posted
Wednesday morning the New York Times published a story on the trailers that the Bush adminstration once reported to be mobile biological weapons laboratories. In the story, it was revealed that the first reports, indicating that these trailers could not have been used for biological research of any kind, were a available at the pentagon 2 days before Bush announced to the nation that we had found the WMDs.
Scott McClellan's (Whitehouse press secretary) response to this article was:
quote:Now, I will point out that the reporting I saw this morning was simply reckless and it was irresponsible. The lead in The Washington Post left the impression for the reader that the President was saying something he knew at the time not to be true. That is absolutely false and it is irresponsible, and I don't know how The Washington Post can defend something so irresponsible
Does anyone else see the irony of this comment?
When the trailers were first discovered, military personnel on the ground who had no scientific training observed that they fit the description the whitehouse had made of mobile weapons laboratories. Based on this preliminary finding, the Pentagon sent in an intelligence team with scientific training to check them out. Given the importance the whitehouse placed on this finding, it seems highly unlikely that whitehouse personnel would not have been briefed immediately on reports this team sent in. Even if that wasn't done, it seems recklessly irresponsible for the Whitehouse to make public claims that WMDs had been found without checking to see what the expert team had found.
Since 2001, the Whitehouse has reported a constant stream of "intelligence" which has been later proven to be invalid. Although it is unclear whether or not the Whitehouse knew at the time they were spreading inaccurate information, much of what they reported could be proven inaccurate by very simple investigations. Given this track record, it seems highly hypocritical for the Whitehouse to criticize the press for incompete or misleading reporting. No one is going to be killed because of a bad NY Times article.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't the administration continue to refer to these trailors as biological weapons laboratories for months afterward as well, or am I misremembering?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember seeing the trailers for a long time, but I can't remember whether it was the administration using them or the newscasts. It would be interesting to know, though.
posted
Pix, I'm not in thrall to hate right now. I actually feel rather emotionally removed from the details, but I am interested in understanding what has happened and why. I think it's important in learning from this, but I can see how that would be unsettling for a supporter who was also somewhat troubled by the turns of events.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT: As much as I hated Mr Clinton, by this point in his presidency I was pretty numb to anything the man did. I'd tuned it out to save my sanity.
The Left is grasping at straws and has been since day one. Their frustration (like the Right's frustration in the 90s) has long since built into a seething rage. Calm down. Smoke something or whatever you hippies do ( =D ) and relax. It'll all be over soon.
As for being a bush supporter? Yeah, I voted for him and would do it again given the choices at the time. But I wouldn't concider myself a supporter. But I'm positive my reasons for disliking him are different from yours.
posted
Your right Pixie. The Republican Party, who first asked that we hold Teachers responsible for the education of their students, those on welfare responsible for their money, teens responsible for their sexual activities etc, now is asking that we not hold President Bush and his administration responsible for their mistakes as that just isn't neccesary.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
DR: His mistake was emphasizing the WMD aspect of the war against Iraq. There were many reasons to invade Iraq and it was a good thing that it was done.
As for the propaganda that came out of the white house during the war and in the "Mission Accomplished" aftermath, go take a look at some 1940s propaganda and tell me who was worse. FDR or GWB.
Once again, Calm down. Wait it out. It's almost over.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: CT: As much as I hated Mr Clinton, by this point in his presidency I was pretty numb to anything the man did. I'd tuned it out to save my sanity.
I wonder if I'm in the same spot as you were in, then? It certainly feels better to be numb. *smile
"... and I have become comfortably numb."
I think perserverating over the past is pretty much a personality trait for me, albeit an unhealthy one at times. When I believed in an afterlife, my fondest hope would be that death would be followed by a long, thorough, and detailed explanation of everything that had happened in my life and why.
Now that sounds rather unpleasant to me, so I'm glad I'm no longer religious. *grin
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pix, I refuse that cop out. As a citizen, with opinions (right or wrong), it's as much my duty to keep a check on my elected officials however I can, even while they are in office. I don't see why I should feel like I have to wait 2 more years to try to effect change.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: All this hate is going to drive you guys crazy.
Bush is a lame duck. Just sit back and wait him out. There will be someone new to hate in 2008.
Hey, that sounds like a slogan!
"Condoleza Rice - Someone New To Hate, 2008!"
Pix, What did I say that indicated hate? I have no personal animosity toward Bush. He's probably a nice enough guy to go for a bike ride with. My criticisms were based exclusively on his policy and performance in office. That isn't hate, its participation in the democratic process.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: CT: As much as I hated Mr Clinton, by this point in his presidency I was pretty numb to anything the man did. I'd tuned it out to save my sanity.
The difference here is that you actually hated Clinton personally. What I hate is the policies Bush is pursuing and the tactics he has used to coerce the public and congress into following him. So what if he's a lame duck. He still has 2.5 years to continue his reckless and irresponsible policies. It's not about whether or not he's reelected, its about the thousands he will kill in the next 2.5 years.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, you really think my disdain for Clinton was any different from your loathing of Bush now? Examin your feelings carefully before you answer. I would wager that you never really thought about how you would feel "hanging out" with the man.
I hated Clinton for his policies. His betrayal of the gay community. His raising taxes on the poor in my home state. His doubling of Tuition at state schools, his "I see no need for a road there" refering to building a road to NW Arkansas and a plethora of other reasons.
I wouldn't want to hang out with him because I would be constantly afraid he would try to get into my pants. Given the women he molested in the past, I don't think my complete lack of anything remotely resembling good looks would be an issue.
posted
Considering the effect the criticism has had on hampering both the administration's stated agenda (and frankly, even many of the bits of it they've accomplished give me the willies) and the looming pall it's casting on the Republicans for the mid-term congressional elections, I can't see how one can honestly claim that it is without effect.
Besides which, I think it's terribly important to stand up for the principle of accountability and responsibility in our elected officials. I'm frankly disgusted by those who don't seem to feel this way when talking about people who they agree with.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, you really think my disdain for Clinton was any different from your loathing of Bush now? Examin your feelings carefully before you answer. I would wager that you never really thought about how you would feel "hanging out" with the man.
Since I don't loath Bush, I fact you keep skimming over, I do indeed believe that your self professed hatred of Clinton is very different from my feelins. I've spent a significant part of the last 6 years considering this. You say hate Clinton. I believe you feel that way. It is however very presumptuous of you to infer then that I must feel the same way about Bush. I've said over and over again that I have no annimosity toward Bush personally, I abhor his politics.
I think he is a reckless and irresponsible leader who's policies have directly caused the death of tens of thousands of innocent people, permanent degradation of our environment and a debt burder that is unfathomable.
I abhor his politics. I honestly can't think of one thing he's accomplished that is an unqualified good. But I have no feelings what so ever about him as an individual. I don't know him.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: I think we have a semantical issue. The way you phrased it is different from the way I phrased it but I think we mean the same thing.
While I've been in the same room as Mr Clinton I've never spoken to him and never got to know him. My little bro said then Gov'r Clinton was very personable when they met to the point that my bro didn't have the heart to tell him that he was voting for the other guy.
I hate him for his politics, not for anything at a personal level. Just as you hate Bush for his politics, but not on a personal level.
posted
Pix, You think it is a semantic difference because you are projecting your feelings on me. If I say I don't hate Bush, what right do you have to continue insisting that I do. The way I phrased it is different from the way you phrased it because you feel differently than I feel.
I DO NOT hate Bush for his politics. I DO NOT hate Bush at all. I feel no annimosity towards Bush. I hate the man's politics.
Hate simply is not an accurate way of describing how I feel about Bush. Can you get that through your thick conservative right wing head?!!!
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, And by the way Pixiest, I do know what it feels like to hate and can quite quickly identify the emotion. When I wrote that last post I was feeling quite a bit of hatred toward you and your smug arrrogant assumption that you know more about what motivates me than I do.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: your thick conservative right wing head?!!!
In that sentence, thick modifies head not conservative. Or didn't you bother reading to the end of the phrase?
And to stave off any additional confusion, the word your is a possesive pronoun which also modifies head and not the contraction you're which would imply you were a head.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
My feelings aren't nuanced. They simply are not the same as your feelings. I am sorry you had to give up because this concept is too difficult to grasp.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: So you're saying that only my head is thick, conservative and right wing, not the rest of me?
Pix, I highly recommend that you take a course in basic logic and English grammar. My saying that you were unable to get simple concepts through your "thick conservative right wing head', neither implies nor deny's anything about the rest of you.
If I said "You have long black hair", would you accuse me of calling you a long black?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Pix, Arguing with you is truly like banging my head against a brick wall. Since you seem incapable of applying the simplest rules of logic, I will simply avoid discussing anything with you in the future.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
