09.29.06
Another Bush gaffe: we actually were in Iraq on Sept 11, 2001
by Terri Firma
In the midst of a difficult week for the White House, with disclosures making the justification for the Iraq invasion more difficult, President Bush’s central claim that the War in Iraq does not make American less safe, the fact that we were not in Iraq at the time of the 9/11 attacks, has been made moot, because we were in Iraq at that time, several leaks have revealed. “Yes, we were,” said John Lassiter, a special assistant to CIA Director George Tenet at the time. “There was this big hullabaloo about getting Congress’ approval and all that, but we invaded early in 2001 in spite of all that, so we were there at the time.”
“It’s unfortunate for the President,” said another CIA analyst Dan MacTaffie, who broke the story to the Associated Press last night, ”particularly as he has made this argument so central, but in fact, we were in Iraq at that time, and I don’t know if that escalates tensions or not. I do know it wasn’t a particularly good idea to be there before the declaration of war or the full-scale combat operations, but there it is. We were a bit of a fly in the ointment, so to speak.”
09.28.06
Document shows US was made offer: “Do you want to fight us here, or do you want to fight us over there?”
by Tom Toburn
A leaked document from 2003 shows that US intelligence agencies and British officials were made an offer before launching the Iraqi offensive, which asked, in part “Do you want to fight us here, or do you want to fight us over there? It’s really up to you.” Prime Minister Tony Blair reportedly thanked the terror leaders for their candor and courtesy, and said that they would take the offer under advisement, before US and British officials launched the attack to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. This revelation offers further support for the administration’s contention that by fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they are saving Americans the trouble of a terror war at home. The British people, unfortunately, have not been spared, and the reason that this part of the bargain was not honored has been a mystery, but has not helped Prime Minister Blair’s standing in his country.
“I hope this, finally, dispels this notion that by fighting the terrorists over there, we are somehow making ourselves less safe,” Press Secretary Tony Snow told reporters after the document (labeled “Downing Street Memo Number 2″) was released, before being asked the question, “But what about us? We don’t want them fighting you guys over in other countries. Some of those countries are ours,” by members of the foreign press corps. Snow referred these other questions to the White House Office of Special Plans.
Falwell defers opportunity to apologize to Hillary Clinton because “no one should ever have to apologize to Lucifer”
by Paula Berrer
Reverend Jerry Falwell refused, when given the opportunity today, to apologize to Senator Hillary Clinton today, when pressed on the issue by Larry King on his program today, and said “No one should ever have to apologize to Lucifer.” Flawell came under fire for referring to Clinton disparagingly on an interview on CNN, and said he would urge his followers to oppose her candidacy, were she to declare for the Democratic Presidential nomination, “as if Lucifer himself were running,” prior to Hugo Chavez comparing President Bush to the devil at a highly inflammatory speech at the UN. “Well, referring to the president in that way is one thing, but with Hillary, well, heavens, she actually is the devil.”
In response to a question later in the program on how he knows Clinton is the devil, Falwell said, “I know she has sex slaves, who commit adultery and have abortions. That is what makes me so certain. I’m not going to say I have actually seen such trademarks items as ‘horns’ and ‘cloven feet’ on the Senator, because I’m saving saying that for later on my own program.”
Reporters catch Allen stuffing horse’s head into Jesse Jackson supporter’s mailbox
by Paula Berrer
An embarrassed and apologetic Senator George Allen was discovered stuffing a horse’s head into the mailbox of Darryl Little, a field worker for Jesse Jackson’s voter outreach project in Virginia, and Allen insisted it was only a misunderstanding, and regrets any discomfort it may have caused Mr. Little or his family. “I had a lapse in judgement, of sorts,” Allen explained, “and I may have acted inappropriately in trying to fit this awful animal head into Mr. Little’s mailbox.
The embattled Virginia Senator has been defending himself against accusations of racism and of denying his Jewish ancestry, and his campaign for reelection has been sent reeling as a result. This latest episode, if nothing else, demonstrates a continued lack of discipline on the part of Mr. Allen as well as his campaign, say some observers. “There are a lot of sharp shooters on his team, but I don’t know why they aren’t able to reel stuff in,” said Charlie Batch of the Cook Political News Service.
Cheney seeks to have term “defeatist” redefined to mean “favoring a drawdown in Iraq war”
by Terri Firma
Vice President Dick Cheney has revealed that the administration proponents for the Iraq war have sought to have the words “defeatist” and “resignation” classified as definitions that characterize Democratic positions on national defense. Democratic lawmakers have sought to combat the suggestion by Cheney that their positions are those of defeatism just because Cheney says this is so. They argue that their positions are simply alternative positions, not on an opposite spectrum of ideas from a supposed position of strength. Cheney has been increasingly reliant on this argument in recent weeks at several fundraising appearances, one of which had him sharing the lectern with Ann Coulter, who baited Democrats with the argument that they support and love the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and “should just go ahead and marry them.”
Cheney’s strategy of redefining the terms of the debate was surreptitiously revealed when, as a guest on Tim Russert’s Sunday program, in response to a comment by Biden, Cheney said “I am afraid that yes, it does, sir. Just look it up in any Webster’s dictionary.”
09.26.06
Rice defends Bush administration pursuit of terrorists prior to 9/11; “we just, briefly, confused them with Iraq”
by Tom Toburn
Secretary of State Condoleeza rice appeared on the Today Show with Matt Lauer to defend the administration’s approach to terrorism in the 8 months leading up to 9/11, and said that terrorism and the threat posed by Osama bin Laden were discussed at several high level cabinet meetings, but “we just, briefly, confused them with Iraq, which is only human, only natural, given the circumstances.”
She denies that a comprehensive stratgey was left in place by Clinton, and said “Former President Clinton himself admits to trying and failing. We tried, got a little confused, then tried again later. It is counterproductive to try and hash over this all again. Let’s just leave it at ‘Clinton did not take them out, we heroically invaded Aghanistan after 9/11, and President Bush never fought them off with a machine gun (as the more recent ABC docudrama has tried to expouse).”
She does not dispute Richard Clarke’s recall of events, but defends against Clinton’s assertion that the supposedly capable Clarke was summarily dismissed for loyalty to Clinton. “Absolutely not,” Rice said. “He was let go only because he was a big partisan hack.” When Lauer pointed out that Clarke is a Republican, and said what she implied could be interpreted as meaning that he was dismissed for political reasons, Rice said being “let go” and being “dismissed” are quite different, and referred Lauer to view the 9/11 Commission Report if he needed further clarification.
09.24.06
Schlesinger asks, of Lieberman-Lamont Debate, “Can I come too?”
by Terri Firma
With opposing camps in Connecticut the senatorial contest poised to start debates in the upcoming weeks, still unpopular and largely unnoticed Republican candidate Arthur Schlesinger is asking “Can I come too? There are voters who want to know what I think, my mother for one.” He argued to the debate commission that it is vital that voters have a forum to compare and contrast his views with candidates Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, and “I swear I think some things different from Lieberman. He’s been a Democrat up to now. That’s just it. I’m with the other party. It’s only fair.”
To this point, the commission has not responded, on one occasion, saying they were unfamiliar with Schlesinger or his candidacy.
ABC under fire again for special that places Bush on school roof firing at terrorists on 9/11
by Tom Toburn
After criticism of their recent broadcast of “The Path to 9/11,” which had a purportedly biased recounting of the 9/11 terror network’s evolution, ABC is once again being accused of anti-liberal bias for airing a special Friday where President Bush is seen firing at the flight 93 hijackers with a bazooka from atop a kindergarten class in Tampa. “To see Bush, who was reading to kindergarteners at the time, performing these Chuck Norris or Arnold Schwarzenegger pyrotechnics, is patently absurd,” said left wing commentator George Will. “It’s an outrageous distortion of the facts,” said Jewish liberal media critic Howard Kurtz. “For one thing, Flight 93 was flying over Pennsylvania, which is nowhere near Tampa, Florida.”
ABC responded in a press release that the events are based on facts, but there are events and characters where time compression and other minor liberties and artistic license, take place. “We know some people in government intended to shoot at that flight to bring it down. We don’t know what would’ve happened. This is just one version of it,” the press release says.
Clinton tells Chris Wallace to go fuck himself
by Tom Toburn
In one of his trademark crude utterances in an interview segment on FOX News yesterday, when pressed on issues related to Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction former President Bill Clinton told host Chris Wallace complained of being unfairly ambushed and told Wallace “Go fuck yourself.” Wallace attempted, in a fair and balanced manner, to press Clinton on allowing for acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, and allowing baiting bin Laden into a state of confidence and comfort such that he might attack the United States later, but Clinton said this was rewriting history, and said “What fucking weapons of mass destruction? Are you shitting me? Are you guys still so unsure about this? Did you go to journalism school?”
Wallace said many mainstream pundits, like he and Bill O’Reilly, feel Clinton has stonewalled on these issues, particularly in light of defensiveness over his blow jobs in the Oval Office, but Clinton responded “The blow jobs were fun. What distraction are you talking about? What gets you more focused than a nice, pleasant blow job? Please get a better take on this stuff before you come back at me, okay? This is way beyond your pay scale.”
Breakthrough: things called “programs” escape political scrutiny
by Terri Firma
Some of the controversies surrounding potential political landmines has been quelled by an approach best described as “call it a program.” This is after the disaster that was the Iran-Contra crisis, also called at the time “just sneaking around things.” It is likely this is because if it is a program, it implies that it is established and must have parameters and origins that must be understood, which takes extra time and bandwidth. It also takes what is controversial and makes it boring and inoffensive. It may also beb because is is harder to end something new than to start something new. This has mystified pundits, as the discovery of eavesdropping has been framed as part of a “terrorist surveillance program,” methods of torture and rendiiton part of an “enemy and detainee interrogation program,” corruption scandals part of a “lobbyist outreach program,” evolving “intelligence discordance refinement program.”
It remains to be seen if this approach helps frame issues related to the economy, like the newly labelled Social Security reform, or “keep people poor program”
