BUSH Numbers at ALL-TIME LOW--and FALLING!- Page 2

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:00am

Give it up, Papa. You're only making yourself look more and more foolish.

Let Bush and Cheney lie and obfuscate and parse the meaning of words themselves.

Do you want to look as mindlessly partisan as Goth? I thought you wanted posters here to think of you as someone who casts a critical eye at hypocrisy. It hardly makes you seem discerning to cast that critical eye only at those you disagree with while giving a free pass to the hypocrisies of those you revere.
SCOOTER LIBBY FINGERS BUSH

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:01am

At this point, if it was declassified, then the only real issue is going to be the obstruction case.

And no, Papa, it was this quote, which did not come from the horse's mouth, just his other end:

McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing:

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.

[...]

Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Q: At a minimum?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

[children&art]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:06am

but the more distressing thing, according to NPR this morning, is that his low 36% is higher than the highest approval rating for Democrats currently (Hillary Clinton with 32%).

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:06am

ok, ywiw, but the thing is that this is not about the leaking of plame's name it's about the leaking of details from a national intelligence estimate. this new evidence does not relate to plame. btw, is scooter libby still a part of the administration?

and pj, i've never given a whit for what people think of me. here or anywhere else.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:10am

OK - I guess there are so many leaks coming out of Bush et al when they want something done that I get confused.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:13am

s'okay, ywiw, half the papers in america ran a headline today similar to "bush ok'd plame leak."

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:17am

The NIE information leak, if declassified is not illegal, just stupid.

And, shows a pattern and practice.

But, not illegal if he declassified it.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:18am

robbie, I know this doesn't lead to the road to impeachment. What he did was legal. It was just a huge deception. But people are going to start asking the whys and that is likely to lead to a huge fall out all surround just WHY we really went to war in Iraq.

I'm not doing a happy dance. I'm rather sad and disgusted that with each new day a new GOP or Bush scandal comes out and NOBODY is doing much or anything.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:19am

You're just wrong to separate the leaking of the NIE from the outing of Valerie Plame. Just wrong. Dead wrong. 100% incorrect.

It was DURING the leaking of the details from the classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that Plame's identity was sacrificed, not only to Judy Miller but to Robert Novak and other journalists.

The point of leakingthe NIE was to stem the damage being done to the president's reasons for going to war. Joseph Wilson's NYT op-ed was seen as the bellwether of the burgeoning criticism. Cheney and Bush decided that--despite any damage it might cause to the work the CIA had Plame doing on Iran's nukes--Wilson and Plame's reputations were to be DESTROYED.

So they decided to "declassify" the NIE (retroactively, when the investigation began), but it was too late: Their reckless revenge on Wilson and Plame had already damaged CIA operations in Iran.

You cannot separate the declassifying of the NIE and the outing of Plame: They were done by the same people with the same motive and the same goal.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:23am

no, pj, you can't separate them. i can and did. btw, who leaked to russert?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:25am

Do you honestly believe this country is in good hands, papa? Our national debt? Our wasted efforts in Iraq? Our environment? Katrina?

I just don't get it.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:26am

lmao, jerby, take a breath.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:29am

As my grandfather used to say, "Who killed Trotsky? Heh, Mister Smartypants? Who killed TROTSKY?"

===

Judy Miller and the 2002 NIE

by BooMan

Thu Apr 6th, 2006 at 06:25:22 PM EST

In my previous posting, I referred to the fact that Judith Miller anticipated, by a month, all the key judgments of the intelligence agencies about Iraq's nuclear program that went into the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. But, I left it to the reader to go to the sources and compare them. This led to some confusion. So, let me lay it out for you all again, and then put the two documents side by side.

On September 8, 2002, Judith Miller and Michael Gordon published an article entitled U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts . In the first week of October, the intelligence community produced the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. It was a report that was requested from Congress and it was used to justify their vote for the authorization of force. As you will see, it used almost the same language, and drew the same conclusions, to describe the state of Iraq's nuclear capabilities as Miller's article had used. In other words, Judith Miller had seen all the facts that went into this highly classified report a month before Congress did.

Now, fast-forward to July of 2003. Baghdad is occupied, but no one can find anything to back up either Judith Miller's reporting, or the reporting from the NIE (they are the same thing) on Iraq's nuclear program. Once again, Scooter Libby goes to Judith Miller. He shows her (again) the key findings of the NIE (as if she hadn't seen them back in September 2002). He also reveals Valerie Plames's name and occupation (apparently getting her department wrong).

Now he claims, in court, that he went and got specific permission to leak these documents to Judith Miller in July. But, who leaked them to her in September of 2002?
BooMan: Judy Miller and the 2002 NIE

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:29am

"lmao, jerby, take a breath."

way to completely ignore the question.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:31am

Oh, I'm fine, papa. For now.

I'm not a black person in New Orleans.

I'm not an Iraqi or Iraqi soldier.

I don't have kids to feed or keep healthy.

I'm not with a guy I would like to marry.

I'm not an illegal immigrant.

But I do pay a gas bill.

I do have to suffer pollution and the inevitability of massive hurricanes.

I do have to worry about the future and for when I get old.

I do live in the United States of Corporations and Greed and Lies and Spin and Moral Superiority.

But I'm breathing. For now.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:39am

Go ahead, Papa--make your jokes. Your lame defense of this pathetic administration convinces no one.

Updated On: 4/7/06 at 11:39 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:42am

in good hands? relative question. better than gore or kerry? yes.

national debt as a real number, meaning as a percentage of gross domestic product under bush (including the most catastrophic attack on mainland america ever and a category 4 hurricane and two wars) has averaged 60.30% whereas under clinton (and relative peace and the near complete dismatling of the military) it averaged 64.24%. those numbers come from mediamatters.org. so i'm not that concerned about the national debt right now.

i don't think our efforts in iraq have been wasted.


katrina would have been just as big a disaster no matter who was running the country.

the environment? how long has the world been around and we puny humans are going to destroy it? please. when the world gets tired of having humans on it, we'll just go away, so spare me the save the planet horsesh*t.

hey, pj, i'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, unlike you with your constant chicken little act. i mean it's like you're afraid that one day you're going to come on the boards and they'll be dominated by republicans. relax, pal, you're preaching to the choir around here. you're just gonna have to deal with the fact that there's a person who disagrees with you and will point out what he sees as flaws in your arguments or statements when he sees them.

Updated On: 4/7/06 at 11:42 AM

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:45am

"katrina would have been just as big a disaster no matter who was running the country."

that is completely untrue. there was so much that was ****ed up my this administration in relation to Katrina (not the least of which as putting someone in charge of FEMA who had no business running the Federal Emergency Mangement Agency)

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:48am

"in good hands? relative question. better than gore or kerry? yes."

Unless you've traveled to another dimension where Gore or Kerry were elected President, it's really just your opinion.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:49am

You're right. Who cares about the planet!? We have millions to make from raping the earth.

I hope you enjoy your millions and those tax breaks.

What's that?

You're NOT a millionaire? Not even in the tax bracket that actually benefits from Bush tax cuts and policies?

Not anywhere close?

Oh my.

Hmmmm.

Oh. You must be a Republican because of Jesus.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:49am

well, i was asked for my opinion, wca.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:50am

Bush's lack of leadership after 9/11 and Katrina was atrocious.

Our efforts in Iraq were based on lies and not worth the cost in American and Iraqi lives. Our efforts in Iraq INCREASED terrorism and anti-American hatred. Removing Saddam seems less important when there are regimes as barbarous (Sudan) and regimes as dangerous (Iran and North Korea).

I'm glad you're not worried about the antional debt. That makes one of you.

Updated On: 4/7/06 at 11:50 AM

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:55am

My bad, sorry about that.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:57am

Are you honestly going to play the percentage of the national debt against the actual number in dollars? So a difference of a trillion bucks really doesn't make a difference so long as the GDP is higher now? What about inflation? That will always account for a higher influx and we are talking 6 years ago when Clinton's term ended.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 12:00pm

i disagree about iraq, pj. we're going to be hated and blamed for everything in the arab world regardless of any position short of nuking israel. the fact is that soldiers on the ground are better ambassadors for what america stands for than all the diplomats in the state department.

i disagree that removing saddam seems less important based on other regimes. we had to upset the apple cart in the middle east. we couldn't take out saudi arabia, iran was too much of a gamble (the inherent nationalism), we'd done afghanistan but nobody really thinks afghanistan is the place to make real change, iraq was the place. nobody really liked saddam that much, he'd thumbed his nose at the un for 12 years, gassed his own people, led a stalinist regime that brutally oppressed its own people. so we took the status quo and turned it on its ear. it's the only way thingh were ever going to change in that region. and if things don't change there, then the next war will be the ugliest the world has ever seen.