the risk of politicizing the results. On it's face, that sounds good, because we think the results will be bad for Bush.

But that cuts both ways. Really, it's Bush's commission, and it will likely "vindicate" him, b/c it will not even look into the pertinent issue (did he mislead?). So really, if it's politicized, it will likely be to Bush's benefit.

I'd rather place my trust in the people and the Dem candidates to keep their own "investigation" on the front-burner, merely by continuing to hammer away at the issue. Bush will look like he's hiding, like he thinks he's unnaccountable (he does), and the campaign will likely bring out more negative against Bush on this issue than any investigation (read: whitewash) ever would. I think McCain knows this.

[RainDog]

16. gee, why hasn't some enterprising reporter

interviewed Lt. Col. Karen K. to get an eye-witness account of how intelligence was manipulated by the Office of Special Plans?

They can read her articles in The American Conservative right now.

Or they can read Sy Hersh's expose in last year's New Yorker.

Or they can google about a gazillion sources online and check them out for validity...

...you know, do their jobs, instead of sucking up to Dick and Bush and acting like they're not whores...

The whole call for an investigation is a joke. This information is ALREADY OUT THERE and has been

SO WHY ISN'T ANY FUCKING MAINSTREAM NEWS SOURCE telling the TRUTH to the American people?

how it is politicizing an event to tell the truth about it!?!?!?!?!?

isn't it politicizing the information to WITHHOLD IT from voters????

sorry for yelling, but I'm so sick of this crap.

We're in bizarro world, thanks to Bush. Cheney is Lex Luther and Bush is his pet chimp.

[wabeewoman]

18. They are not just not telling the truth

they are carrying water for bush. That is why I want all the democratic candidates (except Lieberman who has dropped out) to stay in the race and keep bringing up issues. There is strength in numbers and I fear that when one is left standing (especially if he is one who was quiet before) he will go back to NOT challenging bush. Clark has been especially good at calling bush out.Of course, so has Dean. Edwards is running a positive campaign and frankly, I haven't heard him challenging bush at all except that there are 2 Americans. I say keep all the candidates running until the last minute. Keep up the attacks on bush. AS to the media, the more obvious their lies, the less the voters will believe them. Frankly, I don't believe anything they say unless I check it out myself.

[RainDog]

21. amen, susta. preach it.

:)

I agree totally. The dem candidates should stay in the race, and the ones who are not going to get the nom should tell the truth about Bush, yell it, yawp it, preach it, know it.

they can afford to take the heat from Rover and from the rabid attack dogs in the Fox propaganda coop.

the truth shall make you free of Bush, America.

bush is a liar. deep down in his Texas heart, that organ is pumping oil, while his adminstration drinks the blood of American troops to sustain their dead energy greed.

as far as the media goes, yeah, I quit watching tv for real news a while back.

but it was amazing to realize what failures so-called news sources are in the U.S. It's a travesty for democracy, really, for all Americans who want to know what's going on.

it's sort of like Americans who get their news from tv are trying to survive in a truth ghetto where the rats have taken over.

people who get their news from the internet, in comparison, are like kids in a private school which doesn't have to deal with attacks from fundies who warp minds with their lies.

[Kikosexy2]

17. Boy the NYTimes is dead on....

Democrats and Independents need to start attacking full throttle on David Kay's findings, the Medicare Bill, Bozo
Bush's extravagant spending, etc. Start replaying their WMDs claims over and over on TV & radio. Throw their
false claims right back at their faces. It's time to fight back because you think Karl Rove and co. are gonna
play nice? It's for us to start hitting the American public with the truth and get it out in the open!! Impeach Bozo Bush
NOW!!

[Snappy]

19. McCain

Lately he has been an Admin. bootlicker. They must have either promised him something or have something on him.

[oscarmitre]

20. Hopefully this ins't false optimism on my part

but here in Australia even the media (which has been compliant for many months) is now beginning to put pressure on GWB's MiniMe (John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister). We can see Blair beginning to crumble, it can't be too long before MiniMe in Oz is unable to keep blocking and denying and obfuscating. It's beginning to unravel.