Scandal!

National Review Online ^ | July 11, 2003 | Clifford D. May

[johnb838]

The CIA knew it. The State Department knew it. The White House knew it.

For each of the above statements they reference articles in the New York Times. Now, like CNN, the Times has already admitted a complete lack of credibility resulting in the abdication of Howell Raines. Therefore, why would anyone believe statements quoted out of the New York Times?

[Dog]

Doug Thompson seems to have let the cat out of the bag......little did he know people on this site will research this story until it is turned inside and out.

[cardinal4]

Liberals suck.

[Maria S]

I heard Ann Compton, ABC news, who travels with the president, on the noon radio news a few minutes ago. She was following DNC talking points: (paraphrasing) "The President CLAIMS that he was only following what the CIA gave him, and APPEARS to be laying the blame at the feet of the CIA." (remember, I'm just paraphrasing...I am sure of the CLAIMS and APPEARS TO BLAME part).

While a lot of people will hear or find out the truth, many people will just take that little bit of falso-babble and believe it.

[johnb838]

A primary tactic of the Left: Accuse your opponents of being guilty of what you yourself are actually guilty of.

I wouldn't exactly call that a tactic. It's really a psychological phenomenon called 'projection', similar to putting lipstick on a mirror. Granted they do it all the time, but I think most people aren't aware of it when they're doing it so it is a very good 'tell' for discerning what people are really up to.

[johnb838]

Does anybody have a digitized copy of the speech so we can get the actual quote out there? Hannity would probably play it.

[Peach]

The talking points have gone out from the DNC. You'd think with all the problems the press has been experiencing lately they would take great care to quote sentences in their entirety and in context.

[Peach]

The press has no credibility left with the public. People have gotten very cynical and question everything and everyone.

[Peach]

The audio of the president's words were just played by Roger Hitchock on the Rush show.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for the additional comments. I would urge you to consider that when WP Bob decides to turn on your man, he'll use these somewhat favorable books to showcase his unbiased nature. You take care. All the best, D1.

[Oystir]

I only saw a few minutes of Hardball last night but there was this NPR/commie chick name Katrina Vander Fluffer going nuts calling Bush a liar. She had a vicious look in her eye like a rabid racoon.

[MeekOneGOP]

bttt for later. Thanks !!

[Peach]

You could be right about Woodward, but then again, I might be right. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

In reading Bush at war, I did notice that Woodward was able to mind reads, or at least let us know what he thought others were thinking. The book did give interesting insight into the dynamics of the War Cabinet. I think Woodward does support Bush, today. But, I don't think he would lose much sleep if Hillary gets into office. His support would be completely behind Hillary winning.

[Peach]

RNC Chairman-in-Waiting Ed Gillespie has said the following about the DNC and the WMD and "faulty" intelligence issue:

Democrats are tripping over themselves to get to the left of Howard Dean when it comes to Iraq in order to appeal to the anti-war activists in their party, but nothing changes the fact that the international community was in universal agreement that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and he was willing to use them before. What is their policy when it comes to handling evidence that a dictator with a history of using weapons of mass destruction against his own people is developing more? Their politics may appeal to their anti-war base, but their lack of policy won't make our country more secure.

[Constitutional Patriot]

See what happens when the left doesn't dominate all media outlets!!!! EXPOSED!!!!

The lies of the left cannot withstand scrutiny!!

[Chi-townChief]

a well-deserved bttt

[Maigrey]

you do this line for linking articles...:

< a href ="source.com" > Source < /a > (just take out the spaces...)

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

I wonder... which of the Dem candidates would you prefer?

I understand that the Bush strategists are going to emphasize his 'inevitability' given that his main opponent is going to be a democrat. They should understand that, given his margin of victory in 2000 it will take only a few unhappy voters for him to lose the election.

I, personally, will not vote for a GOP candidate who defends affirmative action, allows the government spending to grow like there's no tomorrow, refuses to stop the latinization of North America, lies to the people and sends our boys and girls to die on foreign lands for no good reason.

[Crusher138]

This is heresy, but these denials are Clintonesque

Pul-lease.

Chain of events:

1. British making claim that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material from Niger. May or may not be accurate. Our CIA is on the fence.

2. In speech Bush claims "British Intelligence reports that Iraq is trying to buy..." Notice he did not say "Iraq is trying to buy..." but "British Intelligence SAYS Iraq is trying to buy..." It is not Clinton-esque, it is a fact.

3. The veracity of the allegation comes into question. It is still not perfectly clear whether or not Iraq did or did not attempt to purchase the materials from Nigeria, just that some of the supporting documents have been declared fraudulent. One should also note that the people making the fraud accusation benefit from those papers being discounted.

In other words, as is often the case with Intelligence - the source is questionable, the accusation is questionable (but probable), the person/people countering the accusation are questionable, and the press, who don't understand Intelligence, have got it mostly wrong.