In a completely confounding attack on the media today, McClellan requested that media outlets who carried a story on W knowingly misrepresenting some junk as WMDs apologise.

Funny thing, to me, about this is one of their biggest fans is carrying the s…

Have you ever wondered why only 14 of the 93 pages were released? 15% of a report can be quite persuasive if those are the only portions that support your bias.

Yessss, whyyyy the sham jury investigation then? If it was declassified, then say so, it wasn’t a leak then. These guys will continue to attempt to rewrite history, this is no different. My bet is that he is forging whatever documents necessary to “prove” he declassified this information.

If there is any doubt about the motivations for the leak, you should check out “Bush’s Brain” (Netflix even has it), a quite insightful documentary that shows beyond a doubt what a sociopath Rove is. Jow Wilson is featured and is quite candid about what happened and there is no way to doubt his side upon seeing his interview. Joe Wilson is a TRUE American who reported the Truth that we all sadly know now: no WMDs. (And if they did have WMDs, we know where they came from anyway. If we’d give them chemical weapons to use on our own people, we’d give them other forms of WMDs. WMDs are not just explosives and the fact that we gave these to Iraq in the first place and it is overlooked – well, it speaks for itself.

The reason for the leak is obvious in “Bush’s Brain”. Wilson wouldn’t lie for their fake agenda. Post #20 has it right on the mark:

“Was the leak important because it supported the FALSE (or FALSIFIED) ‘pre-invasion intelligence’, or was it important because it intimidated or silenced (or was meant to anyway) a critic of that FALSE (or FALSIFIED) ‘pre-invasion intelligence’?”

INTIMIDATION – a warning to others, like Sybil Edmonds who was an Arabic translator who was forced to alter the translation to support their war-mongering MO.

All of this leads back to the fact that: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1 . If it could happen then in the 60s, they have had 40 yrs to plan nine eleven.

But PNAC called for a “new Pearl Harobor” – written by Cheney, Wolfowitz, usual suspects in 2000. That we needed a massive event to change the direction of this country so the US could dominate the world. So, the rest of us are supposed to believe 19 hijackers with box cutters had more to gain (virgins) than these Traitors (World Domination).

Wake up people, cut through the SpinMachine. Do research on govt’-sponsored-t-e-r-r-o-r and you will see “CUI BONO?” ~”Who Benefits”. Who is the biggest benefactor on the WOT? Do you think this is an accident?? Are you going to wait until you’re in one of Halliburton’s detention centers that they are building AS I TYPE for people who dissent / scrutinize the gov’t like a TRUE PATRIOT should?!?

All of this nightmare is due to the decision to “regime change” in 2000, before any of this phoniness happened so WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

This is absolutely no different. This editorial was written by a Bush loyalist and most likely was fed to him from Bush’s PR people (ie Rove). When the editorial is printed the White house uses that to back up their own claims.

We now live in a world where the White House makes up a claim (most often a lie), gives it to the media they control, then when the loyalist media prints the story the White House references it as evidence supporting them. In reality they are supporting themselves because nobody else will.

We are not arguing about what was in the summary NIE given to congress. We also already know that almost every line it is inaccurate, and that it does not correspond to the official NIE and how that portrayed all these “certainties” as highly doubtful. This was a selective, quick turnaround rewrite, purely for the purpose of spinning the congress. And with suckers like King, it worked. Why you wish to still play the role of suckup to this crap is beyond me.

What we are worried about is that this document was spun again, at other times, so as to influence public opinion by cherrypicking certain sections of it which were clearly, to anyone who has read the original NIE, either patently false, or were under serious disagreemtnt between the experts.

Even if they thought this was right when they wrote it (which looks increasingly suspect) they clearly knew at the time of its selective leaking that the findings were bogus. This means that even if they didnt create the lie, they perpetuated it after they knew it to be one.

Perhaps you can lay out your motive for wanting to support such nefarious behavior. Will you justify anything to back these people up? It’s pathetic that you dont even understand the arguments against this behavior.

Really folks, this is easy for anyone to understand … in fact Jeff Goldstein says it so well that I’ll just quote him, “Bush declassified NIE documents at the behest of reporters and in order to provide justification for the Iraq campaign. He was providing information to answer questions like those posed by “Good Morning America’s” Charlie Gibson at around that same time: “President Bush and Iraq. What did he know and when did he know it?””

And what was it that Bush knew? From this unclassified NIE we learn the following …

Consensus Intelligence Estimate’s conclusions:
Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate

Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009.

Don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself (and as you will read you will notice that there is no ambiguity to this report … unlike what some “sources” have said).

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html