BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!

Subject: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 09:01 AM

Glad to see the Administration is at last beginning to tell the truth:
--------

Faults found in Iraq report
                     
By DANA MILBANK and DANA PRIEST, Washington Post
First published: Saturday, July 19, 2003
                     
WASHINGTON -- President Bush and his national security adviser did not
read the most authoritative pre-war assessment of U.S. intelligence on
Iraq, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in
his State of the Union address was "highly dubious," White House officials said
Friday...

A senior administration official who briefed reporters Friday said neither Bush nor
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice read the NIE in its entirety...

the official said: "The President of the United States is not a fact-checker."

Truer words was never spoke.


Article HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Allan C.
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 10:46 AM

Which head of State is a fact checker? They all rely heavily upon their staff and cabinet members to supply accurate information. Wouldn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 11:38 AM

Well, it's one thing to rely on your staff and another thing to tell them to find you stuff, whether true or not, to match your agenda.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 01:49 PM

"They all rely heavily upon their staff and cabinet members to supply accurate information. Wouldn't you?"

Probably - but if they put lies in my mouth I'd publicly sack them and publicly apologise in person. Unless of course they might be in a position to reveal that I'd made it clear that it didn't matter if they were lies, so long as they were the right lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 02:12 PM

It's generally agreed in some circles within the Republican Party that George W. Bush is not the brightest idiot-light on the dashboard, but that's okay because he has a good staff, cabinet, and a lot of good advisors.

Now that Bush has his ass in a sling, he, of course, refuses to take any responsibility, blaming his staff, his cabinet, and his advisors for giving him questionable information—and they are blaming each other!

It's sort of like "The Keystone Kops meet the Three Stooges," starring Howdy Doody.   

Way to go, guys!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Deckman
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 02:21 PM

If Woody Guthrie were here today, can you just imagine the talking blues he could come up with. Hey, I'll do the guitar ... key of G. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Deckman
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 02:25 PM

If you want to get in trouble
let me tell you how to do it,
Just start a little war
And then you're into it,
.................................

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 02:25 PM

I believe it was Condoleeza Rice's job to check the facts, not Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld's Neocon Conglomerate.

Therein lies a large part of the problem.

And McGrath is right. Instead of spinning their wheels deeper and deeper in spinsand, which is what the latest "White House communications strategy" is doing with their "offensive" (beginning today with the "release" of "declassified CIA documents" and continuing tomorrow on the Sunday news programs, and on Monday morning by Republican lackeys in the Senate and House bully pulpits, etc), Bush ought to be deciding who to fire to save his own ass.

But he is too busy fundraising and entertaining the Italian PM "coalition partner" at the ranch this weekend to be bothered.

And BTW, it isn't just his credibility about the Iraq war being called into question now. The fuzzy budget projections are coming home to roost now from the OMB. It is all getting ready to break wide open.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 02:32 PM

I have a picture of the bush on my 'wallpaper' that I put on the other day when he had been 'explaining' the facts away. Wasn't sure I could live with his face on there, but so far, it is a very revealing picture. This is a man in a panicked defensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Deckman
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 02:55 PM

I think bushes' (I refuse to capitalize his name) house of cards is going to fall, and soon. Now the question becomes: "What's (who) next?" By starting his war WITHOUT the support of most Americans, he will have to fall back into a defensive position. When the terrorists see him weakened, we will become more vulnerable than ever. And I do believe there are a lot of terrorists in America right now. If that's the way it plays out, bush, because of his bullhead actions, will actually bring more harm to America. I 'dunno? It's going to be very interesting. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 03:03 PM

By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS The New York Times

"WASHINGTON, July 18 The Bush administration, which spurned the United Nations (news - web sites) in its drive to depose Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in Iraq (news - web sites), is finding itself forced back into the arms of the international body because other nations are refusing to contribute peacekeeping troops or reconstruction money without United Nations approval.

With the costs of stabilizing Iraq hovering at $4 billion a month and with American troops being killed at a steady rate, administration officials acknowledge that they are rethinking their strategy and may seek a United Nations resolution for help that would placate other nations, like India, France and Germany. "

Oh, yeah, our little war was very well thought out.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Strick
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 03:08 PM

It all some how reminds me of an episode of "Yes, Minister". The people providing this intelligence were not political appointees but career bureaucrats; for example, Tenet was appointed assistant director of the CIA by Clinton. Not saying that to put any blame on Clinton, but to show what I mean. In that situation no one need be forced to lie. Once it was decided that Saddam was bad and had to go, what career bureaucrat would have been anxious to provide information that didn't support the decision? Or go against the general trend of opinions under all the pressure associated with putting the State of the Union Address together? Can't you see Paul Eddington in this situation, worried but going with the tide, not objecting strenuously to what was in the speech but leaving himself an out in case it all goes wrong?

That doesn't make Bush any less responsible for the final decision but it might excuse him being more direct about what went wrong. Can you imagine how hard it was to get the facts once the bureaucrats started scurring for cover? Been on both sides of that one, and it's never pretty.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 03:10 PM

But he's got to be careful who to sack, because they know where the bodies are buried. It's the same problem that Nixon had - except that it appears that he was actually the one in charge, which is hardly too likely in the case of young Bush, who is more in the way of being the front guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Deckman
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 03:13 PM

WHAT A STINKING MESS!

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 07:49 PM

Speaking of "Yes, Minister" (a very funny Britcom and, at the same time, an excellent telecourse on politics in general), I am reminded of the episode in which Hacker asks about the Official Secrets Act.

Sir Humphrey responds, "But, Minister, the Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets. It's to protect officials!"

Yup!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Tweed
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 01:17 AM

Found this in the West Point,MS local paper while looking for news of the Howling Wolf Festival.

Lott/Wicker support Blair, uranium claims
By: JEFF CLARK, Daily Times Leader

"I am a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and we're investigating how good our intelligence is and what that information was before Iraq and what other countries were doing in terms of intelligence information that they were providing us," said Sen. Trent Lott in a teleconference with members of the Mississippi Associated Press. "I'm not approaching it from the standpoint of accusatory politics. I don't think that it does a lot of good to point fingers. The main concerns are 'Were there flaws in our intelligence?' and 'How can we improve that?'. Congress cut funding for the CIA back in 1979 and we are suffering for that."

In regards to the uranium claims, Lott said, "President Bush said in his State of the Union Address that, 'British intelligence tells us that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa.' That is a fact. That was true. I just came from an extensive intelligence meeting in which we were told that the British still stand by that. They don't want to reveal their sources. We do know that Saddam Hussein has tried to get nuclear weapons and that he had biological and chemical weapons. We have found some of these weapons, but not all of them. We have a job to do by asking the CIA "How come we haven't found all of the weapons of mass destruction?'."

It's just amazin' ain't it?....Set a course Mr.Sulu...for anywhere...
Tweed

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 11:05 PM

I understood that the British got the information from the French, which explains a lot right there.

And, gee, if Congress cut the CIA funding in 1979, why wasn't it raised when Reagan was Prez? Or George II? Why didn't George III raise it? Golly gosh whiz, there sure are a lot of unanswered questions....

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 09:14 AM

Rapaire,

I think the period in question provides the answer to your question. 1979 to 1989 steadily improving dialogue with the Soviet Union. I989 to September 11th, 2001 - No obvious, clear cut threat to US.

Post 11th September, 2001 - America itself shown to be vulnerable to attacks by any international terrorist group. In the light of the attacks of 11th September, 2001, I thought that all US intelligence and security agencies had benefited from increased funding.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 02:51 PM

Both Shrubs, pere and fils, have done one brilliant thing. They have each selected a vice presidnet who is so anathemic to most of the US that it would conceivably be worse to get rid of them than it would be to keep them.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 05:14 PM

Don't all Presidents tend to ensure that is the case, as a form of life insurance?

Wasn't the original idea that the Vice President would be the one who got the second highest number of electoral college votes? How touchingly naive and idealistic...