Bush: DNI Told Me ‘We Have Some New Information, He Didn’t Tell Me What The Information Was’
Bush: DNI Told Me ‘We Have Some New Information, He Didn’t Tell Me What The Information Was’
At a press briefing this morning, President Bush said he was told by his Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell “in August” that “we have some new information” regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But Bush asserted “he didn’t tell me what the information was”:
BUSH: I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John — Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.
Later, when a reporter followed-up on this statement, Bush asserted no one ever told him to stop ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran:
REPORTER: Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as World War III was making it into conversation — at no point, nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, Maybe you want to back it down a little bit?
BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that.
Watch it:
Yesterday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said, “when the President was told that we had some additional information, he was basically told: stand down; needs to be evaluated; we’ll come to you and tell you what we think it means.” Later in the briefing, Hadley reversed course and said, “In terms of stand down, they did not tell the President to stand down and stop talking about Iran’s nuclear program.”
White House officials are obfuscating on what they knew and when they knew it because the answer has the potential of further damaging the credibility of what they have asserted about Iran in the past few months. As ThinkProgress has noted, while the intelligence community was processing new information that Iran was “less determined to develop nuclear weapons,” President Bush was specifically warning that Iran was trying to “build a nuclear weapon.”
To recap: At the same time Bush was ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran, he was told by his National Intelligence Director that we have “some new information.” Yet Bush wants the public to believe he never learned what the information was, nor was he interested.
UPDATE: The Washington Post reports this morning that “intelligence officials began briefing senior members of the Bush administration” about the new information “beginning in July.” But apparently, Bush was left completely in the dark until last Tuesday.
Transcript:
QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you. I’d like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud. Then there were no WMD in Iraq.
When it came to Iran, you said in October — on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when, months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in ‘03 had already come to light to this administration. So can’t you be accused of hyping this threat? And don’t you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?
BUSH: I don’t want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John — Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.
Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it’s not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered. If they think it’s real, then what does it mean?
And it wasn’t until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.
And the second part of your question has to do this: Look, Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous. And Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
[…]
QUESTION: President, thank you. Just to follow, I understand what you’re saying about when you were informed about the NIE. Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as World War III was making it into conversation — at no point, nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, Maybe you want to back it down a little bit?
BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that.
Having said — having — having laid that out, I still feel strongly that Iran’s a danger. Nothings changed in this NIE that says, OK, why don’t we just stop worrying about it? Quite the contrary.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Bush is a liar on the run now.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:11 amWe need to institute a mandatory reading test for all Presidential candidates. We can no longer afford to have an illiterate commander-guy-in-chief.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:12 amSounds like someone’s in line for a promotion.
Seriously, why does Bush keep listening to Cheney?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:13 amBut Bush asserted “he didn’t tell me what the information wasâ€.
What a bunch of BS. Someone tells you they have info about something that is on your main agenda, and you don’t follow-up right then?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:13 amPoor little Zionist lapdog. He looks so beaten and pathetic these days.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:14 amIs there any way that a President can look and dumber?
I mean, does he have to wear a pointy hat with bells on it and dance in front of the press before they realize just how truly idiotic this guy is?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:14 am“Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was.”
And you didn’t ask?… Right.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:14 amOn a twist of an old saying; A country’s destiny can be measured by it’s character.
The latest NIE on Iran is just another example in a series of how the Bush administration, in the face of sagging evidence, will sacrifice truth and forthrightness for an agenda. Delaying reports to the public, until vetted by the machine, has become common practice.
Yet, another example of the declining quality of character of America was displayed for the world today. Bush’s press conference answer as to his response to the Saudi government’s sentence of a rape victim to 200 lashes was pathetic.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:15 amRight… the Director of National Intelligence DIDN’T tell the President what they knew.
Poor Georgie… out of the loop.
Perhaps they were waiting until they could present the info comic book style.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:15 am“He didn’t tell me what the information was.â€
And all the reich-wingers believe this….this will be their next talking point.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:15 amIncurious George is just trying to maintain relevancy, and his name.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:16 amDoes he mean to tell us that he isn’t the go-to guy, the top dog, the commander-in-chief, the leader of the free world, the guy who should know what’s happening. Holy Cow! It must be Cheney then. Alll of the above.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:17 amand you don’t follow-up right then?
Comment by leftcoast — December 4, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Well, when Georgie got a memo stating “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike Inside US” he didn’t bother to read that either.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:17 amI wish we had the opportunity to elect a press corp because with the exception of a couple, we have a room full of Jeff Gannons.
I can’t believe they let this liar get away with shit like this. Bush lies worse than an eight year old and the press just eats it up.
Shame on Dave Gregory….
Why doesn’t Helen Thomas ask questions anymore?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:18 amThe release of the NIE makes it virtually impossible to imagine Bush
generating the political will to bomb Iran. That is good.
Apparently, the diplomatic pressure that the US has been putting on
Iran has been effective. That is good too.
IF we believe the regimes in Iran and North Korea, and IF the NIE is
December 4th, 2007 at 11:18 amaccurate - two HUGE “ifs” - then that means the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil have given up their nuke programs without a shot being
fired. Our diplomacy has succeded. So we are all happy, right?
I almost feel sorry for the guy if he hadn’t produced the deaths of one million + civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:18 amOh, goody, another shining example that Bush is a lying piece of sh!t.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:19 amthis will be their next talking point.
Comment by Dr. Matt — December 4, 2007 @ 11:15 am
They’ll be doing their regular tap-dance… Well… well… PROVE he lied about it.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:19 amLet’s see how CHL tries to spin this.
Good luck with that, buddy.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:19 amSo we are all happy, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Go F- yerself, creep.
It is hysterical to see you try and dance away from the Brusch Admin as the ship hits bottom. For months you’ve been coming here and sneering at people, and now, we’re just all common fokk, disappointed in the admin?
F -OFF!!!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:21 amThey’ll be doing their regular tap-dance… Well… well… PROVE he lied about it.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
O simple denial, like Exley yesterday when he said Saddam gassed Kurds and Iranians with chemicals that weren’t from the US.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:21 amSo if Bush’s leashholders spent the last three months “analyzing the information to make sure it’s accurate,” I guess we can assume that the released NIE is indeed accurate.
Huh.
That kinda blows to hell any conservapoints that the NIE is flawed, doesn’t it?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:21 amLiar!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amWhat’s worse, having a President who decietfully lies about national security issues for political gain, or having a President who is so damned stupid that even his top aides keep him “out of the loop” on the most important national security matters?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amHe couldn’t be trusted with the new information.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amthen that means the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil have given up their nuke programs without a shot being
fired.
Comment by Keltoi
Axis of Evil? Isn’t that a new chapter of some George Lucas’ saga?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amJust give him back his copy of “My Pet Goat”. He hasn’t quite finished it yet.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amWe have a lying imbecile for a President.
One would have to be incompetent to be told new information was available and not question the new info. So he’s obviously incompetent, but is he lying as well?
Haven’t we been down this road before, several times?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:23 amOn one hand, the President is lying.
On the other hand, the President is an idiot and so the people around him.
Well, not the best choices for the country that leads the shining light of freedom around the world, right?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:24 amIF we believe the regimes in Iran and North Korea, and IF the NIE is
accurate - two HUGE “ifs†- then that means the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil have given up their nuke programs without a shot being
fired. Our diplomacy has succeded. So we are all happy, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:18 am
There has also not been a single bear attack in Manhattan since 2003. Not a one. Not one of the millions of residents or commuters in New York has been attacked by a bear.
From this overwhelming evidence I can only conclude that U.S. passive-aggressive stance towards Iran has been successful in preventing bear attacks in New York.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:25 amBush wants the public to believe he never learned what the information was, nor was he interested.
The latter is most likely true. His interests are bicycling, clearing brush and dishing dirt. Period.
Cheney & Bush have to be called out on their bullshit. For 7 years Americans have listened to a tirade of lies, shams and Profit over People.
Corporatists have made fortunes while 1 out of 5 Americans can’t afford health insurance. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Add the housing slump in, a long cold winter and downward market trends and we may find ourselves in an even bigger mess by Spring.
Iran may not have nuclear weapons, but America still has Bush.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:26 amI can almost imagine:
-Mr. President, we have new info about Iran´s nuclear activity.
-Well, ok. Let’s have a beer.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:26 amCHL, what “pressure” were we exering on Iran in 2003? BushCo was obsessed with Iraq, and invaded that nation, to the delight of Iran’s leaders. Some pressure.
And I guess you have nothing to say regarding our president’s lack of curiosity, or his staff’s purported failure to reign in his mistaken rhetoric?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:27 amThe point, I believe, is not whether Iran stopped, started, delayed, gave up or is now our friend and ally. The point is that our president continues to withhold vital information to the detriment of discourse.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:27 amCHL:
BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that.
Maybe that was a cyborg that Faiz designed in order to impersonate the President for saying what he said.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:27 amTime to launch them cruise missles now at the iranians/syrains/ohh maybe some iraqs and whoever else gets in the way….
We don’t care…cheeeeney and me will be outta here soon to go get some more money and it’ll be somebody else’s problem..HA!!
Next question??
December 4th, 2007 at 11:28 amBush: “Well, my mother’s back is just fine! That’s because I haven’t stepped on any cracks! My policy of no-crack-stepping is WORKING!!! But all options are on the table…”
December 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am.
.
.
.
Our National Embarrassment gets more embarrassing by the second. God help us.
I don’t think we should let our guard down or lessen the pressure, particularly as the pressure appears to have worked from 2003-2007.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Of course, no one here CARES what you think. Bugger off, ya tosser.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am“Or on the other hand, TP is twisting and misreporting the facts.
Comment by cold_hard_left ”
Fine, set us straight or accept the mantle of neofacist apologist.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:30 amOr on the other hand, TP is twisting and misreporting the facts.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:25 am
You can keep repeating this lie as many times as you want - that won’t make it true.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:32 amCHL, the only reason you are still here is to spice up the comment count. Let’s keep this in perspective…
December 4th, 2007 at 11:32 amAS with all other Bush press conferences this was another pathetic one. This is supposed to be a leader of a great nation meeting the minds of the free press. He obfuscates and the press plays softball.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:34 amHarry Reid will probably do his normal Harvey Milktoast response, as well. God, this country is in bad shape.
This means that the Busch Administration has officially backed down from military action against Iran.
That is why they are telling you this now. That NIE report may or may not be accurate.
∞
December 4th, 2007 at 11:35 amWait, presuming that Bush is telling the truth…
Okay, so someone told him that they had some information and he didn’t ask what that information was?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:35 amCHL, the only reason you are still here is to spice up the comment count. Let’s keep this in perspective…
Comment by Bluedahlia
LMAO!!!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:35 amF -OFF!!!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 4, 2007 @ 11:21 am
You seem angry.
I have not “sneered” at anyone, I have disagreed with them on policy, it is possible to do the latter without the former.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:36 amEither way you look at it, Bush will never get support to bomb Iran now. However, it would be nice if we could exert some more diplomatic pressure to get the four remaining non-signators of the NNPT to sign the damn thing and agree to abide by it.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:36 amThere’s your CEO President, trolls. Shifting blame downward. Can we hit eject on this guy yet? Hell, give him a hundred mil and send him to Paraguay and we’ll still come out way ahead of where we’ll be if he stays in charge for another year.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:37 amLiar, liar, pants on FIRE!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amShould we bury our heads and ignore that risk? Clearly the answer is “no.†We need to continue with the type of diplomacy that has apparently worked from 2003 to 2007, and that includes the type of diplomacy that leaves all options on the table.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:35 am
###
Just last week you were saying that diplomacy would not work and that all we could do is bomb them.
“The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.” Douglas MacArthur
December 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amWow, its always bad when one has to look like and idiot to avoid being known as a liar! I though that was Gonzo’s role in this play anywho…
December 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amThe wheels have come off.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amWe live in an era of bewildering politics. The world moves fast and furious and sometimes we make mistakes - but what is our duty as leaders of the free world to admit mistakes? Where doe humility and Pride intersect?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amOhg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/ 2007/ 12/ 04/ the-politics-of-admitting-mistakes/
To W and his cabinet, information is just an inconvenient distraction from long held, but never questioned or challenged, gut feelings about this or that.
And if the NIE really means that everyone must be more vigilant because Iran (allegedly) once had a nuclear weapons program and, therefore, could restart it, what does that mean for Iraq or North Korea. Both of these nations had a program. Therefore, they have the knowledge. Therefore, they could begin their respective programs again. OMG, what’s to be done?
And what about Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, the former Soviet Republics? All of them have programs, had programs or have people who have the knowledge to begin such programs.
And, if mere knowledge is now the threat, why the hell are we and all the other nuclear powers educating people from nations without nuclear weapons in nuclear technology?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amThis whole NIE is proof that international diplomacy works and that unilateral attacks are not needed.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amShould we bury our heads and ignore that risk?
Comment by cold_hard_left
What risk? Be specific.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amWasn’t there some sort of problem a few years back where the intelligence community supposedly told the WH that what they were saying was false and the WH put it back in their speeches ? Tenet somebody? Some guy talking to the UN ???????
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amBush’s exit speech, 1-20-08:
‘You go your way and I’ll go Paraguay’.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:40 amWhat I can’t believe is that people are acting surprised that George Bush is incompetent, addle-brained, and criminal. Ample evidence for these facts was available before he was elected (appointed) the first time.
We need to cleanse our government and our financial sector. We need to apply the laws regarding fraud, criminal negligence, and crimes under the color of law. Then, we need to start building gibbets - lots of ‘em. We need to follow China’s method of dealing with white collar crime (political, or not). This administration should be used to teach a lesson about those who endanger their Constitution and their fellow citizens: Do so at the risk of your life. If your run for office is an attempt at the brass ring, and you miss, on the next cycle, the brass ring becomes a noose.
Try them, hang all of the guilty, and let the pigeons, crows, and rats feast.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:41 amYou know, Canada might have nukes in the year 2037, and some bureaucrat in their government with no military power stated that he doesn’t like Israel, so we should just bomb them back to the stone age.
Gee, I wonder what Pakistan and Saudi think about Israel?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:41 amThe axis of evil: The White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:41 amHe didn’t tell me, I don’t recall, let me get back to you about that, 5 days after Katrina I just got the video, I read about Dubi buying the New York Ports in the newspaper and the lies just keep on coming.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:42 am#62 That’s spicy talk right there!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:42 amI have not “sneered†at anyone, I have disagreed with them on policy, it is possible to do the latter without the former.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:36 am
“sneer” no, smirk yes. your leader has failed and lied. again. something both troll and non-troll can agree on. a uniter not divider? yes.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:43 amIf the Director of National Intelligence withheld information from the Commander in Cocaine, then the DNI needs to resign by COB today.
And that will happen about the time an apparition named “christ” “returns” from some cosmic party its been attending for the last 2000 years.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 am52. Chris. I said no such thing. Liar.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:41 am
###
All of the trolls have been saying exactly that for more than a year. Any time diplomacy is mentioned all they want to do is bomb. By the way, there is ONE member of congress who is an OIF veteran, do you know who that is?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amWas Helen Thomas on that Presidential News Conference?
I would love that woman to kick the sh*t out of that liar and murderer in Chief.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amI am really confused by all of your reactions to this. For months TP has been billing an attack on Iran as inevitable, and that has been the conventional wisdom here. Now this report puts a stake through the heart of a likely attack - this is GOOD, right?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amChris. I said no such thing. Liar.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:41 am
yes you did, why are you lying about it? are you ashamed? admit your error and move on.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amNow this report puts a stake through the heart of a likely attack - this is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am
and a stake through the heart of neo-conservatism. this is good too, right?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:46 amI am really confused by all of your reactions to this. For months TP has been billing an attack on Iran as inevitable, and that has been the conventional wisdom here. Now this report puts a stake through the heart of a likely attack - this is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am
###
Yes, it is good, I just hope you are right. I still think the republicans are going to be pushing for war with Iran. Remember, WMD were only one reason we invaded Iraq. Bush can still say that Iran supports terrorism, Al-Qaeda, blah blah, 9/11, etc. And the repubs will follow right along.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:47 amthis is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi
For people on Iran and on US, yes.
For profits of oil and war companies, no.
And US govt doesn’t work for people on Iran and on US.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:47 amI am really confused by all of your reactions to this.
this is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi
Yes, it’s great to hear yet AGAIN that the Presidunce is a lying sack of crap who is nothing but a partison hack, Neocon puppet-boy.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:50 amI am really confused by all of your reactions to this. For months TP has been billing an attack on Iran as inevitable, and that has been the conventional wisdom here. Now this report puts a stake through the heart of a likely attack - this is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Except it’s not at all clear, based on the White House spin (and equally dishonest spin from the Exleys of the world), that this will have any effect at all on Bush foreign policy.
It’s also highly revealing that they continue to lie about how long they’ve been sitting on this information. They only just mentioned this to the President in the last couple of days? Hmmmm. Pull the other one.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:50 amBush is such a liar, I’m laughing out loud this morning.
Now, please, journalists, remember that part of your mandate is to investigate. Find out when the report was written. When was the report sent to the White House. Does the White House have access to the raw intelligence. Are there drafts of the report you can review.
Try to summon up the same kind of passion you displayed in journalism school when you did your four part expose on the sexual proclivities of the janitorial staff.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:50 amComment by Chris L — December 4, 2007 @ 11:47 am
what about this guy? what does the nie mean to him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w
the real power behind bush’s middle eastern war policy.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:52 amHey, Cold hard left, are you there?
Should we bury our heads and ignore that risk?
Comment by cold_hard_left
What risk? Be specific.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amComment by Juan C.
I’ve heard the NIE report was actually issued in Oct. of ‘06.
You don’t suppose the ‘06 election was a factor in not releasing it, do you?
KKKarl & the Big Dick must have had some say in this being kept under wraps for so long.
Now Bush wants us to believe ‘no one told him’? Facts talk & Bullshit walks. Time to take a hike, Georgie-pooh.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amWhat are you? Some kind of freekin’ moron, or do you think your spin is so good we can’t see right through it.
The BAD thing is that our government was caught in a premeditated lie that very easily could have resulted in war.
I will recommend that a gibbet be built for you, specifically.
BTW: You are a smarmy little prick.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amMissing WMD’s SHOULD have been the biggest political scandal since Watergate, if not bigger. They lied to get us to invade another country.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amYou have a whole scandalous presser and this is what the AP boils it down to: Bush: US Must Remain Vigilant on Iran. You can’t get through to Cletus out in Hooterville when the Tee-vee doesn’t even try. In quite, just the opposite–they willfully misinform just as happily as the President does.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amThe Iranian threat has been lessened,
Comment by cold_hard_left
Oh, there you are, sneaky. What does this threat consist on, please? Elaborate. You can use drawings if you want.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amThey lied to get us to invade another country.
Comment by lefty
Yeah, but the Pats are undefeated, buddy.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amThe Iranian threat has been proven to be nonexistent, Dems admit that the surge is working in portions of Iraq, and the price of oil has decreased by about 10% in the past few days from enormous peaks reached as a result of Bush foreign intervention. The libs must be really ticked off now.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am
With a little work, I was almost able to turn your moronic comment into fact, but it’s still got a long way to go.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amComment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am
fresh lies?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amDems admit that the surge is working in Iraq, and the price of oil has decreased by about 10% in the past few days. The libs must be really ticked off now.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am
How has the surge “worked”? 2007 is the deadliest year of herr dubyah’s “war” and there has been no political gains….the purpose of the surge. Reich-wingers must be really ticked off now.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:57 amComment by gummitch — December 4, 2007 @ 11:56 am
i wish the price at the gas pump lied like cold_hard_left.
but it doesn’t.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:58 amReich-wingers are having a hissy fit because now that cannot claim the big bad Iranian bogeyman is coming to get us.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:59 amHe didn’t know, ah ha. Well, then, let’s move on and explain it to President Bush.
It is agreed, that according to the NIE Iran is not a threat that requires military action. All over Europe, all newspapers available to me are quoting the NIE and there is no chance left to spin it. That doesn’t leave much space to wriggle out of this hole and an attack on Iran would be considered as a wilful act of illegal warfare, and would be punishable by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
And, hey, don’t even think about another convenient terrorist attack!
Btw, Senator Clinton has egg on her face, too, in this case, see the WaPo from January 2006, where she urges the Bush administration not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, the falconess of all falcons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2006/ 01/ 19/ AR2006011903220.html
December 4th, 2007 at 11:59 am“sneer†no, smirk yes. your leader has failed and lied. again. something both troll and non-troll can agree on. a uniter not divider? yes.
Comment by joe cantwell — December 4, 2007 @ 11:43 am
I’ll grant you a smirk here and there, but come on, I am told to F-off, F-myself, am called an F-ing idiot every time I voice a dissenting opinion, a smirk here and there seems forgivable.
How has Bush failed in this instance? Iran has ceased its nuclear weapons program. Lied? Probably, but all politicians lie, especially to one another.
And Bush is certainly divisive, no question there.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pmI bet cold_hard_lies love paying 3 dollars+ a gallon to fill his scooter.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pmIran has ceased its nuclear weapons program. Lied? Probably, but all politicians lie, especially to one another.
The NIE never stated the herr dubyah’s pathetic excuse for foreign diplomacy is the reason why Iran halted their program. Oops. Don’t let facts stand in the way of you reich-winger licking herr dubyah’s boots.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pmso the president threatens attacking a nation while knowing that the is no information supporting his case for war. Question to Pelosi: how is that not an offense worthy of impeachment investigation?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm.
What’s even better is that Bush said that the problem now isn’t that Iran had nukes or was trying to get them; it’s that they know how to make nukes. I’m not making this up.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:04 pmAnd Bush is certainly divisive, no question there.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
your honesty and self-criticism are refreshing. you set a wonderful example for trolls such as cold_hard_left. would that she had your sense of humility and self-effacing doubt!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pmLied? Probably, but all politicians lie, especially to one another.
Comment by Keltoi
OMG!!! One of those lies produced that around 1 million civilians were killed and 4.5 million displaced.
Iran has ceased…since 2003!! when all the rethoric was that Iran wanted a nuke to bomb Israel and the US (I don´t know how, yet). Iran has complied and cooperated with IAEA all the time, yet, he was looking for nukes!!!
And now, he lied, well, all people do lie!!!
You deserve to be dropped at the worst Baghdad neighborhood with a big “I’m Muhammad, the Teddy Bear” sign strapped to you.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pmNoOneYouKnow, what they can read? Another one over your President ;-)
December 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pmPrior to 2003, herr dubyah was firmly focused on his two failing wars. Iran was barely on the radar. Sorry reich-wingers, herr dubyah doesn’t walk on water and herr dubyah had nothing to do with Iran halting their nuke program.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:07 pmyour honesty and self-criticism are refreshing. you set a wonderful example for trolls such as cold_hard_left. would that she had your sense of humility and self-effacing doubt!
Comment by joe cantwell — December 4, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Hm. Someone better tell Marcus Aurelius to cancel the order for my gibbet.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:07 pmherr dubyah doesn’t walk on water and herr dubyah had nothing to do with Iran halting their nuke program.
Comment by Dr. Matt — December 4, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
So why did they? Surely you do not deny that there has been all kinds of pressure applied on the Iranians by the US government at the UN and with the EU? We are likely not the sole cause of their decision, but it seems unlikely we had “nothing to do with it”.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pmHm. Someone better tell Marcus Aurelius to cancel the order for my gibbet.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
No harm in putting the gibbet together, just in case.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pmYou deserve to be dropped at the worst Baghdad neighborhood with a big “I’m Muhammad, the Teddy Bear†sign strapped to you.
Comment by Juan C. — December 4, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Juan that was priceless!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pmHelen Thomas is still around. There was a great video here of a WH Press conference in the last few days with Dana Perino. Watch this exchange with Helen. If looks could kill.. (Perino)
December 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pmNo harm in putting the gibbet together, just in case.
Comment by gummitch — December 4, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Okay, now I am smirking.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmDissenting opinion? There’s a huge difference between a dissenting opinion, and a willful twisting of known facts. Your comments are not opinions, they are talking points designed to mitigate the criminal activities of your faction.
For example, you ask: How has Bush failed in this instance? This is not an opinion. It’s not even a real question. it is a Red Herring. It is mendacious intellectual buggery. Bush failed in his latest attempt to lie us into a war. When caught in said lie, he pleaded ignorance (he’s confusing ignorance with negligence). BTW, Bush’s actions are crimes under the color of law and abuse of the Office of the President of the United States of America.
This is why we all sincerely hope you F-off.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmBush: DNI Told Me ‘We Have Some New Information, He Didn’t Tell Me What The Information Was’
Because ………???????
You were still in the middle of reading “My Pet Goat” ?
What a friggin’ imbecile……
December 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmSo why did they? Surely you do not deny that there has been all kinds of pressure applied on the Iranians by the US government at the UN and with the EU? We are likely not the sole cause of their decision, but it seems unlikely we had “nothing to do with itâ€.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Prior to 2003, herr dubyah was firmly focused on his two failing wars. Iran was barely on the radar. Fact. Again, herr dubyah doesn’t walk on water and herr dubyah had nothing to do with Iran halting their nuke program.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmSo why did they? Surely you do not deny that there has been all kinds of pressure applied on the Iranians by the US government at the UN and with the EU? We are likely not the sole cause of their decision, but it seems unlikely we had “nothing to do with itâ€.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
One could easily make just the opposite argument: US bellicosity is responsible for the Iranians even entertaining the notion of nuclear weapons, and significantly hampered the European diplomatic efforts over the years. After all, the White House is now claiming that the real problem is that Iran was sneaky and never admitted they’d had a weapons program.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm108.
challenging comments here, keltoi.
perhaps you’d like to revise your previous comments in lieu of this…?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm#99
I can’t help but believe that the poster here claiming to be “Juan C” is not the real Juan….The language and terminology does not seem correct.
The real Juan is consistently wrong when he makes factual assertions in his posts but this particular “Juan C” does not sound like him.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pmWhy would Iran care what herr dubyah says? Herr dubyah attacked a country that DIDN’T have nukes or other WMD. Herr dubyah is completely irrelevant.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pmI call serious bullshit on Bush here. Do you mean to tell me that “new information on Iran” wouldn’t elicit an immediate question from Bush like “what is it?”. Who the hell do they think they’re fooling? If he didn’t ask immediately what the new information was, then he’s a larger moron than any of us even know and needs to be impeached for “derelection of duty”.
But of course we all know that he knew this information existed for the past year - not just last week. This is called treason.
It’s time for this poor excuse for a president to pick his poison because either way he has no credibility left nor is he qualified to remain in his position as president.
Take your pick, Chimp: Treason or incompetence. I believe it’s also called “culpable negligence” legally. He’s guilty either way. Then there’s the probability of “obstruction of justice” so he has an “axis of evil” from which to choose now.
Bye Chimpy!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pmand btw, where’s cold_hard_left?
why does she always run away when the going gets tough?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pmHehehe. I knew you would be here, Ex.
Tell me that fantastic tale where Saddam gassed Kurds with Soviet chemical and biological weapons.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm#99
I can’t help but believe that the poster here claiming to be “Juan C†is not the real Juan….The language and terminology does not seem correct.
The real Juan is consistently wrong when he makes factual assertions in his posts but this particular “Juan C†does not sound like him.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Don’t ya’ just love it when losers that have been 0-for-7-years try to critique others and claim they are “consistently wrong”………?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm#76
I love how Gummitch calls my postings from yesterday “dishonest spin” when what I was doing was actually quoting from the NIE Key Judgments that Gummitch refused to read himself.
Have you read them yet, Gummitch? You’ve had a day to do so.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmAnd we all know how the kettle loves to call the pot black - Axis of Evil, Chimp? You may find yourself smack dab in the middle of one now. His goose is cooked.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmHe expects us to buy that line of crap?
Oh, forgot the 28%ers will totally buy that crap, and ask for more.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
December 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmhis is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am
F You, you sneering, smirking sack of cheney.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pmChimpy’s AIE Trilogy: Culpable Negligence in not immediately asking what the new info was. Derelection of Duty in not bringing this new information forward. Treason for knowing the facts and intel and lying about them to trump up a call for war.
It’s Chimpy’s Choice! Time for him to pick his poison. He’s sliding down the sewer either way.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pmComment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
“0 for 7″
he’s right ex.
your thoughts?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pmThere is no possible way for Chimpy to come out of this one unscathed.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pmOh, Juan, that is you? Surprising (and disappointing). In any case, the history of Saddam’s use of poisonous gas yesterday was thoroughly discussed yesterday — a discussion in which I produced a slew of primary documents that disproved your inaccurate and now discredited assertions (A discussion, by the way, in which you produced ZERO documentary evidence) — No need to go over it again. You know you were proven wrong.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pmThe real Juan is consistently wrong when he makes factual assertions in his posts but this particular “Juan C†does not sound like him.
-Comment by Exley
Hmmm, going Schizo, Ex? You’ve certainly left a lot of us wondering where the facts are in your posts.
Sounds a lot like the kettle & the pot…
December 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pmWhich is the worst? 1. Our President knew what the premise to hype another war was false ? or,
December 4th, 2007 at 12:22 pm2. Our President wasn’t told by his senior advisers that the premise was false ? or, 3. The president’s men lied to everyone including the President to hide that the premise was false ? or, 4. Our President doesn’t care that the premise was false? or, 5. Our President isn’t capable of understanding that the premise is false? or, 6. The President has created a new premise that although the premise was false it could someday become true so the premise remains true?
Don’t ya’ just love it when losers that have been 0-for-7-years try to critique others and claim they are “consistently wrongâ€â€¦â€¦â€¦?
Comment by MCMetal
Nahhh, don’t you remember all those feeble attempts made in order to make a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? All those feeble attempts to connect Saddam with some WMDs? All those feeble attempts to predict that Iraq will turn into a democracy? All those feeble attempts to deny the involvement of CIA in Chile’s military coup?
Well, it turned out, he was correct!!! Hehehe.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:23 pmTP has been right in stating an Iranian attack was on the Bush agenda, if this NIE report which has been held for a year had not come out Bush would have been allowed his game.
The man doesn’t understand the word of working with people instead of acting like a dictator and demanding everything be his way. What a total ass.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm128, rehbock,
Ummm, all of the above?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm# 113 exley, irrelevant. Comment #99 was priceless.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pmLet´s see how correct he is this time by explaining the inaction or lie of his glorious analphabet president in this particular thread.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:25 pm“Elaborate. You can use drawings if you want.
Comment by Juan C. — December 4, 2007 @ 11:55 am”
Juan, A friend’s advice, this is destroying any ability of discussion you had before.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pmEV… ;)
December 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pm“BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that. ”
And there is an idiot born everyday and George W. Bush is one of them. Bush certainly deserves the Trainwreck Award for Tuesday for his statement.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pmOne could easily make just the opposite argument: US bellicosity is responsible for the Iranians even entertaining the notion of nuclear weapons, and significantly hampered the European diplomatic efforts over the years. After all, the White House is now claiming that the real problem is that Iran was sneaky and never admitted they’d had a weapons program.
Comment by gummitch — December 4, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
You could make that argument if their nuke program didn’t date back several decades. Blaming Bush for the Iranians having a nuke program in the first place does not seem fair at all, or even factually accurate.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pm#132, Doro,
It might have been priceless, but it didn’t read like a Juan posting….Sure, it has the usual Juan ridiculous and easily refutable numbers (1 million dead? Pure silliness, but typical of Juan’s hyperbole)…But Juan does usually employ so many exclamation points, for example.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:29 pmaWol spoke: “Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was.”
Did any of our fearless WH press corps ask whether he (aWol) had any basic curiosity about that information? Did no one ask him if he asked McConnell about it?
What a useless lot!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:30 pmExeley: Republican forensics expert. WhaddaDick.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:31 pmI love how Gummitch calls my postings from yesterday “dishonest spin†when what I was doing was actually quoting from the NIE Key Judgments that Gummitch refused to read himself.
Have you read them yet, Gummitch? You’ve had a day to do so.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Still lying, Exley? I read them before you did yesterday, and quoted them in refuting your b.s. Your “dishonest spin” was just like this comment: your deliberate distortion of what was actually written. The “spin” reference was your feeble attempt to prove that neither Bush or Cheney was actually lying about what Iran was up to. Now you’re lying about how I “refused to read” the NIE even though I was very clear that I had read them.
You can’t help lying, Exley. It appears to be the only thing you know how to do.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm.
Dear Mr. President,
Just WHO is the threat TO our National Security?
.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm1 million dead? Pure silliness, but typical of Juan’s hyperbole)…But Juan does usually employ so many exclamation points, for example.
Comment by Exley
Well, that’s one number that has been in the press for some time, just like the number of displaced.
I don’t know why you are not shocked or disgusted with the amount of dead Iraqis when you cry over 3,000 people.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pmex comment 99 says it all. you better read it before you continue on. otherwise you’ll just make your position look silly and irrelevant.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pm#15 Keltoi wrote:
“Apparently, the diplomatic pressure that the US has been putting on
Iran has been effective. That is good too.”
Correct. The Bush diplomatic strategy, coupled with the military action in Iraq, which demonstrated the U.S.’s resolve in preventing rogue nations from producing WMDs, was indeed responsible for getting Iran to suspend its nuclear activities in autumn 2003 (and Libya as well).
December 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pmAt a press briefing this morning, President Bush said he was told by his Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell “in August†that “we have some new information†regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But Bush asserted “he didn’t tell me what the information was 
“… I was too busy reading my ninety books for the year to keep pace with Rove in our reading contest…. Was it anything of importance?”
Cheers,
December 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pmYou could make that argument if their nuke program didn’t date back several decades. Blaming Bush for the Iranians having a nuke program in the first place does not seem fair at all, or even factually accurate.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
And where did I do that?
I do, however, blame his bellicosity for making it essentially impossible for them to acknowledge their suspended effort.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pmGummitch, Exley thinks that interpretation = quoting.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pmThe comedian Lewis Black said it all, “each week you think the Bush news can’t get any worse and yet it does.”
December 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pmOh, you have finally read the NIE, Gummitch? Good for you.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pmchallenging comments here, keltoi.
perhaps you’d like to revise your previous comments in lieu of this…?
Comment by joe cantwell — December 4, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Not really. My whole point is this report is GOOD NEWS, we should all be HAPPY that the likelihood of a strike on Iran has plummeted.
As far as Bush’s obsfucation on what he knew when and why his public comments were inconsistent, you can read whatever you want into that. If you hate the guy and think he is Satan incaranate, a view often put forth here, you assume he just had this secret wish to start another war for the pure bloodlust/oil of it and now he can’t. Another possibility is that he is adopting Nixon’s old strategy vis the Soviets and Chinese - I am just a little bit crazy, there is no telling what I might do, you had better watch it. There is no way to know which is true. The point is, it SEEMS Iran has suspended its weapons program, that is POSITIVE. Just because something happens while W is President doesn’t automatically mean it is bad.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pmExley, if your post at 144 is true then why the need to continue to bang the war drums and all the talk of WWIII from this administration. An administration that knew there wasn’t a threat. The need for an honest and open govt. is long overdue.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pmCorrect. The Bush diplomatic strategy, coupled with the military action in Iraq, which demonstrated the U.S.’s resolve in preventing rogue nations from producing WMDs, was indeed responsible for getting Iran to suspend its nuclear activities in autumn 2003 (and Libya as well).
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Since you’re such a big reader, Exley, I imagine you read the linked article I posted yesterday which takes a hard look at the story about Libya. Right? You read it? And you’re still trying to give the credit to Bush’s war?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pmOh, you have finally read the NIE, Gummitch? Good for you.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
See what I mean? You can’t help it. Seek professional help, Exley.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:38 pmThe comedian Lewis Black said it all, “each week you think the Bush news can’t get any worse and yet it does.â€
Comment by texaslady — December 4, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
ex, can the bush news get much worse? how far down the septic tank of neo-conservatism policy can the chief executive plumb?
these are tough questions ex, do you have tough answers?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pm“I don’t know why you are not shocked or disgusted with the amount of dead Iraqis”
Actually, Juan, it has been you who has celebrated with Al Qaeda or othe extremist groups have killed innocent Iraqis by setting up bombs in marketplaces, univerisities or mosques, not me. You have defended such actions by saying they are merely examples of Iraqis fighting for freedom.
I, on the other hand, have supported efforts to stop the violence in Iraq (such as my support for the successful surge, which has indeed brought down the violence dramatically) and help the Iraqis create a peaceful, tolerant society.
So, please, spare me your feigned concern for the innocent Iraqis murdered in that nation. You have consistently demonstrated you care nothing about them.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pm#137 exley, still irrelevant:
a) it is Juan C. - Hi Juan ;)
December 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pmb) get back on topic and try to make a reasonable contribution here, it’s hard for you, but you can still try.
Just because something happens while W is President doesn’t automatically mean it is bad.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
his record speaks for itself kel. and it’s bad.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pmOh, man. Our preznit is retarded.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:41 pmAn administration that knew there wasn’t a threat. The need for an honest and open govt. is long overdue.
Comment by hellinabucket
Oh, I think US knew Iran had not nukes, just like they knew Iraq hadn’t WMDs. I mean, you are not going to invade a country with a nuke. My opinion is that US have not yet attacked Iran because people are more aware of the lies that this admin throws and because it seems that Russia and China are not going to allow it.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pm155- Hey! Nice, nice pretzel logic there, Exleyboy!!
Has your head stopped spinning yet?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pmExley, did you support the manner in which the invasion of Iraq was conducted? Did you/ do you support the manner in which the first 3 years of this conflict has been waged? Are you satisified with the manner in which our troops have been treated? Has this administration met your standards of treating our wounded?
I’ll await your answers.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pm#150 - keltoi - wow you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something good that Bush has done in the last 6 years. And starting a war just because he wants to, yes, I believe he would do that, he did it once. Didn’t bother the country that housed and facilitated the hi jackers but went after a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Because he wanted to, because he was showing up his father, who knows what other insane reason he had.
Now, 3,875 troops died for his insanity and you stand by him? How do you sleep at night?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pm#151 Hey HiB,
I addressed yesterda why the administration has continued to talk tough about Iran over the past year.
NIE: “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.â€
That explains why the Bush administration has correctly continued to talk tough about the Iranians and the possibility that they might one day resume their effort to develop nuclear weapons. You don’t abandon a diplomatic strategy that has been working especially when your intelligence agencies tell you they do not know Iran’s intentions re: nuclear weapons development.
More from the NIE:
“We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.â€
So, again, we see clearly why the tough talk of the administration (and the international community) has not let up despite evidence Iran has at least temporarily halted its nuclear weapons program….The fact is that as good as the news that Iran looks to have halted its program, the NIE shows Iram was pursuing nucler weapons up untill 2003 and that we have no idea what their intentions are in this area in the future.
Thus, it clear that continued pressure (whether it be diplomatic or economic or both) is necessary to ensure that Iran lives up to its obligation under the NNP Treaty and does not develop nuclear weapons.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pmYou have consistently demonstrated you care nothing about them.
Comment by Exley
Like gummitch said. Seek help, buddy.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pmJust because something good happens when W is president doesn’t mean he had anything to do with it.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:44 pm