Well, yes, the White House did rush to make an, ahem, “clarification”. After they were busted for it.
So, if I read you right, what you see happening in the dim recesses of Our Churchill’s mind is “Well, see here, a building being constructed. Proof positive, no doubt about it, its for building a nuclear bomb! Judging by the shading and time of day, I expect it to be ready in about ohhhhhhh, three weeks.”
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
And as to the mind-boggling misreading of the UN document in question: yes, I think that was deliberate. Unless, of course, he thought it said something different than it did. As in, he didn’t read it.
A bit of prevarication, here and there, is part and parcel of politics, worthy mostly of a tired and indifferent shrug.
Not in matters of war. No way. The whole truth and nothing but. And if he don’t know it, he better go and get it.
Or is it your impression that Our Leader was speaking in utter candor? And if not, shouldn’t he?
While that would be (and has been) a dandy subject for a different thread, this thread is about Bush’s stated justifications for initiating war. The OP complains that Mr. Bush has failed to honestly represent to the American public, and to the world at large, the evidence of Iraq’s eminent menace to world security; I complain in addition that he has presented no compelling arguments for a purely military solution to deal with that poorly defined threat. To have the President cite a four year old report which makes no conclusion as a “new” report which reveals Iraqi perfidy is not only insultingly disingenuous, but jaw-droppingly and scarily inept as public persuasion.
I’m going to have to politely take issue with your claim that Mediawhores presents there stories “as links” and always provides the sources.
They look to be doing quite a bit of reporting and editorializing of their own, and cite “unnamed” sources saying provocative things about Bush’s and Tony Blair’s meeting as the basis of the article you cite.
As we’ve encountered them before, and they’ve made many substantive factual errors and are prone to unsupported opiniation, I don’t think it’s reasonable to consider them a reliable source.
I love this:
Now I’m not saying mediawhores is dishonest, or making this up, but for all we know the expert could be you (I’ll watch and see for any balderdashes or tommyrots in his discourse)
So I feel pretty comfortable dismissing mediawhores in its entirety as pure editorializing.
Now, as for the primary sources.
The NBC article cited first makes it pretty clear, in no uncertain terms that mediawhores and elucidator (the latter doubtless unintentionally) is misrepresenting their report.
Nowhere in the report does it state that Bush is referring to the photograph and report that misrepresented (intentionally or not) as “All the evidence we need.”
In fact, it is clear that what he is referring to as all he needs is the totality of the case he presented to Blair. It is also pretty clear that White House aids were pretty quick and forthright to correct the error and come clean when it was presented to them.
Neither Bush nor Blair seem particularly concerned about the error (which again, from context appears to be but one arrow in the quiver of the case presented.)
Within the article cited by NBC it is only one small paragraph mentioning the error in the entire report and NBC doesn’t seem to think any big conspiracy is going on here.
In fact, everything appears to pretty mundane and straightforward except for mediawhore’s histrionic cries of foul.
A quick glance through the Washington Post article also seems to treat the misstep with sanguinity, and even goes so far as to suggest that perhaps the knew information Bush was referring to was the aluminum centrifuge tubes, and there was simply a miscommunication with the press.
After my experience with Mediawhores in the Bush/Harkens thread, I’d pretty much come to the conclusion that they were completely and totally full of shit 100% of the time, and were worthless as a cite in a reasoned discussion.
Since they are really the only fundamental support you have to suggest that Bush is deliberately lying and deliberately misrepresenting the case (besides your personal opinion, of course) I feel justified in dismissing your assertion as well.
I’ll go a step further, and say that mediawhores only real value is nuisance value since they make somebody go to the effort to prove they are full of shit, the Jack Chick of the political commentary world.
And why is that exactly? Are they supposed to leave sites that we suspect may have once been used for weapons facilities entirely unused forever?
The report said that there was nothing suspicious about the buildings, just that there was new construction. Also, it wasn’t certain that the sites had ever been used for weapons building,
just that they were suspected to have been.
The obvious conclusion is that we have no idea what the buildings are for, they could be making t-shirts for all we know.
Then it’s my turn to not understand. I thought the purpose of a debate was to inform and argue points, not to contrast and compare (“share”) certainties ?
I don’t see any of the scenarios present as being particularly credible.
Additionally, they start with the premise that Bush’s actions are self-motivated and not in the interests of the Nation, and then work backwards to understand them in that light.
I don’t think that’s the right starting point, though it is of course a possibility.
I didn’t realize how noble your motives truly were, elucidator. I had assumed you were motivated by a dislike for Bush and not for a quest for the truth, which is what Media Whores Online is all about.
I notice you sidestep any post that points out that the substance of what he said was correct.
Quite all right, Mojo. I have learned to accept such misunderstanding. Goes with the territory.
As to the issue of whether the substance of what he said is correct, are we to assume that you mean that though the actual niggling facts of the matter are not as he stated them, that’s quite all right, its just part of his “aw shucks”, cowboy from Kennebunkport charm.
Now here’s something that genuinely creeps me out.
When I first saw the link on MWO to NBC news, the story lead off with the, uh, miscommunications and had a picture of Our Churchill brandishing the photo in question, with Tony the Poodle standing firmly by his side.
Later in the day, as I was double checking some quotes, I clicked the same link and got a similar story, but with an entirely different illustration. Further, the part of the story dealing directly with the aforesaid “miscommunications” was now way down in the text, no longer the lead.
Now, of course, hysterical lefties like myself and MWO might suspect that some chicanery was invovled, that perhaps NBC acted to assuage the displeasure of Certain Persons who might have been offended by the unwelcome focus on the substance of Our Churchill’s statements.
Silly me! Why, it is perfectly clear to Scylla and yourself that Our Leader was making statements that were substantially correct, even if the piddling little facts were at variance with the statements.
And its not as though this were a matter of great consequence, some situation where we might reasonably insist upon complete and utter veracity. Heck, its only a little ol’ war. Most of those Iraqis will die of old age anyway, left to thier own devices.
I’m no big fan of MWO myself, but it seems that they at least have their facts straight for once, even if the overwrite the story as usual.
From MSNBC (scroll about halfway down to see the whole thing):
I’m not sure how Scylla missed that last bit. Anyway, I agree with elucidator’s point that misstating or misrepresenting the facts is a very dangerous game at this point. Whether or not Bush is lying or just getting ahead of himself I can’t say, but it seems clear to me that he’s not taking the care I expect someone who’s preparing to commit a nation to war to take, especially with his lack of support. I am very unhappy with the way Buh is handling this… if he expects to really go to war with Iraq, then he’d better slow down and get his ducks in a row before proceeding. There’s no way that anyone could reasonably support a war with this sort of misreprsentation going on. Without clear facts to back him up, Bush is looking pretty “loony” himself.
…and gobear finds the needle, sticking out of the top of the haystack:
I am NOT any sort of cospiracy theorist.
We have had our soldiers and intelligence on the ground in Afghanistan since last October.
Bush gets no international support for attacking Iraq as part of our war on “terrorism.”
Suddenly, some foot-soldier journalist for CNN allegedly buys TWO-HUNDRED and FIFTY HOURS of the Al-Queda video library (If recorded on SP mode, this is 125 VHS tapes. How many can YOU fit in a duffel bag or the trunk of your pinto? 40? 60? 70? This is over TEN DAYS of video footage).
The most compelling, oft-repeated image is… the gassing of a puppy. Why would they even RECORD that? If it worked, it worked, and they would show how to MAKE the stuff.
We are informed via the BBC that US sources have divulged that Al-Quaeda has a small secret lab in Northern Iraq and they are testing out their poison gas on animals and at least one human, but the operation is “too small” to risk US servicepeople.
Abu Nidal is dead in Baghdad? We are informed (again via unnamed US sources) that he was murdered by Saddam because he would not reactivate his terror network to attack Americans.
It would take me all night to string the cites together, all are Washington Post, NYT, CNN, Yahoo or BBC.
If anyone thinks one of these 7 points is unfounded (besides #1), I’ll go find it for you. If you read the news daily, you’ve seen all of this.
My point: The tail is wagging the dog right down to the first day of Operation Eternal Justice, or whatever clever name this desert foray inherits. Phony photos? Why the hell not. Just a drop in the bucket.
I did in fact respond to that particular issue when I said it was clearly the totality of the evidence presented to Blair during their three hour meeting that Bush was referring to and not the photograph when he said that was all the evidence needed.
elucidator:
Interesting, but I won’t bother to investigate it further as it is hardly germaine to your OP, unless of course you simply wish to get in an additional shot at claiming dishonesty at Bushes and/or Republicans in general.
If that is your point, well, at least he didn’t inhale.
The above example is only an example, offered in evidence as to just how easy this sort of thing is. The Resident wants his war, and he will very likely have his way. Of course, this opinion has no joy in it, it is grim fact. If support cannot be gained any other way, it will be gained by an “incident”.
I do not, as has been suggested, think that Mr. Bush is an evil man, I think he is a very mediocre man, as you are no doubt aware by now. He is not a deep thinker, not given to nuances and subtleties (now theres an industrial strength understatement!)
Did he know that he was “miscommunicating”. Well, again, you have your choice between doofus or villain. It hardly matters, his mind is made up, Mr. Bush will have his war.
Aah, al-Qaeda’s plans are going to fruition. Two of al-Qaeda’s bigest enemies (Hussein likes al-Qaeda as far as he can throw them) will war with each other, and in the aftermath Qaeda will try to get a piece of Iraqi land, perhaps with the help of the Kurds and Arabs.
And how well do you know him that you would judge his character and depth?
It seems to me a poor argument when you must attack the man espousing the view you disagree with rather than the view itself.
As for Bush?
Well he scored 1400 on his SATs and flew fighter planes. He can run 3 miles in 20 minutes or so, and much else besides that is hardly mediocre or shallow.
He’s the President of the United States. We know him by his words and actions, by his policies and speeches, by his own presentation of himself to us, a presentation more prominent than any other figure of authority on earth. We know him a good deal better than most of us know our own second cousins.
As a matter of fact, we know him a good deal more than we know you, Scylla, and none of us, I think, have failed to form an opinion as to your character and depth.