...by the pricking of my thumbs, something Liberal this way comes.

Just Another One of Those "Fishy" Blogs




New Editorial!! Want Texas Independence? Stop Taking Federal Money!




Click for Houston, Texas Forecast


Saturday, November 12, 2005

Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus Continue Relentless Attack of Lies on President

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

Dana Milbank, Walter Pincus, you have no credibility anymore. Your agenda is clear. Your artless lies have no more relationship to the truth than the myth of Jimmy Carter's high moral character. You seem to be incapable of writing a story with any semblence of objectivity. You are so blinded by your hatred of President Bush that you warrant nothing but absolute contempt from the public. You and your yellow rag the Washingon Pest are best reserved for use in the family fireplace or for lining a birdcage. I laugh at your label as "journalists" I suggest you try the moniker of "hacks."

Full Story: Pincus Milbank Lies
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

1 Comments:

Anonymous Pat Justice said...

I agree that Pincus and Milbank's politics show. When President Bush comes out to defend himself against the Democrat's baseless charges, why is it we get headlines with words like "attacked Democrats?" I even heard an anchor refer to Bush's speech as "compative." That's not the headlines we get when the Democrats 'attack' the president.

The new Democrat "talking point" is "cherry-picking." As in, "Bush cherry-picked the intelligence he wanted to use to make his case for war." My response would be, "And so?" I attended a 1999 Town Hall Meeting at Ohio State Universtiy back in 1999 where Sandy Berger, Madelyn Allbright, and William Cohen were making their administration's case for involving us in the Kosovo war. NOT ONCE did I hear them present a reason why we shouldn't; only reasons why we should.

Question: Were they "cherry-picking" their case? And why didn't liberal writers like Milbank and Pincus make that charge then?

10:17 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home