Bu$h Cabal = LIARS + TRAITORS
author: MWO
Passive-Voiced Copout of the Day
"The bottom has been gotten to."
- Ari Fleischer, July 14
----------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the Day
"Are more people going to die? You bet!"
- Donald Rumsfeld, July 13
|
PHOTOS SHOW BUSH REWRITING, REVISING SPEECH
OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PIX INCLUDE
CLOSE-UP OF BUSH "SKETCHING NOTES
IN MARGIN," "REWRITING" SOTU ADDRESS
BUSH SHOWN IN OVAL OFFICE "GIVING
SPEECHWRITING TEAM A FEW POINTS" AFTER
"REVISING THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS"
The official White House propaganda site currently features numerous promotional photos of the Unelected Fraud engaging in various presidential-looking activities.
A few of these images have become much more interesting lately, in light of the revelations that Bush lied to the American people while delivering the State of the Union speech in January.
For the last few days, the administration has attempted to blame everyone except George W. Bush for the deceptive contents of that speech, and to portray the speech reviewing process as so messy and arbitrary that no one can remember who wrote or revised what, much less which members of the administration saw the speech.
Luckily, we remembered how impressed we were when viewing the pix of an engaged and hands-on George W. Bush at the taxpayer-funded official White House site, as he participated closely in the SOTU speechwriting process in January. We marveled at his competence and involvement, and the care he took in ensuring that no word would be uttered or information imparted to the American people without his personal approval.
Why, as one caption tells us, he sketched notes in the speech's margins, and even rewrote some of it!:
There are also photos of the engaged and competent Bush in in the Oval Office, "giving his speechwriting team a few points after revising the SOTU speech"...
Yet another features Karen Hughes and various staffers poring intently over every word, so that the information delivered to the American people is exactly what is intended by the Bush White House.
So we can now dispense of the scenario the White House and right-wing pundits have attempted to sell these last few days - that Bush saw his speech for the first time when it was handed to him as he walked to the podium January 27. Instead, we see that he painstakingly studied the speech for days, and made changes to it. (That's what these candid photos and their captions tell us, after all.)
This raises still more questions regarding the lies Bush told to the American people. Meanwhile, there have been no answers forthcoming from the illegitimate regime. Only more lies, stonewalling, and fingerpointing.
View the entire WhiteHouse.gov slide show featuring George W. Bush personally preparing his 2003 State of the Union address http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/preparation/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Media Whores Online
Media Whores Online takes an unbiased, in-depth look at the vast myriad of whores who call themselves "journalists." MWO casts a garish spotlight on the relentless screaming heads of television, the babbling paranoids of squawk radio, and the crayon scribblings of lazy print media reporters and columnists.
Whore Watch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lies and Consequences
Some admit their "technical accuracies" are also lies:
"I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.
"As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While, technically, my answers were legally accurate, I was not entirely truthful with my information."
- William Jefferson Clinton (August 1998)
...while others don't:
"It didn't rise to the standard of a presidential speech, but it's not known, for example, that it was inaccurate. In fact, people think it was technically accurate."
- Donald Rumsfeld (July 2003)
In the current era of Republican power abuse and media complicity and corruption, some "technical accuracies" but actual falsehoods are embarrassing and serious.
Others merely lead to the brutal killings of thousands of innocent human beings, and the complete dissolution of great nations' credibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passive-Voiced Copout of the Day
"The bottom has been gotten to."
- Ari Fleischer, July 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the Day
"Are more people going to die? You bet!"
- Donald Rumsfeld, July 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the lying Bush White House continues to attempt to obfuscate its way out of its credibility crisis, Senator Carl Levin repeatedly articulates the case against the regime - a case not diminished by the "big picture" of whether "it's good that Saddam is gone."
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/13/le.00.html
LEVIN: Well, I would like to wait for the end of the investigation to reach a conclusion as to whether Tenet should go. I'm obviously dissatisfied with him in this regard, but also in other aspects as well. But who is pushing Tenet? This statement that Tenet made and that the White House has reacted to really raises the key question here. Tenet was pushing back against pressure from the White House. But who in the White House, or who at the National Security Council, was pressing him to make a statement that they didn't believe was accurate, by putting the words in the mouth of the British?
You can't avoid a statement's impact or the inaccuracy of that impact by just saying, "The British have learned that the Iraqis are trying to seek uranium from the Africans."
BLITZER: So...
LEVIN: Let me just finish this, if you would, Wolf, because this is a very significant point. You can't just say that the British learned something if you yourself don't believe it and if you tried to persuade the British they were wrong.
That is highly misleading. It is intended to create a false impression. And someone in the White House was pushing the CIA. The CIA finally concurred, to use Tenet's word. They shouldn't have. But the White House should not have been pushing to create a misleading statement.
BLITZER: Well, let me ask you, Senator, what do you suspect, Senator Levin? Who was pushing Tenet?
LEVIN: People at the NSC, I assume.
BLITZER: Who?
LEVIN: We don't know that, and that's the reason we need an investigation or an inquiry. That's exactly one of the purposes of the inquiry.
BLITZER: Senator Levin, let me read to you what Senator Pat Roberts, your chairman, the current chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said on Friday just before Tenet released that lengthy statement accepting responsibility: "What concerns me most, however, is what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the CIA in an effort to discredit the president." Those are pretty strong words coming from the chairman.
LEVIN: I mean, he might know about those press leaks. I don't think that that's really the issue here. The issue here is the accuracy and the objectivity of intelligence and whether or not the CIA was exaggerating, but also whether or not that there are people at the National Security Council, at the White House, who were pressing the CIA to concur in a statement which was an attempt to mislead.
And that is something which has to be routed out here. It's not enough just to simply say that the CIA has accepted responsibility. I am glad they've accepted their share. But it is at least equally important --at least equally important -- to find out who was putting the pressure on the CIA to go along with something that the CIA did not believe in.
BLITZER: Does Condoleezza Rice, Senator Levin, share some of the blame for this flap?
LEVIN: Even to this day she says that the statement was technically accurate. She doesn't yet acknowledge what is so obvious, it seems to me, that you cannot make a statement which you believe is untrue by saying somebody else has learned that something has happened, creating an impression that it is true, a false impression that something's true.
She, to this day, does not acknowledge why that is wrong. It is simply a misleading way to approach the truth.
The White House spent the weekend attempting to frame the SOTU scandal as merely uncovering a need to be extra diligent in preventing information based on a too-low standard of intelligence from making its way into the Unelected Fraud's speeches.
In fact, it is has uncovered a pattern of deliberate attempts to include deliberate deceptions into their speeches for the purpose of misleading the American people.
Condi and the gang also sleazily attempted to turn the debate into a question of whether "the world is better off without Saddam in power." But even by that standard, their excuses fall short.
The 200+ Dead servicemen and their families are not better off - their loved ones were sent to their deaths to improve Bush's election prospects.
The 3000+ Dead iraqi civilians and their families are not better off. They lost their lives to improve Bush's election prospects.
The credibility of the US is not better off. We have lost valuable allies in an attempt to shore up Bush's election prospects.
The American people are not better off - a hundred billion taxpayer dollars that should have been spent on national defense (homeland security) will be spent shoring up Bush's election prospects.
The Iraq invasion is an unnecessary, immoral, expensive, unjustified quagmire and Democrats should make it an albatross around the Unelected Fraud's neck.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC Highlights Linguistic Tricks of Bush Regime
Core of Weapons Case Crumbling
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3063361.stm
Even a CIA statement of explanation issued late last week was not quite correct.
It said that the President's famous 16 words were accurate in that the "British Government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."
Mr Bush did not in fact simply mention a British "report" on the uranium.
He actually said that the British had "learned" that Iraq had sought these supplies. He therefore hardened up the position.
Someone made a deliberate decision not only to mention the British report but to mention it in the way that would best portray certainty (i.e., "The British have learned...")
Who?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MWO,
pResident Bush is graciously forgiving the CIA director for failing to keep those sixteen little words out of the SOTU. How wonderful of him.
I am not sure how it got be a situation where Bush gets to say "Stop me before I lie again." The question is not why it wasn't taken out, the question is why was it there in the first place, knowing that the information about Nigerian uranium was false.
Welcome back, by the way, and keep slugging those bastards.
Scott
OKC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Regime: Dishonorable and Undignified
Sen. Jay Rockefeller: WMD Flap 'Far From Over'
Democrat Calls Rice 'Dishonorable' for Blaming CIA Director
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1335540.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry's Pre-Iraq Invasion Comments Not Only Prescient
"He Was Speaking with the Clarity Expected of Presidents"
Pride, truth and war according to Kerry
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/194/oped/Pride_truth_and_war_according_to_Kerry+.shtml
Thomas Oliphant
I continue to be struck by something else in Kerry's rhetoric that is worth quoting:
''The Bush administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the people in the greater Middle East retribution but little hope for liberty and prosperity.
''What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.''
Increasingly common words today, but Kerry spoke them more than six months ago, two months before the war began. Like others, I gave him guff then for seeming to fudge his support for the use of force; but also like others I failed to see the power of his thinking about the link between conflict and aftermath. On this, Kerry was more than prescient; he was speaking with the clarity expected of presidents.
Many of the media whores will continue to pretend to find contradictions in Kerry's support for the Iraq resolution and his warnings before the invasion and criticisms after. But they are appearing more ridiculous by the day, as the truth becomes clearer to American voters: the problem is not a resolution - it is that an untrustworthy, incompetent fraud occupies the White House.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The War is Over? Tell That to These Guys' Families"
Two weeks ago, Richard and Kathleen Cunningham received a letter dated May 9 from Shaun, a 1997 graduate of Toms River High School East. He wrote about a helicopter striking a power line before going down in the Tigris River and told of the trauma he felt putting men into body bags.
"I had blood all over me, and all I could think about was this guy's wife and kids who were in his wallet staring at me," Cunningham wrote. "I'm hurting right now, mom, and I just needed to write and vent my feelings. The war is over? Yeh, tell that to these guys' families."
Story http://www.app.com/app2001/story/0,21133,765265,00.html
Yes, the "war" is over Shaun. The mission - providing the Bush Regime this photo op - has been accomplished.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh... We don't know who put the
uranium stuff in the speech. See,
we don't keep copies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME: UNTRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030721/story.html
A question of trust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Let's get right to the issue at hand...Do you have any doubt that Saddam Hussein would have loved to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program?"
- Wolf Blitzer, in an interview with Scott Ritter about Bush's SOTU lies
Wolf has been extremely pro-regime on the SOTU lies scandal. But this was shocking. What Saddam "would have loved" to do is the "issue at hand"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Horse,
So (p)resident Bush says he's "moved on" and that the "case is closed" with regards to those "sixteen words" in his SOTU.
Fine. What about these 71 from the same speech?
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." To date, not a single UAV has been found, or drop of CBWs, or any munitions capable of delivering said weapons.
Is the CIA responsible for those words as well?
What about these 26, also from the same speech?
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects
terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." To date, not a shed of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations (besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US) have been revealed.
And then there are these 20:
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." The IAEA as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production - months before the war.
The CIA has assumed tepid responsibility for not insisting Bush remove the sixteen words about British evidence of Hussein's alleged attempts to purchase uranium from Africa. (Since when does the US go to war on the basis of British intel anyway?)
Fine.
Bush, however, must take responsibility for the rest his words, all 117 of which were lies. Lies that have resulted in the deaths of over two hundred American G Is, the wounding of at least 1,046, and the senseless killing of more than six thousand innocent Iraqi civilians. If this doesn't qualify as impeachable (and even indictable) high crimes and misdemeanors, then nothing does.
Perri Green
Los Angeles, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
Chicago Sun-Times
http://www.suntimes.com/images3/higgins/higgins35013.gif
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Family Values
Brother Neil Admits One Night Stands with Asian "Locals"
Cannot Recall Number, Names
PRESIDENT Bush's brother Neil cheated on his ex-wife, Sharon, with local women he met during business trips to the Far East, according to a videotaped deposition conducted by Sharon's lawyers.
"I had had sexual intercourse with perhaps three or four - I don't remember the exact number - women at different times," Neil Bush said during his just-leaked deposition. It was videotaped last March as part of the couple's divorce proceeding.
He said the trysts happened while he was in Southeast Asia several years ago. "In Thailand once, I have a pretty clear recollection that there was one time in Thailand and in Hong Kong," Bush said.
Story http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13175118_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-3-affairs-of-Bush-brother-name_page.html
One wonders. Who were Bush's nameless, faceless utilities?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thailand Prostitution, AIDS Crises
Many rural families are landless or in debt to money lenders. As a result, men go to the cities for casual work. Often they don't return, however, leaving their wives to raise families single-handedly. Faced with such pressures, some parents view their daughters as commodities which can be traded. Brothel owners have networks of agents combing the villages for troubled families with daughters, making tempting offers of good jobs in the big cities and resort areas. So begins a cycle in which relatives, village headmen, police, government officials, and business people all benefit from the girls' labor.
In some places, as much as 90 percent of girls have left their village to work. Once lured, forced, or sold, the girls find it difficult to escape prostitution. The reality is usually very different from what they've been promised. Many believe they are going to work as housemaids, in beauty salons, bars, or other fields of entertainment; instead, they find themselves imprisoned in damp, dirty, over-crowded conditions. Often abused by clients or pimps, these children face the ever-present danger of contracting HIV, which is epidemic in Thailand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MWO,
Aside from being a founding member of FAC and a noted Buffyologist, my pal Roz Kaveney also used to be a friend and admirer of Christopher Hitchens from back in their days at Oxford together. We were talking on the phone recently about his fall into dissolute whoredom, and she dropped an anecdote that made me plead for her to write about it. Her resulting essay in her Live Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/rozk/23897.html is well worth a read.
Cheers,
Avedon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 12, 2003
Memo: SOTU Matter Closed.
"The president considers the matter closed and wants to move on."
- Ari Fleischer
Got that, NY Times? Wash Post? CNNFOXMSNBCABCNBCCBS?
The Littlest King has declared the matter of his deliberately lying to the American people in his State of the Union speech closed.
He "wants to move on." (For the slower among you, that means you are now to "move on.")
All further inquiry will be noted in the building, and will be answered by our informing the questioner: "The American People trust this president [blah blah blah]..." thus, making the rogue reporter appear not only at odds with "The American People," but unpatriotic.
However, in the event any of your colleagues do ask additional questions requiring further stonewalling, you are permitted to continue to write with "grudging admiration" about White House "discipline" in staying "on message" and "handling" the news media "brilliantly."
FREEFALL
Newsweek: Barely Half Now Approve of Bush
Forty-five percent of Americans say the Bush Administration misinterpreted intelligence reports that proved Iraq was hiding banned chemical or biological weapons before the war, says a new Newsweek poll... President Bush's approval ratings have declined significantly in recent months, the poll shows.
Story http://www.msnbc.com/news/938073.asp
Wash Post: Bush Approval Drops Sharply
50% Say Bush Exaggerated WMD Threat
Public support for President Bush has dropped sharply amid growing concerns about mounting U.S. military casualties and doubts whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Story http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44786-2003Jul11.html?nav=hptop_tb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE ON SOTU LIES
New statements, paraphrased:
George Tenet: I should have insisted on removing a deceptive line the White House pressured us to allow into the SOTU speech over my agency's objections.
George W. Bush: I still have confidence in Tenet, even though he betrayed my regime by allowing us to tell the lie we pressured his agency to allow us to tell. Case closed.
Will this fly?
Was Tenet's statement "arranged" between the White House and CIA the same way the SOTU was arranged? Is it all just another skirmish between two incompetent political entities ultimately resulting in yet another agreed-upon deception perpetrated by the Bush Regime against the American people and the truth?
The Tenet statement http://www.msnbc.com/news/937835.asp concludes:
Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct — i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.
Several questions arise. Most obviously - What is this statement supposed to remedy? All Tenet has done is tell us what the news reports have told us, and essentially suggest, "Blame me, not the Unelected Fraud."
And this part of the statement raises more questions:
Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct — i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.
The Unelected Fraud didn't say, "A British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa." The Unelected Fraud said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" - an even more deceptive statement, suggesting an additional degree of certainty regarding the soundness of the information.
Is Tenet simply paraphrasing in a quickly-drafted statement? Or, did the CIA sign off on a more factually correct and less misleading statement that "the British government report said" that Iraq sought uranium from Africa? Was it later changed to "the British government has learned," and if so, by whom? Bush?
Both versions would be egregiously misleading, of course - as additional relevant information about the CIA's problems with the British government report was deliberately withheld from the American people. But who can put it past this regime not only to knowingly make a dubious claim as they have done, but to misrepresent to the CIA reviewers the degree to which they intended to deceive when making the uranium claim?
When will the White House release copies of the drafts seen by the CIA, and the revisions along the way to the final draft?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Issue http://www.mwo1.com/ar071303.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 Media Whores Online.
|
homepage: http://www.mwo1.com/
address: Media Whores Online
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article
|