Gay Patriot Header Image

LA Times‘ Clever Wordsmithing Conceals a Democrat’s Dishonesty

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:38 pm - February 10, 2006.
Filed under: Media Bias,New Media

It seems that every morning when I pick up my LA Times, that paper leads with some story hostile to the Bush Administration or spins a benign story so that the headline suggests the failure of a Republican policy. In articles critical of the president — and indeed the Governor for that matter, this paper routinely relies on unnamed officials and, what seems to be, speculative reporting. All too frequently, its articles are lengthy opinion pieces masquerading as news.

Its reporting of the Plame leak investigation has been particularly biased. While it routinely reports the accusations that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV leveled against the Bush Administration, accusing it of ignoring his report finding that Saddam Hussein’s government had not attempted to purchase uranium from the African nation of Niger, it consistently fails to mention that a Senate Intelligence Committee discredited that Administration critic (as I noted here and here).

In an article on the front page of this morning’s paper, the Times does it again. This time, the paper does mention the Senate Intelligence Committee, but only to say that none of the Administration’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s possession of chemical and biological weapons was “backed up by evidence.” The paper conveniently leaves out the fact that the committee found no evidence to suggest that the Administration twisted intelligence. The problem was the intelligence, not how the Administration used it.

And yet again, my local paper treats Wilson’s claims as if they were gospel–even though that very Intelligence panel (whose findings the Times only seems to cite when it can use them against the Administration) “found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.” In a clever bit of journalism, LA Times reporter Richard B. Schmitt writes:

In a New York Times op-ed article published eight days before Novak’s column appeared, Wilson accused the administration of twisting intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities.

Yep, that sentence is true. Wilson did say that in a New York Times Op-Ed. It’s just that Wilson’s accusations have since been discredited.

With such clever wordsmithing, Schmitt can introduce Wilson’s claims and make them appear to be facts. Where he succeeds in verbal ingenuity, he fails in reporting. And once again shows his paper to be more interested in making the Bush Administration look back than in honestly presenting its record to readers.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

ADDENDUM: In these two posts, here and here, John Hinderaker and Tom Maguire respectively, address some of the more substantive points in this latest story on the Plame affair.

UPDATE: More on LA Times bias. Hugh notes how our local paper is promoting as “new” an old book by a writer who faults Tony Blair for misleading the British Parliament about Iraq while ignoring a book critical of Hussein’s tyranny.

UP-UPDATE: Patterico, who’s probably done better than any other blogger in uncovering bias at the LA Times, notes how our local paper ignores the ties of former President Clinton to Anthony J. Pellicano, recenlty indicated for “running a vast racketeering enterprise.”

Share

59 Comments

  1. From May 2005….

    “Circulation numbers to be released today by the Audit Bureau of Circulations probably will show industrywide declines of 1% to 3%, according to people familiar with the situation — possibly the highest for daily newspapers since the industry shed 2.6% of subscribers in 1990-91.

    The biggest publishers may show the largest declines: Gannett Co., which owns about 100 newspapers, says it will be down “a couple of points” from last year’s levels. Circulation at Tribune Co.’s Los Angeles Times is likely to be off in excess of 6% of its most recently reported figures. Belo Corp.’s Dallas Morning News expects to report daily circulation down 9% and Sunday circulation down 13% from the year-earlier period. All projected figures are for the six months ended in March.”
    Seems GPW shows us why newspaper circ will continue to decline. I personally find newspapers very quaint. The most pathetic dinosaurs are news mags however.

    Comment by Gene — February 10, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - February 10, 2006

  2. #0 – This is the kind of thing that gets me somewhat down, Dan. To have to repeat the same facts over and over and over, to counteract the same IQ=75 myths of the same IQ=75 liberals over and over and over, is just wearying.

    But it has to be done, and thank you Dan for doing it.

    Comment by Calarato — February 10, 2006 @ 11:11 pm - February 10, 2006

  3. The inevitable Calarato afterthought (P.S.):

    And let’s not forget that the whole pathetic Wilson-Plame involved NO damaging or significant breach of national security…

    …while the exposure of the NSA terrorist surveillance program has involved a massive, damaging breach of national security. Quite possibly by a leading Senator.

    Comment by Calarato — February 10, 2006 @ 11:16 pm - February 10, 2006

  4. With reference to the NSA leak, the MSM will defend Jay Rockefeller to the end.

    Comment by Don — February 11, 2006 @ 12:20 am - February 11, 2006

  5. Alas, you may be right, Don, but some intrepid news reporter may realize, as did someone at ABC with the CBS memos that this is a juicy story that no one else will take. Given the circumstantial evidence surrounding that West Virginia Democrat, if his party affiliation was that of his state’s political trends, you can bet the media would be covering it with the same fervor they have devoted to the Plame leak.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 11, 2006 @ 1:04 am - February 11, 2006

  6. This is why you have to look at liberal newspapers and say “What if this was true?”

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 11, 2006 @ 2:59 am - February 11, 2006

  7. Alas, your watching a tree aflame, when the forest is a blaze.

    “I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, told a grand jury that he was authorized by his “superiors” to disclose classified information to reporters about Iraq’s weapons capability in June and July 2003, according to a document filed by a federal prosecutor.”

    Since VP Cheney is the only Libby superior, all fingers point to a complicit VP violating laws for political purposes. If Bill Clinton was so stupid to have done this, then REAL impeachment charges for “high crimes and misdemeaners” would have forthcoming. Instead, a lie about a blowjob cost Bill some credibility, but nothing like Libby’s revelation is causing the GOP.

    For whatever reason, “this” crop of Republicans just seem incapable of obeying the law. Wiretaps. Outing CIA agents. Claiming WMD in Iraq. No “inhumane, cruel, or unusual punishment” of detainees, despite numerous deaths.

    So, while everyone is focused on yet another illegality foisted by GWB and Sidekick, GP is concerned about an article it thinks is false, but given that the whole GOP is crumbling, at least the wingnuts can find that “special” importance in irrelevant reports from the LAT.

    Comment by Stephen — February 11, 2006 @ 4:55 am - February 11, 2006

  8. #8

    So while you’re felching yourself, the TRUTH is that Fitz couldn’t find that a crime had been committed. The ONLY thing he’s got is Libby allegedly lying to the feds.

    I don’t think GPW is all that worried. You allege that the GOP is crumbling, while in reality, the liberals are pulling the last few handfuls of dirt on themselves.

    BTW, your sweet lord & master BJ is going to lose more credibility once the Barrett report is released in full showing his favorite crime – obstruction of justice. Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

    Once again, go back to blowing your DUmmy and KOSsack buddies. We ain’t interested in the scatjobs you’re selling.

    Dumbass.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 11, 2006 @ 9:11 am - February 11, 2006

  9. Furthermore, if liberals are soooooo worried about leaks compromising our national security, why don’t they give a damn about the NSA leak, HMMMMM???????

    SWISH! 3 Points!

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 11, 2006 @ 9:13 am - February 11, 2006

  10. Nicely done, TGC, but we’d all do well to remember that stephen’s lonely little rantings here (along with NAR’s, ridor’s, et al) are really nothing more than random spleen ventings. They all realize that they’re facing imminent banishment to that infamous “graveyard of lies,” and absent any grasp of reality, the collective misery HAS to be maddening, indeed.

    I would offer my sympathies, but I’m too busy chuckling wickedly, slyly wringing my hands, and mumbling “EXCELLENT” under my breath, ala C. Montgomery Burns. Ergo, they’ll find sympathy between “shit” and “syphillis” in the dictionary.

    I’m convinced this HAS to be the case, because anyone in their right mind would already know that trying to convert queers is about as likely as dogs developing a taste for cat pussy.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 11, 2006 @ 10:51 am - February 11, 2006

  11. #7: Actually, thank you for bringing up one of the best examples of the complete and total dishonesty of the liberal media.

    You see, Stephen, CNN doesn’t expect people to actually read what they write; they know good parrots like you will merely repeat headlines. The story is substantially different (emphasis mine):

    Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, told a grand jury he was “authorized by his superiors” to disclose classified information from an intelligence report to reporters, according to the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.

    In a letter to Libby’s lawyers, obtained by CNN, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said it is his understanding that Libby testified he was “authorized to disclose information about the National Intelligence Estimate to the press by his superiors.”

    Meanwhile, elsewhere:

    A legal source involved in the case tells CNN that Libby did not testify to and has never suggested that anyone in the administration — including Cheney — authorized disclosing the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame…….

    His lawyer, William Jeffress, told The Associated Press, “There is no truth at all” to suggestions that Libby would try to shift blame to his superiors as a defense against the charges.

    So, in short, Libby didn’t say that; Fitzgerald said that he thought Libby said that. And don’t you think it’s a bit odd that Fitzgerald can’t quote directly that Libby said that, given that Fitzgerald in theory has access to the grand jury testimony?

    In short, Fitzgerald is sending threatening letters to peoples’ lawyers trying to get a plea bargain.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 11, 2006 @ 11:38 am - February 11, 2006

  12. I read the same thing you did, NDT, but in light of the fact that stephen has absolutely no interest in hearing the truth of the Libby matter, I decided not to get too specific.

    He’s a congenital liar, as is his party.

    Eric on the Left Coast

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 11, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - February 11, 2006

  13. Stephen—you almost address my point this time, but still there’s no scandal here. If you’re check out the piece I linked here (in the addenedum), you would read that “linked here e-classification is an Executive Branch function.”

    No fingers point to the VP for violating any laws. None. Just because you and your left-wing allies jump up and down and repeatedly scream that the GOP has violated the law doesn’t make it so. It’s clear the “wiretaps” were legal. The scrupulous special prosecutor who investigated the Plame case found that no one guilty of illegally outing a CIA agent. Every serious panle which has investigated the pre-war claims of WMD in Iraq has found that that president (and his Administration) neither twisted nor “cherry picked” intelligence. When there have been accusations of torture (and death) of detainees, the allegations have been investigated and, where appropriate, charges have been filed.

    It seems that you like the LA Times only want to present the sides of the case favorable to your side.

    And no, Stephen, everyone is not focused on a another alleged GOP “illegality,” it’s only the angry Left and its enablers in the MSM. The GOP is hardly crumbling. But, it’s nice to see you’re at least making an attempt to address my points.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 11, 2006 @ 1:43 pm - February 11, 2006

  14. You dudes must not keep current with the news. See, it has nothing to do with “Fitz,” but Libby’s own attorney, who disclosed that Libby’s superior VP Cheney was the source and motivation behind the leaks. Geeze guys, read newspapers. You might find out something.

    All you incestuous neocons are breeding each other’s thoughts.

    Oh, TGC, many Republicans are huffing over the illegal wiretaps. They may be GWB apologists too, but never over the rule of law and the Constitution. Your ignorance seems to stem from everyone else’s malady on this blog; you keep reading each other’s incestuous wingnuttry and don’t bother to read REAL MSM.

    There’s simply no question GWB would be impeached if the democrats had the same power the republicans had when the latter impeached Clinton. Today, the people would support the impeachment, unlike that of Bill. Violating the Fourth Amendment is stronger, much stronger, stuff.

    When a president thinks he’s supranational and the law unto himself, no wonder even republicans are seeing shadows of Richard Nixon, and they definitely don’t like what they see. Now that such invasions of privacy don’t seem to bother you is fine. You’re probably not getting laid to begin with, and even if you are, at least Lawrence v. Texas keeps your privacy, despite GWB’s administration fighting the Court’s ruling.

    In your land of OZ, the Wicked President can do anything to Dorothy, but remains the Wizard. Dream on, guys, dream on. Lies, Deceit, and Cheat are hallmarks of this Administration, and hostility to GLBT no less so, but you’re still “alive” in your own private world. If you ever wake up from your land of fantasy, living in a world totally inimical to our Founders’ vision, many of us have given you fair warning.

    Comment by Stephen — February 11, 2006 @ 1:43 pm - February 11, 2006

  15. Pace Andrew Sullivan:

    “Adding them up. In recent days, leading Republicans have called for the Bush administration wire-tapping surveillance program to have some kind of legal framework, outside what David Addington thinks is appropriate on any given day; a key CIA intelligence expert confirms the notion that vice president Dick Cheney was not seriously interested in finding the whole truth about Iraq’s WMD program, and railroaded the intelligence to produce the result he wanted; we have learned from the head of FEMA that the president knew fully about the dangers poised by Hurricane Katrina in plenty of time to coordinate a much better response; and we know that assurances by the administration about who’s in Guantanamo Bay and why have been lies. We have also learned that the vice-president routinely authorized the release of classified information to advance his political goals, told Scooter Libby of Valerie Plame’s identity, discussed how to handle the press, and shortly after one of the Libby-Cheney discussions, Plame’s identity was leaked. The one thread between all these instances of incompetence, malice and poor judgment is that the sources are either impeccable or Republicans. And the person responsible all of them … is Dick Cheney.”

    Comment by Stephen — February 11, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - February 11, 2006

  16. Oh my God, stevie’s lost it….

    Quick, someone open the champagne!!!!!!

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 11, 2006 @ 1:46 pm - February 11, 2006

  17. I think Eric’s right in #14.

    To quote Andrew Sullivan in order to bolster your case against this Administration is like quoting Pat Robertson to bolster your case against “homosexuals.” Just look at the first line of Andrew’s latest screed. The Administration has provided a legal framework for the surveillance program. And whatever Andrew’s favorite “key” CIA intelligence expert may say, three separate investigations, one British, two bipartisan American inquiries, have shown the truth to be quite the opposite.

    And, if Andrew, is going to keep bringing up Katrina, shouldn’t he also address the failures at the local level?

    The only times I read Andrew any more are when conservatives link him or liberals quote him. And reading this excerpt makes it clear why. As to the latest “scandal,” neither the MSM nor Andrew (whose ranks he seems to have joined) have shown that the alleged leaks of classified information violated any laws.

    It’s sad that a once-rational man has joined the irrational chorus of Bush-bashers in demonizing Vice President Cheney.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 11, 2006 @ 2:10 pm - February 11, 2006

  18. The paper conveniently leaves out the fact that the committee found no evidence to suggest that the Administration twisted intelligence. The problem was the intelligence, not how the Administration used it.

    Actually Dan, Chambliss, Hatch, Lott, Hagel, and Bond found no evidence that the Admin twisted intelligence. Warner concurred.

    Rockefeller, Levin, and Durbin said “…the Committee’s phase one report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which Intelligence Community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when policy officials had already forcefully stated their own conclusions in public.” Wyden and Feinstein concurred. They all asked for the second, bipartisan-agreed-to phase of the investigation, an investigation into how the intelligence was used, to be conducted.

    Roberts, Hatch, and Bond said the evidence presented to the Committee supported the argument that Wilson was sent by his wife and that he used later press accounts to go after the President. The Committee itself didn’t unanimously concur.

    Dan, saying that the NIE unanimously supported all of your statements vis a vis Palme, Wilson and the use of intelligence is just as “clever wordsmithing” as the Times article you are railing against.

    Comment by Jody — February 11, 2006 @ 3:17 pm - February 11, 2006

  19. Pussy’s second comment indicates that when investigations don’t yield the results leftists want them to, they just ignore them. In a very scrupulous investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald looked into the charges that the Administration deliberately “outed’ a covert agent. This persistent prosecutor could find no evidence to sustain the charge. That he would bring the charges on perjury, very hard to prove, shows how diligent a prosecutor he is.

    You can insult us – and other conservatives all you want – but that doesn’t change the facts. Indeed, it seems very often that insults are some of our critics only “arguments.”

    And yes, Pussy, to your comment in #18, it’s clear that the surveillance was legal. I’m aware that Republicans have raised concerns. They’re right to do so. And the Administration has been forthcoming in providing a legal justification for the program – a justification that too many on the left ignore because it upsets their image of a law-breaking president, unconcerned with constitutional protections and legal precedent.

    On numerous occasions on this blog, I have linked to arguments that lawyers, including left-of-center attorneys, have made justifying the program. It’s unfortunate that you haven’t taken the time to review those arguments and present thoughtful rebuttals.

    Instead, you just say we’re wrong because we’re wrong because we’re wrong. And if you’d bother to read what we have linked – and what others more familiar with the law have written – you would see that instead of it being “clear” (as you claim) that the president violated FISA that it’s clear that he – and his Administration – made every effort to follow the law.

    In the end, you’re left to suggesting the Vice President is evil while ignoring the legal arguments made to defend the NSA surveillance program.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 11, 2006 @ 3:19 pm - February 11, 2006

  20. Um, Jody, in this post I didn’t say the NIE “unanimously” supported my statements. The Robb-Silberman report found no evidence of twisting the intelligence and neither has the Senate panel.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 11, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - February 11, 2006

  21. …intelligence and neither has the Senate panel.

    Again, Dan. That is not a statement of fact. Rockefeller, Levin, and Durbin disagreed with Chambliss, Hatch, Lott, Hagel, and Bond on this point.

    The NIE report, and the Committee itself does not support a claim that “..no evidence of twisting the intelligence” happened. The report was actually divided on that issue and members of the Committee wanted a second investigation conducted — something that both parties agreed to before the 2004 election. Continuing to maintain the matter is settled as official record of our government is simply and fundamentally not true.

    I’m not going to bandy about the crap that “Republican’s always lie.” That’s not true. But what you are saying here comes damn close. You are really good with nuance, Dan. I don’t understand you.

    Comment by Jody — February 11, 2006 @ 3:33 pm - February 11, 2006

  22. GPW – don’t get so riled up about the paper headlines. They have one and only one job, it is too sell papers. Few years back, when Arnie was all the rage, even up here in SF, the papers were sucking big Arnie cock um sounds tasty. Suck cock get interviews. Sell papers to those who both love and hate him. Now that he has fallen out of favor, they pick on his big ass. May lose a few Arnie supporters, but they pick up more in the hate Arnie choir. Capitalism – i love it.

    Comment by TrannyPatriot — February 11, 2006 @ 3:37 pm - February 11, 2006

  23. Let me get this straight, Stephen is against
    *detainees in Gitmo
    *freeing Afganistan from the Taliban
    *freeing Iraq from Saddam
    *wiretapping terrorist calls into the USA
    *stripping powers from GWB that other prez like Clinton and FDR have used
    *it’s ok to leak info that undermines the intellegence communities efforts to work covertly to protect our people, but horrible and illegal to leak the name of a desk cia agent who with her husband were actively trying to undermine GWB efforts to protect his people.
    Dems need to continue to clearlfy the differences like these to the American people prior to the 06 elections. Liberals cant be trusted with the safety of the American people. BTW I’m wondering if there are more supporters of GWB in LA after the latest revelations.

    Comment by Gene — February 11, 2006 @ 3:52 pm - February 11, 2006

  24. Jody, give me a break. What I said in comment #22 is entirely accurate. They have found no evidence of intelligence twisting. Such evidence may exist though I highly doubt it. But, the fact remains that they haven’t found any yet. The Democrats want a second investigation because they believe such evidence is out there. Had it been found, they would have put it in their report.

    As for now, all we have is angry accusations against the president. And little, if any, evidence to support them.

    I stand by my statement. Had I had more time to write right now, I might address this more completely, but I have addressed this before — as have numerous other sources. To suggest I come close to lying is just plain silly. To say that the panel found no evidence leaves open the possibility that such evidence may yet be found. That’s why, understanding that Phase #2 is underway, I phrased it the way that I did.

    And let me repeat that unless the committee twists the facts, I doubt such evidence will be found.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 11, 2006 @ 3:54 pm - February 11, 2006

  25. Pussy, look into the Robb-Silberman commission and read carefully what I have said. And check again my comment #22. And if you have evidence that Bush Lied!, please provide it.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 11, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - February 11, 2006

  26. #25 pussy patriot…
    “The GOP promised that investigation but is unlikely to deliver prior to any election — which means never. We’ll get to it with the next Democratic Congress.”
    Isn’t that never too? lol

    Comment by Gene — February 11, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - February 11, 2006

  27. I think we can handle all these board liberals very simply with this statement as an example:

    You dudes must not keep current with the news. See, it has nothing to do with “Fitz,” but Libby’s own attorney, who disclosed that Libby’s superior VP Cheney was the source and motivation behind the leaks. Geeze guys, read newspapers. You might find out something.

    Of course, that directly contradicts the facts, as I already quoted.

    This is why you need not worry about Pussy, Stephen, Jody, or the others; they insist on making statements like the above regardless of the facts. This is why their posts are bereft of citation, but only include innuendo and accusation based in their own fevered imagination.

    And of course, their time-honored way of getting out of the crumbling structure of inanities in which they find themselves….”You’re not really gay!”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 11, 2006 @ 4:11 pm - February 11, 2006

  28. The underreported story about the 20 vans disabled by the democrat operatives. These were Republican party vans used to get pol workers to phone banks then used to get little ole ladies to the pols. And the dems had a plan to disable them by slashing their tires, which was 100% effective. Verdict due Monday or tuesday I think.

    Comment by Gene — February 11, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - February 11, 2006

  29. #31 – Of course, Gene. A REAL crime based on REAL facts with SERIOUS danger to our democracy, and it’s the Democrats doing it, so of course it can’t and won’t be reported.

    Now how about another NON-crime based on FAKE OR EXAGGERATED facts with NO danger to our democracy, that the MSM is trumpeting oh so loudly? Here it is: “Bush knew about the Katrina levies on Aug. 29, not Aug. 30!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    But when you drill down to the facts: the White House got the e-mail informing it of the levies around midnight (shortly after 00:00 hours) the night of August 29. Which, as any fifth grader knows, is in fact – wait for it – August 30.

    Another empty B.F.D.

    Comment by Calarato — February 11, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - February 11, 2006

  30. Am I the only one who thinks it’s absolutely hysterical that when cornered, the libs on this site have to go out and recruit other moonbats to deluge the place?

    Little stevie got mad, ran out & got some other petulant kiddies, then came back and tried to harass Dan into shutting up. Oh, so beautifully predictable (and utterly typical, I might add)!

    Didn’t work out so well, did it? You can rant and rave all you want, throw yourselves to the ground in a nifty little temper tantrum, but the truth remains unscathed: no law was broken, and regardless of the RINO’s who would “question” the practice, the blood you smell in the water, YET AGAIN, proves to be the menses of your own pathetic dementia.

    A little dark imagery for this gorgeous SoCal day…

    Eric on the Left Coast

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 11, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - February 11, 2006

  31. And as for the snarky little comment calling my homosexuality into question…

    If that’s the BEST retort you have, you might want to think about spending more time learning something, and less time hustling free drinks.

    Just a suggestion, fuckwit.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 11, 2006 @ 4:52 pm - February 11, 2006

  32. Now that you mention it, it’s weird they would think that questioning somebody’s homosexuality is somehow a taunt.

    More like a compliment, if today’s typical Lefty gay is the point of comparison 😉

    Comment by Calarato — February 11, 2006 @ 5:03 pm - February 11, 2006

  33. Dan, I am giving you a break.

    They have found no evidence of intelligence twisting.

    They found no evidence because they weren’t tasked with nor were they expressly looking for it. Chambliss Hatch, Lott, Hagel and Bond said such in their Additional remarks. The NIE itself says that they only interviewed 5 people who came to the Committee’s attention.

    Such evidence may exist though I highly doubt it

    Fine. When the full investigation comes out, we’ll know you are right. On that day you’ll get the bragging rights. But that day isn’t today.

    But, the fact remains that they haven’t found any yet.

    They weren’t tasked with finding it. It was understood going in that such issues would be the mandate of another committee. Still is.

    The Democrats want a second investigation because they believe such evidence is out there.

    Yes. Perfectly true.

    Had it been found, they would have put it in their report.

    Rockefeller, Levin, and Durbin put it in their Additional Comments. Chambliss, Hatch, Lott, Hagel, and Bond disagreed. The matter was to be settled in Phase Two.

    As for now, all we have is angry accusations against the president. And little, if any, evidence to support them.

    No. We have half of an investigation. (.51 percent, to be generous by including the 5 statements and the review of information “provided” to the NIE) We don’t have a full account.

    I stand by my statement

    Great. But your statement is a selective assessment of the facts. Our representatives — Republican and Democrat — didn’t do the full job. 5 people interviewed, and a request for information, isn’t an investigation.

    To suggest I come close to lying is just plain silly.

    To continue to maintain that the matter is settled is not an accurate reading of the document. Both sides could only agree on the small amount of information (vis a vis pressure) that came up in the pursuit of their other tasks. The Republicans on the committee didn’t feel anything more occurred, the Democrats disagreed. Both sides agreed though that it wasn’t their job to determine things either way and that a full assessment was to be done another day. That day still hasn’t happened.

    That’s why, understanding that Phase #2 is underway, I phrased it the way that I did.

    Okay. But to maintain that the Times, and I’m taking it Democrats by extension, are being dishonest by “…conveniently leav[ing] out the fact that the committee found no evidence to suggest that the Administration twisted intelligence. The problem was the intelligence, not how the Administration used it…” is itself a convenient dishonesty.

    If the joint report on how the intelligence was used has not been released, then maintaining that the Democrats are being dishonest with their claims of pressure isn’t a fact. It’s an opinion. Professing that your opinion is the same as a fact — especially when you admit that all of the facts aren’t in yet, is being dishonest. You are my friend. I’m not going to call you a liar. But you are damn close.

    We still don’t know what happened behind the scenes. I want to know. I’m hoping that with Phase Two the politicians and the President, for the good of country and our collective safety, will tell us the facts; will let us know what the thought process was in launching the invasion of Iraq.

    Being partisan is all well and good, but calling other people and publications all but liars when you, yourself are doing the same thing, is hypocritical at the very least.

    Comment by Jody — February 11, 2006 @ 5:30 pm - February 11, 2006

  34. Jody, I think you are living in fantasy-land.

    The Senate report I’m looking at is entitled, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq” dated July 7, 2004.

    Beginning on page 272, there is a lengthy analysis of “Pressure On Intelligence Community Analysts Regarding Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) Capabilities”.

    It begins, “An essential component of the Senate Select Comittee on Intelligence’s review of the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilityes has been examining the objectivity and independence of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community (IC) analysts and whether any influence was brought to bear…” [emphasis added]

    So, for you to say “They found no evidence because they weren’t tasked with nor were they expressly looking for it” seems in direct and quite obvious contradiction of the plain facts.

    Since the rest of your comments are largely premised on that mistake on your part, I won’t take the time to address them all blow-by-blow.

    Suffice to say that the Democrats whole “Phase 2” investigation seems like “Phase 2” of the Florida 2000 vote counting: Nothing more or less than attempt to re-write results they didn’t like, as said results didn’t give them the Presidency.

    Your, and the Democrats’, repeated jumping up and down screaming “There must be evidence of twisting! There must be evidence of twisting!” won’t suffice to make it so.

    What it will do, is keep you in a state of delusion and denial about the facts of reality; and, IF enough people go with you Jody, continually boost the level of partisanship until America is destroyed (e.g., falls to its enemies).

    Comment by Calarato — February 11, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - February 11, 2006

  35. I’d love to make a cup of Celestial Seasonings Bali Black Raspberry Tea, kick off my birkenstocks, and watch Farenheit 911 on DVD for the hundred and twentieth time. But gee wiz, I’m not sure I’m feeling gay enough. I’d better bash some Republicans first!

    Comment by Dave — February 11, 2006 @ 7:06 pm - February 11, 2006

  36. From the Rockefeller Additional Remarks section (pg.465):

    “…The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was used or misused by Administration officials in public statements and reports was relegated to the second phase of the Committee’s investigation…”

    Hmmm. Checking the index. Nope. Don’t see that one investigated.

    “….along with other issues related to the intelligence activities of Pentagon policy officials”

    Don’t see that one in the Index. Clicking through the pages. Nope. Not there.

    “…pre-war intelligence assessments about post-war Iraq…”

    Hmpth. Nope. Not in Index either.

    “…and the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi…”

    No. No section. Wow. That is strange.

    “… which claims to have passed “raw intelligence” and defector information directly to the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President.”

    Hmmm. Can find any mention of that either.

    I wonder if they tackled Kerr’s CIA report and his comment: “..Requests for reporting and analysis of [Iraq’s links to al Qaeda] were steady and heavy in the period leading up to the war, creating significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection.” (Kerr Report, July 2003)”

    Don’t see any investigation into that.

    What about “…For reasons that have not been convincingly explained, the Intelligence Community eliminated many of the analytical caveats that were contained in the classified estimate when releasing the white paper to the public. Dissenting opinions among agencies on key judgments were dropped from the unclassified document as well. Perhaps most astonishingly, a key judgment in the white paper on Iraq’s potential to deliver biological weapons added a meaningful phrase – “including potentially against the US Homeland” – that was not part of the corresponding key judgment in the classified estimate. This addition, which the Intelligence Community has been unable to explain to the Committee, communicated to the American public a level of threat against the United States homeland that was inconsistent with the Intelligence Community’s judgment.”

    Nothin’ there either.

    What about “…Even though the CIA’s June 2002 report was “purposefully aggressive” in seeking to draw connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the intelligence analysis did not find the relationship sought by Pentagon policy officials. One of the individuals working for the self-named “Iraqi intelligence cell” at the Pentagon stated the June report, “…should be read for content only – and CIA’s interpretation ought to be ignored.” This criticism of the CIA’s analysis was sent by Under Secretary for Policy Feith to Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld…”

    Nothing either confirming or debunking the claim.

    Does “report” mean something different in Calarto-Land?

    The Report mentions they interviewed a small number of people, five I believe, who had concerns about how intel was used. They didn’t delve into any of these other issues because it wasn’t their mandate to do so.

    Look, for all I know, you’re right: Nothing was twisted, the evidence was the best we had, Bush, Chenney et.al are noble guys needlessly tarnished by a bunch of lying Democrats and their Liberal Press minions who raise questions out of a desire to hand the entire country over to terrorists because… well because.

    The Phase Two report is going to validate your point by debunking each and every claim that Rockefeller, his group, the press and like have brought up. You got nothing to loose here, Cal.

    Comment by Jody — February 11, 2006 @ 7:42 pm - February 11, 2006

  37. 14. Oh, TGC, many Republicans are huffing over the illegal wiretaps. They may be GWB apologists too, but never over the rule of law and the Constitution.

    Comment by Stephen

    You call about half a dozen RINOS “many”?

    #13 — you say “it’s clear the ‘wiretaps’ were legal”. No it’s not. In fact, the only thing “clear” about the matter so far is that GWB and gang have violated FISA.

    Comment by Pussy Patriot

    Actually, it is. It has the Constitution and several cases of judicial precedent to back it up. Oh and the Constitution trumps a law like FISA. I know, I know. That sort of thinking is “radical”.

    In fact, it’s clearer that the surveillance was legal than it’s clear why those RINOs you name call themselves Republicans.

    The people in Congress know damn well it was legal, but they have to posture for the voters in this election year. Those “Republicans” that you name have to suck up to their liberal voters back home.

    As far as impeachment goes, if you libtards had anything other than talking points and Bill Burkett documents, Bush would have been impeached by now. You have to have facts and evidence to do so and you have zip.
    I’ve been asking for years for liberals to show me how Bush lied, how he twisted intelligence, which rights we’ve lost, etc. etc. etc. and not a one has ever been able to answer my questions. Long story short, you don’t impress me much. Going out and getting law professor John Luvmynamindapapers from Elite Liberal University impresses me less.

    You’ve tried hard with Richard Clarke, the Jersey Gals, Cindy Sheehan etc. That didn’t wash and neither will any of your new incarnations of the same.

    Long story short, you and the rest of the libs are complete and total absolute failures and you prove it more and more with every post on this blog.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 11, 2006 @ 7:47 pm - February 11, 2006

  38. Damn ,I misplaced the date when we were getting together to tamper with the voting machines for the fall elections. Can anyone pass on the meeting place and time for Pennsylvania? Thanks

    Comment by Gene — February 11, 2006 @ 8:04 pm - February 11, 2006

  39. Jody, #36, I phrased comment #22 the way I did because I was in a bit of a hurry and didn’t want to say anything inaccurate. I stand comment and the more I thought about it as I drove around LA today, the more grateful I am for my haste earlier.

    My words made me realize something that I may not yet have addressed on this blog. While the Democrats have leveled accusation after accusation against the president on any number of charges, particularly this one — that he “lied us into war,” they have yet to make a strong cause that he did so (though they have made a circumstantial one). The Committee itself said as much.

    As of yet, no bipartisan panel has found the president twisted intelligence and yet the Left screams Bush Lied! as if it were a proven fact. If we leave out the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, we still have Robb-Silberman and the British Butler commission which have found no evidence of twisting intelligence. (And that was the point of the comment.) This should settle the matter. Once again, no panel (save perhaps some left-wing ones concocted to prove what they already believe) investigating this has found that the Administration lied or twisted and cherry-picked intelligence.

    I did not say the Times was dishonest, but that they presented a biased report. (It would be accurate to say that I called the paper disingenuous.) Unlike me, they claim to be a non-partisan news source. I do not make such a claim. I am a gay conservative writer. But, even with my “agenda,” you have yet to find a falsehood in this piece (or to take serious issue with my claims as you did so well (and thoughtfully) with my Riker’s Island post).

    Nor did, as you claim, that Committee Democrats were dishonest, but offered an opinion (in #27) about what I expect the committee to find. Nor did I (in this piece) not suggest anyone (besides Joe Wilson) is a liar. I noted the “verbal ingenuity” of the Times came at the expense of accurate reporting. In no Times aticle that I have read on Joe Wilson have its reporters noted that the unanimous Senate Intelligence panel discredited him — which it did. (While the committee, as a whole did not call him a liar, its chairman certainly suggested as much.)

    And that is my primary issue with the Times–and the reason I penned this post. It bills itself as an even-handed news source and its reporters so present the news in the paragraphs on the Senate Intelligence Committee and Joe Wilson so that it appears the latter discredited the Administration (which it did not) and that Wilson himself levelled valid accusations (which he did not).

    And Jody in #39, you’re quoting the Additional Remarks of a very partisan Democrat.

    And you’re not even considering the Robb-Silberman Commission which found “no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.”

    I may be repeating myself, but let me make clear, that I have not accused Committee Democrats or the LA Times of lying. And you have so far not provided any evidence that Bush lied.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 11, 2006 @ 8:15 pm - February 11, 2006

  40. #39 – Jody, you’re quoting from Rockefeller’s added comments, but I notice, nothing from Roberts’ added comments! (Exposure of Joe Wilson as a “liar” in the word’s full and exact meaning, anyone?)

    In other words: partisan waste of time.

    If the mainline committee found that no influence had been brought to bear on the Intelligence Community (IC) for them to slant any intelligence products, then that is what they found.

    It may then be valid to raise a separate question, of how the provided Intelligence Estimates then got used in public debate. Again, however, we must keep to objective reports and not expect partisan comments of Rockefeller’s (of all people!!!) to be persuasive here.

    The bulk of the evidence indicates that Intelligence Estimate given to the Congress was actually more nuanced, or contained more of the Intelligence Community’s contrary evidence and caveats, than what the Intelligence Community chose to give the President in Daily Briefs.

    At the end of the day, there is simply no logical or credible way you can accuse anyone of fudging the intelligence, unless that “anyone” happens to be the Intelligence Community itself (as distinct from the Administration). Are you doing that? Do you, Jody, intend to suggest it was a CIA / NSA conspiracy to get us into the war?

    What I just said is implicit in Rockefeller’s own comments that you chose to quote. Rockefeller in no way said the Intelligence Community was ASKED (by the Administration) to redact doubts from the public’s White Paper. Rather, he said that the Intelligence Community itself DID NOT EXPLAIN TO ROCKEFELLER’S SATISFACTION why THEY (the Intelligence Community, not the Administration) redacted certain doubts from the public’s White Paper.

    So, what are you even trying to prove (or suggest) anymore?

    As for somebody pressing for better intel on the Iraq – al Qaeda connection: That’s completely understandable, in the context of the Intelligence Community having done a provably awful job in that area. We know there were contacts / meetings between Iraq and al Qaeda througout the 1990s and early 00s; they have been documented extensively in various countries’ public media. The U.S. intelligence community got caught with its pants down, in not being able to provide anything useful in that area (beyond what was already in public media).

    Comment by Calarato — February 11, 2006 @ 9:31 pm - February 11, 2006

  41. Dan, I’ll give the Robb report, but not the Butler report. The Butler report found the pretext for going to war rather slim from the available evidence (“more weight was placed on the intelligence that it could bear”), that it was stretched to justify British involvement. While it cleared Blair of direct insertion of false intel, it didn’t deal with “cherry picking” and was rather clear about that. Blair said the Hutton report cleared him and the British press on both sides said the Hutton report said otherwise. With the British press being far more partisan than ours, the cherry picking question is still up in the air.

    As far as “no panel investigating this has found that the Administration lied or twisted and cherry-picked intelligence,” that’s only technically correct. It ignores the limitations of the report and the additional comments speaking to those limitations included at the end of the document. Leaving that out, and maintaining a document is conclusive when even the document itself says it is not, you are being just as “disingenuous” as you accuse the Times of being.

    The fault that I find is right there, with your partisanship. The report simply doesn’t make the slam dunk claim that you state it does. Nor does the Butler report. Or the Hutton report. (The Robb report I’m not as familiar with, but a quick look on Google would support your reading of it.)

    It’s fair to say that as of now, reports on both sides of the Atlantic have shown no one deliberately “lied” vis a vis intel and war. But the question of “twisting” or “cherry-picking” is still hasn’t been adequately settled. You believing it has is your partisan bias. Fair enough. But an attempt at a dispassionate reading of the evidence, even accounting for political bias of either party, leaves this big gaping hole around the issue of a selective reading of the evidence at the very least and being “disingenuous” in its presentation by the President at the most.

    As far my quoting of a partisan Democrat in post #39, yeah, I did. But then Chambliss, Hatch, Lott, Hagel, and Bond are as well. And if we discount the Additional Comments due to political bias of one side of the isle, then we need to discount the same for the opposite side too. We’re then left with what both sides were able to agree on vis a vis the pressure placed on intel: nothing readily found but only a small part of the subject was looked at because a second report would deal more comprehensively and completely with it. We’re right back then to the whole matter of being disingenuous.

    Dan, I never set out to prove Bush lied. I set out to prove you were being as “disingenuous” as you were accusing the Times of being. Claiming that Phase One of the Senate report settled matters regarding political pressure simply isn’t true. Phase One was not a comprehensive review. Citing it as being such is factually and objectively wrong.

    Comment by Jody — February 12, 2006 @ 2:48 am - February 12, 2006

  42. Jody, the issue here is whether or not the Administration “doctored” the intelligence and the Times failure to report that Joe Wilson is a dishonest man.

    I’m not being disingenuous in the least. I’m making very clear my point — which you have yet to dispute — that no report has found that the President or his advisors “twisted” the intelligence — or “cherry-picked.”

    Where did I saw the report made a slam dunk case? I said no such thing.

    We disagree about whether or not the question of “twisting” or “cherry-picking” has been settled.

    I would hardly call Chuck Hagel a partisan Republican; he has frequently criticized his fellow Republicans, including the president.

    I did not say that Phase One was a comprehensive review. In my post, I merely wrote: “The paper conveniently leaves out the fact that the committee found no evidence to suggest that the Administration twisted intelligence.

    What bothered me about the Times piece was what it left out. I mean its it clause about the Sentence Intelligence Committee report (“a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee subsequently found that none of the claims were backed up by evidence“) is quite incomplete and hence disingenuous. As is its clever phrasing of its sentence on Wilson’s claims. That the paper introduces that Democrat’s claim without noting they have been discredited is striking. In order to better understand Libby’s actions, we need to understand that he was not out to slander an honest critic, but to discredit a dishonest man.

    Jody, you claim I’m being disingenuous, yet more than once in your comments, you have misrepresented my points — and faulted me for saying things I did not say. Let me repeat–I faulted the LA Times for presenting an incomplete picture, leaving out facts which put the Administration — and its defenders — in a better light.

    If you have a problem with something I say in my post, please quote my words back to me and tell me what is wrong with them. Because of my respect for you, I have carefully re-read the post to make sure I did not phrase something awkwardly–which might lead to a misunderstanding. Let me stress (yet again)–I referred to the Senate report to make two points (both of which the TImes leaves out): (1) that it discredited Wilson; (2) that it found no evidence that the president lied or twisted intelligence.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 12, 2006 @ 4:03 am - February 12, 2006

  43. It’s fair to say that as of now, reports on both sides of the Atlantic have shown no one deliberately “lied” vis a vis intel and war. But the question of “twisting” or “cherry-picking” is still hasn’t been adequately settled.

    I would restate Calarato’s question, Jody: So just what is it you’re trying to suggest? To what end do either you, or anyone else on the left, for that matter, insist on arguing minutae? While you no doubt take issue with my characterization of debate, the GWOT IS a fact of life this evening, with a majority of the American public (albeit slim) believing that the Bush doctrine is spot-on, and the minority in firm opposition.
    If anything truly constructive can come of this ceaseless wrangling, my fervent hope is that we might all begin to agree on two key points:

    1) That on 9/11, al-Queda decided to start a war absent any semblence of a front line, and
    2) The historically obvious fact that this particular enemy will not stop attacking the United States in any way, shape or form, until such time as we surrender or are defeated.

    My view is that at one point we were in complete agreement on these facts, but I’ll leave it to others to analyze the nature of the present schism. However, I will continue to maintain that the hardcore anti-war movement must accept much of the responsibility for the bitter tone of this debate. To wit: while preparing to participate in a close friend’s wedding on the day we invaded Afghanistan, I was casually watching CNN while dressing. I was shocked to see, as part of their coverage, groups of college students in various parts of the country, voraciously attacking our decision to exercise military force.

    My point here is simple: that no matter how exhaustive the left’s insistence that this was “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,” and no matter the empirical “evidence” you provide in support of your position, the fact remains that the essence of your entire argument was most accurately revealed by those bubble-headed students within hours of our decision to respond to a declaration of war that everyone seems to have understood except “the enlightened ones.”

    …and Barbra Fucking Streisand.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 12, 2006 @ 4:07 am - February 12, 2006

  44. “It’s fair to say that as of now, reports on both sides of the Atlantic have shown no one deliberately “lied” vis a vis intel and war. But the question of “twisting” or “cherry-picking” is still hasn’t been adequately settled.”

    A load of peanut butter. Here’s why.

    To “lie” is to willfully mislead. But lies can be by commission (positing an actual falsehood), or by omission (willfully hiding so much significant information that it is the functional equivalent of positing falsehoods).

    To “twist” or “cherry-pick” information, in any significant way that would be worthy of continued discussion, matches the definition of “lying by omission” exactly. Otherwise it’s mere semantics and minutiae.

    If no one lied, then no one willfully misled, and trying to keep a discussion alive about supposed “cherry-picking” or “twisting” is merely the repetitive compulsion of someone who can’t stop flogging the horse years after it died.

    Long story short: Jody, this discussion has been stupid. This is why I normally don’t reply to you. How about moving on to better things – like supporting the troops?

    Or, if the war is being prosecuted badly, figuring out how to win? (of course, we already are winning, but that would be getting into the other discussion) Or some other topic, of your choice, in genuinely making America better?

    “Dan, I never set out to prove Bush lied. I set out to prove you were being as “disingenuous” as you were accusing the Times of being.”

    OK. Let’s declare the failure of your effort, then, and move on.

    Comment by Calarato — February 12, 2006 @ 11:44 am - February 12, 2006

  45. I’m not being disingenuous in the least. I’m making very clear my point — which you have yet to dispute — that no report has found that the President or his advisors “twisted” the intelligence — or “cherry-picked.”

    Dan, as I’ve continually pointed out, comment after comment, yes, you are technically correct. Neither report has found the President to have “cherry-picked” the data. At the same time, neither report was tasked with determining the answer to that question. Both reports, here and in Britain, touched on those issues, yes, but only in pursuit of answering other questions.. Neither report was a comprehensive review of the claims, charges or executive explanations.

    To focus specifically on the Senate report, questions of cherry-picking and political use of the data wasn’t part of the Phase One document.

    To say, in a post, “The paper conveniently leaves out the fact that the committee found no evidence to suggest that the Administration twisted intelligence. The problem was the intelligence, not how the Administration used it is not a complete statement of the facts. It’s akin to picking up one of those little sample cups of Hagen-Daz, reading the “only 100 calories per serving!” blurb on the front and failing to note that the Nutritional Chart on the back states that there’s two and half servings in the cup in front.

    When you leave out the fact that neither the Senate report or British report was tasked with looking into the politics and use of the (bad) data, if cherry picking occurred, then you are just as responsible for “presenting an incomplete picture” and “leaving out facts.” You leave out a fact, one I think happens to be pretty big.

    Comment by Jody — February 12, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - February 12, 2006

  46. Jody, Jody, Jody. In comment after comment after comment, you have ignored or misrepresented the purpose of this post. I wrote it in order to point out biased coverage of L’affaire Plame in our local paper. I did not write it to address the conclusiveness of the Senate report.

    You fault me for leaving out aspects of the Senate report — which are irrelevant to this post. I fault the Times for referencing that report only to make points which put the Administration in a bad light. And for reporting on Joe Wilson as if he were an honest critic. If they’re going to mention that dishonest Democrat’s claims, then they need mention that the Senate report discredited him. That fact that Wilson has been proven to be dishonest is an essential aspect of this story.

    But, they “cherry-pick” the report so as to make it appear that report discredited the Administration’s case for war. They have thus presented an incomplete picture of L’affaire Plame. And that was, I repeat, the purpose of my post whose main point you have yet to contest.

    Thus, your Haagan-Daz reference is absurd. You go on and on and on about the reports whereas the very title of my post indicates I am dealing with bias at the Times.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 12, 2006 @ 1:55 pm - February 12, 2006

  47. Dan, “they did it first” as explanation stopped working in Kindergarten.

    Comment by Jody — February 12, 2006 @ 2:16 pm - February 12, 2006

  48. And Jody now falls off the cliff, officially making no meaningful or intelligible reference to Dan’s content at all.

    Comment by Calarato — February 12, 2006 @ 3:55 pm - February 12, 2006

  49. On Powerline today – This is about as fair a summary of the WMD intelligence issue as I’ve seen: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013125.php

    Hinderaker’s update notes that charges of “cherry-picking” are deeply ironic because, if anything, it was the CIA that exercised a heavy-handed influence on the Administration’s case for war – Not the reverse.

    How’s that? Well, the CIA had (and reflected in its products):

    1) A deeply dogmatic conviction that Saddam HAD TO have chemical weapons all ready to go. And,

    2) A deeply dogmatic conviction that Saddam HAD TO NOT have al Qaeda connections.

    We now consider the CIA wrong on both counts.

    (1) would be “wrong” because: The Coalition found all the necessary precursors for chemical weapon in Iraq, often stored side by side; but, since they hadn’t quite been mixed and assembled into shells yet, today we go around saying “Saddam did not have WMD”.

    (2) is wrong because: Most sane analysts now accept that al Qaeda training camps in Iraq had been first established before the Coalition invasion, and that Iraq and al Qaeda had numerous high-level contacts or meetings throughout the 1990s and early 00s.

    But at the time, because the CIA was so dogmatic about (1) and (2), representing them so firmly in its intelligence products, the Administration said OK, who are we to argue?

    The bottom line is: there were many reasons to get rid of Saddam. And the CIA and the Administration together bungled (not lied) in presenting the right reasons.

    Comment by Calarato — February 12, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - February 12, 2006

  50. And I would point out that to date, Jody has yet to even ackowledge that the GWOT is valid.

    Apparently, Jody feels that we were to blame for 9/11.

    To engage this person any further is sheer folly. To him, the arguments surrounding the President’s authority are nothing more than a diversion. To his way of thinking, the United States is probably due for collapse, and if it be islam that becomes the dominant political force, than according to Darwinism, so be it.

    I would strenuously advise that Jody is simply biding his time, eagerly awaiting the collapse of the USA, in favor of a more, “globally sensitive” system of government.

    Eric in Reality

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 12, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - February 12, 2006

  51. Jody, I have no clue what your comment #50 is supposed to mean. Let me repeat, I posted to draw attention to LA Times bias on a particular issues (Joe Wilson’s dishonesty & their coverage of the Senate Intelligence Report) in a particular article. I have blogged previously on the Wilson issue because they continually report his claims without noting that Senate report discredited that Democrat.

    And you have yet to show that I was inaccurate in highlighting our local paper’s disingenuous reporting, preferring to go off on tangents faulting me for saying things about the Senate report I never said.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 12, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - February 12, 2006

  52. This is a good post from Powerline which addresses the issues Jody raised about cherry-picking intelligence, but doesn’t address the theme of my post so I add to the comments and not as an UPDATE (or an UP-UP-UPDATE).

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 12, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - February 12, 2006

  53. The L.A. Times? I stopped reading it a long time ago when I lived there.
    Why do I want to get my day off to a bad start, so I switched to the Wall Street Journal. Now I read El Diario de Hoy which definite supports the conservatives worldwide.

    Comment by Roberto — February 13, 2006 @ 11:33 am - February 13, 2006

  54. Unless & until Pussy can back up his claims, the demented little troll needs to be ignored.

    That’s complete bullshit, people. He’s making sweeping generalizations, all because his arguments have run out of steam.

    Eric in Flames

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 13, 2006 @ 11:37 am - February 13, 2006

  55. Eric, were you around last summer or fall? Pussy is a famous hanger-on of this site, famous that is, for taking it to the point of mental and emotional illness. I believe at one point he/she/it was banned. (not sure) So your comments may be even more true than you know.

    Comment by Calarato — February 13, 2006 @ 11:41 am - February 13, 2006

  56. Nah, Calarato, I’m a newbie here. If I had known he pulled this before, I probably wouldn’t have responded at all. But my word, THAT was just over the top.

    Thanks for letting me know, though.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 13, 2006 @ 11:48 am - February 13, 2006

  57. Yeah, see, I didn’t even bother reading it. As soon as I saw “pussy”.

    I chastised Gryph when he was over the top in that other thread, because he is occasionally honest or interesting (though maybe not much lately) and at times I may still read him.

    Comment by Calarato — February 13, 2006 @ 4:11 pm - February 13, 2006

  58. Let’s try that again. Never try to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of time, and it annoys the pig.

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 13, 2006 @ 6:08 pm - February 13, 2006

  59. […] shouts out during President Obama’s address and accuses him of lying. But, another guy named Joe Wilson makes a name for himself by lying about President Bush. And guess which one apologized? The one whose outburst, boorish though it may have […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » The Honest Joe Wilson Refuses to Apologize Again — September 14, 2009 @ 3:46 am - September 14, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.