Media Fails To Report Rumsfeld’s Misleading Claims From March 2003
Media Fails To Report Rumsfeld’s Misleading Claims From March 2003
Today’s media coverage of CIA veteran Ray McGovern’s tough questioning of Rumsfeld yesterday has surprisingly posed a great challenge to the media about how aggressively they would cover the episode.
To quickly recap yesterday’s events, McGovern asked Rumsfeld, “[W]hy did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary.†When Rumsfeld protested that he did not lie, McGovern presented the evidence, saying that Rumsfeld had claimed he knew where the WMD were. And McGovern was right:
RUMSFELD: We know where [the WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]
While the media has been quick to cover McGovern’s accusation that Rumsfeld lied, many news accounts have failed to report Rumsfeld’s own words from March 2003. The lead AP story, written by Shannon McCaffrey, fails to make any mention of it. Versions of the AP story have been reported in today’s Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, and many other papers.
Cox News Service also wrote a story that failed to report Rumsfeld’s own words. The Cox story was reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, among other papers.
Fortunately, there have been a small number of news accounts that reported Rumsfeld’s statements, most notably the L A Times and the Chicago Tribune.
Are newsrooms across the country afraid of being perceived as anti-war “hecklers†and “hostile war critics†if they accurately report the administration’s false claims?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Watching the news coverage of this event last night, most of the networks seem to say that Rumsfeld was attacked, but stood his ground. There was very little on the exchange between McGovern and Rumsfeld, and it was usually placed at the tail end of the report, after they reported on the protesters at the event.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:44 amYou can’t Manufacture Consent if you tell the truth…
May 5th, 2006 at 11:44 amWhat a bunch of wimps. I bet Jon Stewart will have it on tonight on the Daily Show though.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:47 amThe media’s silence on Rumsfeld’s lie is exactly what Colbert was talking about. The media just (in general) shows great reluctance to report anything that puts the Bush Administration in a bad light. That’s why we distrust the media and hold them (in general) in contempt.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:48 amDoublethink requires that you forget yesterday’s truth as you assert today’s truth.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:56 amOnce again, we see reality’s liberal bias at work.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:01 pm“Once again, we see reality’s liberal bias at work.”
Because Communism works so much better then capitalism.
Liberalism works because it is allowed to exist in a right of center social structure.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:03 pmThen what do you make of the Chinese experiment?
May 5th, 2006 at 12:05 pmI think that the MSM ignores things like this because if they report on it too vigorously, they might lose “access” to key administration officials. Then, they’ll claim, they can’t do their jobs effectively (or even at all).
Well, MSM, I’ve got a question for you: Why should you care? All they want to do is use you to sell lies. They want you to report exactly what they say and not to question it. (Stephen Colbert said this so much better at the WHCD.) But they aren’t telling you the truth, and when you write down what they say, you are not reporting the truth.
Do what needs to be done, which is to tell the American people the truth, especially the over-the-air broadcasters who have their licenses for the public airwaves free in exchange for doing just that). If the liars won’t talk to you any more, then you won’t have to repeat their lies to us.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:06 pmWhy does it take two citizens (Harry Taylor and McGovern) and a comic (Colbert) to call this administration on their BS…..why is that corporate media…why?????
May 5th, 2006 at 12:06 pmThe news problem is that there is the perception in the media that newsanchors have to be celebanchors that create news instead of reporting it. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite asking “So, do you have an ax to grind with Rumsfield?” Pathetic.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:07 pmYou mean them moving over from a communist form to a fascist form as control of materials is put back into the hands of indivduals and corporations while output is still controlled by the gov’t, so they can compete in the global market?
Or the estimated 10’s of millions that Mao killed trying to get actual communism to work?
Either way it highlights the failures of communism compared to either fascism(the far right) or capitalism.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:08 pmAnderson Cooper covered it nicely twice last night. Just wanting to point out that somewhere in the MSM, they are doing something. Of course, I also watch Elizabeth Vargas last night, too…not a word, even though ABC was the network where Rummy said he knew where the WMD were…. Amazing….
May 5th, 2006 at 12:12 pmSquegee,
what does communism have to do with the current discussion? Are you try to derail this thread into a Liberals are communists? The failure of the media to ask crucial questions of our government is a glaring problem. We need answers to hard questions, not more propoganda from the government.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:12 pmWith apologies, I repeat my comment on the earlier story on Think Progress: it seems more relevant to this story:
Schizophrenic NBC
May 5th, 2006 at 12:12 pmThe entire exchange with Ray McGovern was replayed on MSNBC’s Countdown, from McGovern’s well-expressed intoduction through the end, when a moderator saved Rummy’s ass by demanding that the next questioner be allowed to speak. At that point Rum was gasping for air…in the interim, he was knocked out and left speechless. Even the audience didn’t cheer him or boo McGovern when McGovern called Rum on his lie about Zarqawi being in Baghdad, McGovern saying (paraphrasing) “[Zarqawi] was there in the hospital; the people here aren’t that stupid–they all know the story.†KO showed all of the relevant transcripts chronicling Rum’s old lies, and allowed you to see his new lies.
The shocker is that immediately following, on NBC’s msm news with Brian Williams, an entirely different picture of Rum was presented. That presentation ended with the correspondent (Miklashevski?) saying that “Rumsfeld held his own†and showing an edited clip of Rum declaring the Zarqawi was in Baghdad, without the reply by McGovern and the speechless and desperate Rum.
Some may say the msm nightly 30-minute news doesn’t have enough time to show the true story: why, then, did NBC’s Williams spend most of the time allotted the segment playing the yelling protestors, the same film footage of the same lady twice? Because that’s what they want people to think happened: yelling protestors, ho-hum. Brian Williams, who I assume has editorial control of the segments, never even identified McGovern as a 27-year veteran CIA intel agent. The real story was not presented and was purposely distorted.
The measured and serious question/response by McGovern is the equivalent of Colbert’s face-off with Bush; it is the equivalent of the Generals’ demands for accountability; it is a move up the hierarchical ladder that has Sheehan on the bottom rung: it is serious, it is serious, it is serious, and the msm can’t deal with it yet. It is Stage 1: will it be possible to get to Stage 2?
[...] “Media Fails To Report on Rumsfeld’s Misleading Claims From 2003″ [...]
May 5th, 2006 at 12:14 pmI am continuously amazed at how (even on the comments above)…
…”enlightened” Americans (non-Bushites) are almost in denial of the fact that…
…our country is under occupation, and our airwaves have been confiscated…
…by right wing corporate ideologues…
…who are shaping our reality through corporate owned, state controlled media…
…yes, it is subtle…
…but just as corrosive to our democracy as the russian news agency TAS…
…look at the Fox Propaganda network…
…there was NOTHING about this incident…
…C-Span chose the Kennedy driving accident as its lead-in topic today…
…the criminal, TREASONOUS, murderous, lying, thieving Bushite government and its corporate co-conspirators…
…REALLY DO want to create reality for you…
…and are succeeding at it, just long enough to suck the treasury dry!
…Shamefully, the people of Nepal are freer and more American…
…than are Americans…
May 5th, 2006 at 12:15 pmIt only points to the systemic problem of our country; we are moving towards one party rule in which the Constitution is now a “post it note†to be scribbled upon.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:15 pmKrazny “what does communism have to do with the current discussion?”
I was responding to the person who said history has a liberal bias.
“The failure of the media to ask crucial questions of our government is a glaring problem.”
The media is comprised of a bunch corporations, if you get enough stockholders complaining, or show how it gets increased profits, it will happen. The problem is that easy to solve.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:16 pmHHHmm, it doesn’t involve sex and there is no celebrity, no celebrity having a baby, no celebrity having sex with another celebrity, you can’t market a product with it, and it greatly affects our lives and our nation, so the media doesn’t report.
You’d think this is something O’Reilly would really have a field day with and he’d be right. After all, Rumsfeld said we knew right where they were. Imminent threat, mushroom cloud, ….a matter of emphasis was Wolfowitz’s description. What’s the worse thing our President can do to our country? Lie us into war? HHhhmmm… I use to think that but then there is that whole, I’m above the law and the stomping on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I love Stewart and Colbert. In a way, they are reality based reporting, because we all are shaking our heads the way this administration spins, and those guys show us and deliver it in a way we understand, laugh, and still feel hopeful.
Instead of paying an anchor like Couric multi-millions to regurgitate the same stuff in the same way that we all can find on at least 3 other networks, plus cable, why not do what Andy Rooney suggested hire 20 or 30 real journalists and send them out into the nation and the world to report. Take a few and have them view past speeches and compare them, and put things into context.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:19 pmNBC and CNN both showed that Rumsfeld’s answer conflicted with his earlier statement and concluded that “the citizen was right”. and CNN did this all day. it’s probably better if the person who wrote the post actually specified some sources rather than just say “many did not”, that’s not empirical or factual without some evidence.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:21 pmOMG – this descent into hell – are your ready for it????
anyone here remember the death squads of El Salvador? Well then read on…. and it is being done IN OUR NAME!!!!!!!!
The real news, which is not reported in the CNN “mainstream”, is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush’s administration. The ministry of the interior in Baghdad, which is run by the CIA, directs the principal death squads. Continued
The Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq
May 5th, 2006 at 12:22 pmBy John Pilger
Keith Olbermann showed in its entirety McGovern’s questions to Rummy. He interrupted a couple of times using Rummy’s own words to show that he’s a liar. It was so cute how Rummy got so red and sweaty.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:23 pmRumsfield’s comment was made in early 2003. The intelligence information about the WMDs had not been disputed at the time, so how did he lie? Nice try TP.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:27 pmThe media is comprised of a bunch corporations, if you get enough stockholders complaining, or show how it gets increased profits, it will happen. The problem is that easy to solve.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 5, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
I think that is part of the problem, the media should be here to inform us of current events, not give us a right or left spin on current events.
I reallize that our society as a whole has shown we prefer biased “news”. Why else would radio talk shows, and TV pundits be so popular. Our society wants neat little sound bites about missing white girls, and brangelina’s baby. Not bad news about the malfeasense of our government, or the troubles in Iraq.
This also illustrates the problems with corporate control of broadcast media, and why some many people, both right and left don’t like the MSM anymore. the corporate elite are making money, and bush is their dog. they will try to place as much pro-republican crap on the air as possible. they have an economic incentive to do so. Also we the people don’t generally care. If you watch the nightly news, there is typically very little international news. Watch BBC news sometime, it is very different from what you get here in the US.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:27 pmIt’s kinda weird that Countdown would pick out the contradictions in Rumsfeld’s statement while Brian Williams’ program did the opposite. How is it that a majority of the media fail to pick this up? You know, it used to be that these newscasts used to rely on researchers to check up on and make sure if the statements were accurate and if the truth was realy out there.
If anything, we should get jobs as research folks and do what we can to show these media types that there was truth to what these politicians said, but you know these journalists. They prefer to kiss the ass of the corporate world and not offend our
beloved politicians, to which we pay our tax dollars to do the worst jobs that they love to do.
Jack, I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of the Andy Rooney statement. Get some more journalists. We need more Christiane Amanpours, Ed Bradleys, Mike Wallaces, Lara Logans, etc. They cover stories and stories behind the stories. They aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty or wet to get the truth.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:29 pmSchizophrenic NBC
Comment by LookInward #15
Look Inward,
CNN’s Pentagon analyst (a guy named McIntyre) actually equivocated and spun the meaning of Rumsfeld’s response to McGovern’s confrontation of Dummy with his own lies…
…On CNN’s “live” news program earlier today McIntyre (instead of reporting simply that McGovern used Rumsfeld’s own words against him to prove Rumsfeld’s mendacity)…
… actually attemptedto “explain” what Rumsfeld actually MEANT!
…how’s that for objective, unbiased journalistic integrity?
May 5th, 2006 at 12:30 pm…”the freest media on earth insult the public every day. As Voltaire put it: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
May 5th, 2006 at 12:33 pmAre you kidding me “the WMD was not disputed at the time” It sure as hell was disputed at the time…
May 5th, 2006 at 12:34 pm# 27 big papa: thanks for the info. I’m glad I didn’t see it—I’m so angry and worried that I’m about out of steam.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#24 Sorry, the CIA told the Bush Admin in September 2002 that there were no WMD programs in Iraq.
Thanks for playing, don’t forget your consolation prize.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:40 pm#31 – Tracy is not interested in facts.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:42 pmWTF? “reality’s liberal bias ” ????????????????????????????
SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE F*** THIS MEANS?
May 5th, 2006 at 12:42 pmAre you kidding me “the WMD was not disputed at the time†It sure as hell was disputed at the time…
Comment by Linda #29
Linda,
You must forgive TRASHY #24…
…he/she’shaving a difficult time dealing with his/her own gullibility…
…it’s not easy admitting one has been used for toilet paper…
May 5th, 2006 at 12:45 pmThe media is comprised of a bunch corporations.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 5, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Ding, ding, ding…. you hit it right on the head.
The media is a bunch of corporations. Republicans are friendly towards corporations. The media isn’t about to be critical of the part of corporate tax breaks. Hence, the ridiculous conservative media.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:47 pmFrom Media Matters:
Blitzer went on to conduct “some quick fact-checking.” He asked, “So did Rumsfeld ever suggest that there was proof of WMD in Iraq as the questioner claimed?” He then noted Rumsfeld’s comment on March 30, 2003: “We know where they [WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” Having supported the audience member’s line of questioning, however, Blitzer went on to refer to it as “anti-Rumsfeld ranting.”
May 5th, 2006 at 12:47 pmAnti-Rumsfeld ranting? Just when you thought there was some hope..
May 5th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#29 What were those UN inspection wagons doing, driving all over Iraq until the Americans threw them out – perhaps disputing the supposed existence of WMDs? In the words of Paul Wolfowitz, the possibility of WMDs were the only excuse they could ‘agree on’ for starting the war. There was no interest in proving that they were not there, only in avoiding any kind of proof.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:53 pm#33 – “Reality has a well-know liberal bias.”
This is from Stephen Colbert’s truth-fest at the White House Correspondent’s Cinner last Saturday.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:53 pmNote – the following was written in 2003 WHY ISN’T ANYONE LISTENING?????
Will Iran Be Next?
by Mark Gaffney: mhgaffney@aol.com
05/08/03: (Information Clearing House) Those who have hoped that a U.S. military victory in Iraq would somehow bring about a more peaceful world are in for a rude awakening. The final resolution of this war and the U.S. occupation of Iraq will likely not be the end, rather, only the prelude to a succession of future crises: in Kashmir, Syria, North Korea, and Iran. This article will focus primarily on the latter case.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#40 so that was 3 years ago, and it still hasn’t happened. Sounds like the administration is using restraint to try and deal with this issue. At least this means the ‘rushing in’ argument can’t be used, even though I’m sure it still will.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:59 pmsquegeeboo – how does it feel to be in the mere 32% that believes ANYTHING that comes out of the white house? WE KNOW THE TRUTH and feel sorry for you.
squegeeboo
The Project for the New American Century.
Click here for other articles on this topic
The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no
point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in
history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them,
been more absolutely required.
William Rivers Pitt: 02/25/03
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based
think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one
thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of
all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last
remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military
force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new
socio-economic Pax Americana.
The fundamental essence of PNAC’s ideology can be found in a White Paper
produced in September of 2000 entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” In it, PNAC outlines
what is required of America to create the global empire they envision.
According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia
and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft,
submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a
strategic dominance of space;
* Control the “International Commons” of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic
product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.
Most ominously, this PNAC document described four “Core Missions” for the
American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to
“fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” and
to “perform the ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the security
environment in critical regions.” Note well that PNAC does not want America
to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In
order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars
one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.
The Project for the New American Century.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:04 pmIt’s starting to look as if maybe the media has been ‘blackmailed’
~~~
May 5th, 2006 at 1:05 pmSo what is this “blackmail” Cheney is talking about? It is the Russians abandoning the doctrine of socialist internationalism and putting good old capitalist theory into practice. Instead of continuing to offer oil and natural gas to Ukraine at below-market prices, they insist on charging the price set by the international market. To Cheney, this is “blackmail”: an economist would call it capitalism.
I’m having problems with the everybody thought Sadam had weapons story and the “time warp” about when he had them. I was actually reading articles by Ray McGovern Before the war started and I’m glad he has finally made it to a television format. I can’t figure out what happened to the administration’s press protection has let them down recently, they’ve never had to answer real questions without the leadings that they get frrom the ” liberal press “
May 5th, 2006 at 1:06 pmAmerica’s War for Global Domination
by Michel Chossudovsky
12/15/03: (Global Research)
We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:07 pm#WTF? “reality’s liberal bias †????????????????????????????
SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE F*** THIS MEANS?
Comment by madashell — May 5, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Its a much deeper than it appears.
Colbert took a Swipe at the Eastern Ivey League Liberals. The ‘Establishment’ which of course, both Kerry and Bush belong to.
See Bush is a Liberal, Colbert did the Republicans a Favor.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:11 pmExcept that they didn’t CATCH the remark.
And thats the REALITY of the ‘Reality-Based’ Game.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:12 pmSounds like the administration is using restraint to try and deal with this issue. At least this means the ‘rushing in’ argument can’t be used, even though I’m sure it still will.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 5, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
Well, it takes time to cook up evidence to convince people we’d be justified in pre-emptively attacking a country. I mean, it took almost 2 years to make up WMD claims about Iraq. They’re just taking their time this time around to try to come up with a much better lie.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:14 pmmadashell
So they want us to fight multiple simultanious wars, and increase the military budget, have strategic control of space, and have a missle defense shield, but not be prepaired to fight them? Right….doing the first ones, implies having the last one.
““perform the ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions.— Every area needs a police force, as the sole super power that job falls on us, unless the UN suddenly feels like it, and can call up enough troops from member nations to support it.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:15 pmsquegeeboo – too lazy to read the whole article????
May 5th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#49 -
Stop deluding yourself that we are the sole superpower, squeege.
We are economically dependent on China, India, Japan, etc. Just because we have big guns doesn’t make us a superpower.
In fact, I’d argue that as far as shear impact on all facets of the global stage, we’re behind China.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:21 pmSaddam sounds more sane than Bush
May 5th, 2006 at 1:22 pmAsked by a US interviewer in 2004, why he had not used WMD against the Coalition during Desert Storm, Saddam replied, “Do you think we are mad? What would the world have thought of us? We would have completely discredited those who had supported us.â€
Here is the link for that quote:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect6
May 5th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#52, next time you hear Saddam and madman in the same sentence remember that. Saddam is/was not mad, the same way your local crime boss is not mad. BTW neither is Ahmadinejad, nor Kim Jong Il.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:26 pmmadashell
“squegeeboo – too lazy to read the whole article????”
Nope, just not crazy enough to believe in every theory you guys throw at me.
bobcat_grad
“We are economically dependent on China, India, Japan, etc. Just because we have big guns doesn’t make us a superpower.”
And they are economically dependent on us, as for having big guns, it might not do it on its own, but it sure helps alot.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:28 pmDonald Rumsfeld on WMDs:
Iraq claims they do not have WMD: “They’re lying. It’s just false, not true, inaccurate and typical” 6/10/02
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” 3/30/03
“There is a war going on, we don’t have time to look for weapons of mass destruction right now.” 4/13/03
“I don’t think we’ll discover anything, myself,” 4/17/03
“We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.” 5/4/03
“They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer.” 05/27/03
“There is no question our country is facing difficulties in Iraq” 5/5/06
May 5th, 2006 at 1:35 pmHey – if 50,000 can thank Stephan Colbert, more than 300 can
http://thankyouraymcgovern.org/
May 5th, 2006 at 1:36 pmAre newsrooms across the country afraid
No, they are not afraid, as they have no intention of reporting any truth that may make their sugar-daddys look bad, or, heaven forbid, criminal.
They are doing exactly what they are told and paid to do.
Provide cover for the War Pigs.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:48 pm“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.†3/30/03
I think technically this counts as 7 lies. Each time he makes a specific assertion he starts a completely new lie… “(1) We know where they are. They’re in the area around (2) Tikrit and (3) Baghdad and (4) east, (5) west, (6) south and (7) north somewhat.†3/30/03
May 5th, 2006 at 1:49 pmSo, while reading some of the thank yous at the Ray McGovern site, I found some post by a compassionate Christian. It’s number 280:
“What a disgusting excuse for a human being and a disgrace as a man, you should be taken to the gallows and after 13 long steps, you should hang by your neck until the life force is drained from your filthy human form.
What a coward and fool. You have not even worked in any form for the intelligence community for over a decade. You were completely out of the loop and loopy with false facts and open lies.
So you stand with the party with three goals and principles; Treason, Atheism and Sodomy and don’t forget the sacrament of infanticide. What a patriot.
Hopefully in the not too distant future you will be charged, tried and will hang along with the other members of this insane anti-America cult, for treason and sedition.
Defend America hang all the leadership of the Dim-Wits for treason. Start with Kennedy, Kerry, Nutty Nancy, Turban Durban, hell, hang them all, they are all worthless, traitors, drunks and trust fund punks. “
God would be so proud of his follower.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:50 pmAND NOW GOSS RESIGNS!
Guess it’s a difficult job when your entire staff refuses to cooperate with a Bushwhore.
Here’s to Valerie Plame, a true American Patriot that risked her life everyday to protect American’s.
Bye, bye Goss you Bushwhore!
May 5th, 2006 at 1:52 pmPorter Goss just resigned!!!
May 5th, 2006 at 1:53 pmRummy: “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.â€
Covering all of his bases, I see. Even by essentially saying that the WMD could be anywhere, he still got it wrong.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:54 pmThe repuglican way: “When caught in a lie, LIE SOME MORE”
May 5th, 2006 at 1:56 pmdrunks and trust fund punks.
This sounds like our glorius president to me.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:57 pmPost 62 Please do not kid us on here about Porter Goss > I wish he would resign, but he was hired by Bush to kiss his butt and destroy an impartial CIA that finds facts instead of fiction!
May 5th, 2006 at 1:57 pm#54 that was kind of my point actually
May 5th, 2006 at 1:58 pmPorter Goss CIA is all about fiction, concocted crap, and death squads who drill Iraqis in the back of their heads! If I was president, then I would appoint Ray McGovern to be the CIA Director and I would ask him to reform that agency into an ethical information gathering group, and NO black-op murders allowed!
May 5th, 2006 at 2:03 pmsquegeeboo – so take at face value what you’re told, fool. That is the Bush way. I prefer to listen to the educators and intellectuals that CARE about what the hell this government is up to. You go right on ahead and let the drivel of the MSM think for you. and like I said – 32% – how does it feel?
May 5th, 2006 at 2:04 pmPost 62 you are correct > CNN is reporting that Porter Goss is resigning as Director > yahoo! The Bush Regime is starting to collapse >>> dance and sing everyone!
May 5th, 2006 at 2:09 pmmadashell – “so take at face value what you’re told, fool.”
So disbelieve everything your told, crazy.
You can try being independent instead in either camp. It works for lots of us.
May 5th, 2006 at 2:21 pmso now everyone who speaks the TRUTH are to be disbelieved. The only truth tellers are the MSM? That is where all of your arguments come from. pure and simple DRIVEL.
May 5th, 2006 at 2:39 pmWatching the coverage of Goss resignation on CNN–THE “NEWSMODELS” ARE COMPLETELY BEFUDDLED AS THEY STRUGGLE TO DECIDE ON THE NARRATIVE TO GO WITH…
First, they went with the “job snit” narrative–being passed over as DNI in favor of Negroponte and having the DCI position and the CIA role and influence in matters of national security in general reduced substantially. Now they’re focusing on the fallout of the Cunningham defense contractor bribe scandal, prostitution, poker games, and Foggo…
both memes of which ignore the fact that Goss was selected first and foremost as a Bush loyalist to purge the agency of suspected “non-loyalists”–I.E., whisteblowers leaking to the press on matters shedding light on the true scope and agenda of Bush administration unconstitutional and highly illegal activities and lies that were the driving force behind their policy decisions.
In other words, Goss was hired to CONTINUE TO ESCALATE the Bush administration’s ongoing war on the CIA to unprecedented levels–this made him enemy number 1 to the veteran analysts and officers within the agency, leading to a virtual torrent of firings and resignations of it’s best and brightest officers, weakening our intelligence capabilities EVEN FURTHER after the Plame exposure, WMD manipulation, and 9/11 failures.
A good Google search will bring up the stories, as well as the Goss quote that he considered himself eminently UNQUALIFIED to run the agency as it existed when Bush selected him.
Any bets on the MSM picking up on that???
Right.
Makes for a good distraction from the wall to wall “The Kennedys are nothing but a bunch of drunks” saturation coverage that they were running with, though.
May 5th, 2006 at 2:47 pmmadashell “so now everyone who speaks the TRUTH are to be disbelieved. ”
The TRUTH is very subjective until all the facts are there to view. Until then, have an open mind, and listen to more than just your side, and believe nothing with out doing the research yourself.
May 5th, 2006 at 3:04 pmsquegeeboo — May 5, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Not like I have to justify myself to you – BUT I HAVE SPENT FIVE YEARS RESEARCHING THE TRUTH – from the likes of EX GENERALS, EX CIA ANALYSTS, PROFESSORS OF EDUCATION, AS WELL AS HISTORY – unlike you who most likely gets informed from FOX NEWS!
May 5th, 2006 at 3:09 pm#75 “Not like I have to justify myself to you”
Yet you are.
5 years, and you still believe all of those theories? Perhaps it’s time to re-assess your research methods.
Also, you appear to be having intermittent issues with your capslock, maybe time to invest in a new keyboard.
May 5th, 2006 at 3:15 pmamazing – keep calling it theories – the more you say it I guess the more you believe it.
history – theory
military men with opinions – theory
professors teach – theory
CIA analysts – spout theories.
BTW – you still haven’t answered my question – How does it feel to be part of the 32%???
May 5th, 2006 at 3:21 pm“CIA analysts – spout theories.” the CIAhas been wrong, on multiple occasions.
“professors teach – theory” Professors tend to lay out a group of facts, and then provide you with their interpretation of them. (discounting the hard sciences) As often happens through out history, interpretations are changed, or disproved as more facts become aviable.
“history – theory” Why did WW1 start? Why didnt the assisination blow over like other crisis of the time period? There’s all sorts of ‘theory’ behind it, some blame Germany, other France, Russia, or the Austrians. History, just like teaching, is a set of facts that is interpreted differently by nearly everyone.
“military men with opinions – theory” I would say opinion is even lower then theory. But it is also an interpretation based off of a set of facts, and differs wildly between people/world views/political views/etc.
“BTW – you still haven’t answered my question – How does it feel to be part of the 32%???”
May 5th, 2006 at 3:33 pmCouldn’t tell you, I’m not one of them. But it dosn’t automatically make me believe in every wack-job theory either.
We and the media should also emphasize the fact that Rumsfeld got caught in this lie before!
Sometime in late 2003, he was confronted about the “east, west, south and north” quote.
At that time, Rumsfeld admitted that “Sometimes, I exaggerate for effect”.
Can anyone locate a transcript of that exchange?
That quote is referred to at:
May 5th, 2006 at 3:50 pmhttp://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2003/09/coup_du_jour.shtml
Look for the comment by Frenk at September 18, 2003 01:48 AM
squegeeboo – I guess the next thing you’ll say is that the neocon agenda is theory too!
May 5th, 2006 at 4:00 pmsquegeeboo – and that the GIANT embassy that is being built in Iraq is theory too. That billions of dollars that went “missing” in Iraq is merely a theory. That they LIED us into this war – is THEORY! I don’t know what the heck you know – you really don’t say much except to slam me.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:03 pm“and that the GIANT embassy that is being built in Iraq is theory too.”
Is there something wrong with having diplomatic relations with the new Iraqi gov’t? Isn’t that what embassies are for?
“That billions of dollars that went “missing†in Iraq is merely a theory. ”
Political and corrporate curruption? I’ll never argue against those as being reality.
“That they LIED us into this war”
Them and nearly every other intelligance agency in the western world apparently. Being wrong dosn’t make you a liar.
“you really don’t say much except to slam me.”
May 5th, 2006 at 4:22 pmI’ve simply been responding in kind to you.
“That they LIED us into this warâ€
Them and nearly every other intelligance agency in the western world apparently. Being wrong dosn’t make you a liar.
squegeeboo
Like I said – you only get your news from the faux networks – that comment certainly proves my point.
and FYI regarding the embassy – read on FOOL!
In the Chaos of Iraq, One Project Is on Target: A Giant US Embassy
By Daniel McGrory
The Times on Line UK
Wedneday 03 May 2006
The question puzzles and enrages a city: how is it that the Americans cannot keep the electricity running in Baghdad for more than a couple of hours a day, yet still manage to build themselves the biggest embassy on Earth?
Irritation grows as residents deprived of air-conditioning and running water three years after the US-led invasion watch the massive US Embassy they call “George W’s palace” rising from the banks of the Tigris.
In the pavement cafés, people moan that the structure is bigger than anything Saddam Hussein built. They are not impressed by the architects’ claims that the diplomatic outpost will be visible from space and cover an area that is larger than the Vatican city and big enough to accommodate four Millennium Domes. They are more interested in knowing whether the US State Department paid for the prime real estate or simply took it.
While families in the capital suffer electricity cuts, queue all day to fuel their cars and wait for water pipes to be connected, the US mission due to open in June next year will have its own power and water plants to cater for a population the size of a small town.
Officially, the design of the compound is supposed to be a secret, but you cannot hide the giant construction cranes and the concrete contours of the 21 buildings that are taking shape. Looming over the skyline, the embassy has the distinction of being the only big US building project in Iraq that is on time and within budget.
In a week when Washington revealed a startling list of missed deadlines and overspending on building projects, Congress was told that the bill for the embassy was $592 million (£312 million).
The heavily guarded 42-hectare (104-acre) site – which will have a 15ft thick perimeter wall – has hundreds of workers swarming on scaffolding. Local residents are bitter that the Kuwaiti contractor has employed only foreign staff and is busing them in from a temporary camp nearby.
After roughing it in Saddam’s abandoned palaces, diplomats should have every comfort in their new home. There will be impressive residences for the Ambassador and his deputy, six apartments for senior officials, and two huge office blocks for 8,000 staff to work in. There will be what is rumoured to be the biggest swimming pool in Iraq, a state-of-the-art gymnasium, a cinema, restaurants offering delicacies from favourite US food chains, tennis courts and a swish American Club for evening functions.
The security measures being installed are described as extraordinary. US officials are preparing for the day when the so-called green zone, the fortified and sealed-off compound where international diplomats and Iraq’s leaders live and work, is reopened to the rest of the city’s residents, and American diplomats can retreat to their own secure area.
Iraqi politicians opposed to the US presence protest that the scale of the project suggests that America retains long-term ambitions here. The International Crisis Group, a think-tank, said the embassy’s size “is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country”.
A State Department official said that the size reflected the “massive amount of work still facing the US and our commitment to see it through”.
Behind Schedule
A US Inspector General’s report into reconstruction found that although $22 billion had been spent, water, sewage and electricity, infrastructure still operated at prewar levels.
Despite “significant progress” in recent months, less than half the water and electricity projects have been completed.
Only six of the 150 planned health centres have been completed.
US officials spent $70 million on medical equipment for health clinics that are unlikely ever to be built. More than 75 per cent of the funds for the 150 planned clinics have been allocated.
Task Force Shield, the $147 million programme to train Iraqi security units to protect key oil and electrical sites failed to meet its goals. A fraud investigation is under way.
Oil production was 2.18 million barrels per day in the last week of March. Before the war it was 2.6 million.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:32 pm#31
No thank you for playing, but the WMD capability issue was not the only issue.
From your link:
“Tyler Drumheller, who headed CIA covert operations in Europe during the run-up to the Iraq war, said intelligence opposing administration claims of a WMD threat came from a top Iraqi official who provided the US spy agency with other credible information.”
…but a typical media outlets do they failed to mention this…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naji_Sabri
“For a short time before the 2003 invasion, the CIA had French-sponsored, third-party contact with Sabri. In exchange for $100,000, Sabri offered the agency important details on some of Saddam’s alleged weapons programs and assurances on the discontinuance of others. Sabri told the CIA that Saddam had stockpiled certain chemical weapons, specifically “poison gas.” Post-invasion reports indicated that Saddam had managed to dupe even members of his inner circle into believing that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.”
This is the second time I tried to post this. I showed up about 1 p.m. CST then it went away. I think TP is getting into censoring.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:43 pm“and FYI regarding the embassy – read on FOOL!”
And where does it say it isn’t being built for diplomacy? All of the rest is very valid, but has nothing to do with why they shouldn’t be building a large embassy, espcially given the security issues of the region, there’s no reason not to have american citizens living in Iraq to be as safe as possible.
“Like I said – you only get your news from the faux networks – that comment certainly proves my point.”
May 5th, 2006 at 4:44 pmJudging from some of the theories you have, You only get your news from DailyKos and other similar sites.
squegeeboo – THE TIMES UK fool – so why exactly are you here anyway? Why don’t you just go shill with your own kind.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:49 pmmadashell
So suddenly your allowed to have more than one news source and I’m not? Thats not cool.
“Why don’t you just go shill with your own kind.”
And have you guys all sitting around agreeing with each other? Where’s the fun in that.
Anyways, thanks for the info, have a good weekend, I’m out for the night.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:53 pmLying by omission … more craven than the administration.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:59 pm#24, Tracy, the comments made by Rummy were during the invasion. He said he KNEW where the WMD were. He already knew there were no active programs, there was (I concede your point) debate in the CIA about stockpiles (which, however, the UN had found nothing of up to 2 days prior to the invasion). Nothing that Rummy KNEW came to truth. He was going on poorly sourced information, from Curveball, from Chalabi. He lied by omission. He omitted the whole truth that what he KNEW was based on poorly sourced, disputed information.
May 5th, 2006 at 5:17 pmSomeone deleting my comments?
In case you need more QUOTES, please check this link:
The Bush Administration on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Capabilities:
May 5th, 2006 at 10:15 pmhttp://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/bush_admin_quotes.cfm
I am currently conductiong a sit in at the Washington post blog from this rediculas artical…
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/rumsfeld_didnt_lie_but_he_shou.html
I have vowed to keep posting on that sight until an American news org. runs the headline “Rumsfeld lied”. So far every U.S. news artical has said stuff like “Rumsfeld’s mistakes”. “Rumsfeld’s misteps”…etc
Given what happened with Rumsfeld and McGovern, why is this? The whole LEGAL argument that the U.S. has been using to defend this action has been that this was a “MISTAKE” and not a “LIE”. The mainstrem media knows that if it posts a news article that it was a lie, there would be no defense for impeachment.
Please spread the word….it’s time to fight
May 6th, 2006 at 1:52 amMr. McGovern called Donald Rumsfeld a liar and quoted Rumsfeld saying, “He said the WMD’s were near Tikrit…” Eerily reminiscent of a similar parsing of words, (what is “is”?) perhaps Mr. McGovern is confused by the meaning of the word “near”.
May 6th, 2006 at 1:46 pmIf Iraq had these awesome weapons, why didn’t they use them against us? There would never be a better time. I have read they the weapons are still hidden somewhere or were removed. Exactly what are weapons of mass destruction for.? Mass destruction , I would say. Now if you have all these weapons and your country is being invaded by a foreign power , do you hide your weapons of do you use them. Come on folks, THINK
May 6th, 2006 at 2:03 pm#90
“He already knew there were no active programs”
“He lied by omission.”
When and where was that stated? Since there there is undeniable evidence of Saddam having clandestine WMD programs and if there WAS disputed information as to the existance of these programs, prudence demands that you go with the evidence that says yes these programs still exist.
May 6th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#95
It was PROVEN Saddam had WMDs prior to the first Gulf War. Tell us why he didn’t use them back then?
May 6th, 2006 at 3:22 pmDear Melissa “brilliantly” asks – “if you have all these weapons and your country is being invaded by a foreign power , do you hide your weapons of do you use them.”
****It depends on the fire power of the enemy – and whether you gauge a war by one assault or complete victory.
Mr. McGovern is the second best word parser out there!
May 6th, 2006 at 3:25 pmTracy,
The point is not whether or not Saddam had some semblence of a WMD program. Sure, nobody could guarantee 100% either way, i.e., that he for sure didn’t have a WMD program, or that he for sure did have one. This is the biggest fallacy that is pushed by idiots like you, and the accomplices of propaganda on the MSM when they bring out that stupid, tired “rebuttal” that France and Germany thought Saddam had WMDs, etc. No, the issue is one of whether Saddam was in any way an IMMINENT THREAT to the US, which left pre-emptive war as the only recourse. The idea that Saddam would attack the US is absurd. Saddam was a ruthless dictator.. but he wasn’t a mad man. Why the hell would he attack the US, knowing full well the certain retaliation he would face from America?
War is not a trivial matter.. the US had NO RIGHT to launch a war like this and kill thousands and thousands of civilians based on the most flimsiest and tenuous justifications. There was absolutely nothing to indicate that Saddam was in any way an imminent threat. Whether he might have some semblence of an WMD program is utterly irrelevant.
Saddam, even if he had some semblence of a WMD program, which even the US inspectors were not able to find after checking the “suspicious sites”, was in an
May 6th, 2006 at 4:11 pm[comment deleted by admin]
May 6th, 2006 at 7:35 pmAnd we’re supposed to be surprised by this? With very few exceptions, the media has been asleep at the switch during the Bush reign. They couldn’t wait to print stories about Clinton’s sex life, but print a story on the lying that this administration does on a daily basis? Heaven forbid. What’s more important, the president getting some, or people dying for no reason and a country being bankrupt? If you use the press as a barometer, it’s the president getting some.
May 6th, 2006 at 10:57 pmIt depends on the fire power of the enemy – and whether you gauge a war by one assault or complete victory.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — May 6, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
And you belittle, berate, and despise the French for being “defeatists” and “appeasers”?
Yet another one of your contradictory posts.
Mr. McGovern is the second best word parser out there!
Pray tell, how are we supposed to understand the sentence: “We know where [the WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” Does it mean that they knew where the WMD were, as it clearly states, or something else -as you would have us believe?
Who should we believe: You, or our own lying eyes?
May 7th, 2006 at 3:03 amMatt Woldenberg is 100% right as far as the real motives for this war, i.e., securing resources to ensure dominance over competitors. I”m not sure about Matt’s apparent approval of murder and war though.
Yes, the American government lied to the American people.. with the intentions of ensuring the pampered, high standard of living Americans enjoy. They had to lie about their ulterior motives because it is pretty difficult to justify launching a war and kililng thousands of innocents because of oil. Instead, they fabricate reasons about “freedm and democracy” and al that bullshit.
This is the dirty little secret that the American elites are all aware of. Don’t think they don’t knkow what this war is about. They don’t really care if Bush lied or not. .they know the real reason this war was launched, and it was to benefit America and Americans. The bit about killing thousands of innocents.. they coudln’t care less. There is an unspoken, tacit understanding about this within the elite establishment, i.e., government, military, media and corporate elites.
So Matt.. are you saying you approve of launching wars that kill thousands to secure resources? Is this the whole ‘realpolitik’ i.e., justification of murder, reason?
The American people are complicit in murder. Or at least, the American elite establishment who are well aware of the real reasons for this war. The government lies about the ulterior reason to conduct ‘international business’ as Matt so euphemistially puts it, i.e., launch wars and murder thousands, to the American public, and the American propaganda machine does its function to fool the American public. This is nothing new.. This is American foreign policy 101. The only difference is because of the internet and the ability for Americans to get a larger perspective than is allowd in the tightly-controlled, restrictive, propagandistic MSM media. This has allowed Americans to get a lot more information and perspective that they were unable to get before, thanks to the stranglehold the MSM had on information. Now Americans are seeing the true nature of their country’s foreign policy.
So what are you doing to do about it
May 7th, 2006 at 8:38 am#99
“No, the issue is one of whether Saddam was in any way an IMMINENT THREAT to the US, which left pre-emptive war as the only recourse.”
And just why do you think that an imminent threat, determined by who BTW, is the ONLY green light for a country to take action against another county? Almost the entire Congress of the U.S. gave the president the authority to take Saddam out. There was a cease fire agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf War the Saddam violated continuously thoughout the 1990s. If you want to get technical about it hostilities NEVER ended after the agreement was signed.
“Whether he might have some semblence of an WMD program is utterly irrelevant.”
Are you going to apply your BS logic to Iran? The U.N. Security Council has a vastly different take which makes your statement irrelevant.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:50 amI’m working with the company who did Uncovered, the War in Iraq, and I was wondering if anyone out there would have any idea where, or the best place to start would be, that I could find out information I could use to compile a list of the specific military jobs that the private companies are filling in Iraq. Like- sniper, bombadier, grenadist, castle storming-geneer, etc.? We need to compile it for our national release movie on private contractors on Iraq being evil. The movie will put it more eloquently and in a much more two-hour like format than that.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:45 pm[comment deleted by admin]
June 30th, 2006 at 8:44 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 pmTom Wile
Thanks for this. Nice job.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:33 ammedia release
Hey nice read!
April 1st, 2008 at 8:26 pm