powells low point

October 15, 2003 8:57 AM

“Various people would laugh at various times [during Powell’s speech]because the information he was presenting was just, you know, didn't mean anything -- had no meaning,"
posted by specialk420 (62 comments total)

“…The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence,” says Thielmann.

Classic.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:59 AM on October 15, 2003

But there were Arabs using cell phones. That's, you know, very suspicious.
posted by xmutex at 9:07 AM on October 15, 2003

That's okay. A lot of us anti-Bush types have "faith-based intelligence" as well. Faith that Bush and his cronies are lying sacks of shit that do what they want and look for information to justify what they want to do.



Of course, it turns out that the evidence supports our faith...
posted by Slothrup at 9:07 AM on October 15, 2003

I think we are going to have to revisit the reports of Powell shouting "This is bullshit!" and throwing the script in the air at the rehearsal for his speech, to get an accurate picture of this thing for the history books (and the moms on both sides with dead kids). I really expected Powell to take a stand against railroading the Iraq war through. *cough*Tonkin*cough*
posted by planetkyoto at 9:22 AM on October 15, 2003

None of this is even scandalous anymore. I thought they were shadowy men from a shadowy planet with the interests of Halliburton and Bechtel nearest to their shadowy hearts in the months leading up to the war, now that the conflict is beginning in earnest in Iraq, I still think they're the shadow empire, and there are big problems on the way.
posted by jdaura at 9:33 AM on October 15, 2003

Dutifully forwarded to my mom, who has 2 kids in this mess.
The day Bush losses it is when the mom of a dead soldier confronts him over this and leaves him stammering on camera.
posted by 2sheets at 9:33 AM on October 15, 2003

2sheets: No American citizen would ever be allowed to speak unscripted to the President. That's the nature of Bush's administration. He's a man of the people: His people.

I don't mean to snark, but is there anything new here?
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:38 AM on October 15, 2003

Why no-one is resigning or being fired of this adminstration is beyond me. Come on, how long does it take to see they misled everyone into a war ? I'm not anti-Bush per se, but knowing they still have the power after all these months is quite frightening. Is every one afraid ?
posted by XiBe at 9:39 AM on October 15, 2003

Much of what Theilmann appears to be saying in the sixty minutes interview is a rehash of the same stuff in the most recent Frontline piece. Watch it online if you haven't already. You need to see the US troops crushing a "looter's" car with their tank. It'll make you cringe.
posted by machaus at 9:44 AM on October 15, 2003

The only reason I can think of that Bush & Co. have not fired anyone publicly is that they think it doesn't matter. Maybe they just don't perceive any political harm from the allegations of deception. The old "don't fix what ain't broke".
posted by blakewest at 9:54 AM on October 15, 2003

Why did it take this guy a year to come forward? Why wasn't he so outspoken right after Powell's speech?
posted by dobbs at 10:01 AM on October 15, 2003

If the Bush admin fired someone or let someone resign over this it would be an admission that not everything is going perfectly well. Instead they're counting on their friends in the media (Mr. Murdoch for one, and all the rest who are too scared to sound unpatriotic) to gloss over their mistakes and to dutifully repeat whatever new version of their reasons for war / evidence they decide to put out tomorrow and the next day.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:06 AM on October 15, 2003

This is old news. Not a double post, but more of a dead horse. Which is sort of the problem. We've become numb to the idea that we were lied to about Iraq. How sad is that?

"None of this is even scandalous anymore."

Exactly. What would it take to get people as pissed off as say........ Clinton having sex in the White House? What would it take?

Sometimes I get the idea that Bush & Co are actually in charge of some other country. They certainly don't seem to be representing my interests or the interests of anyone I know. It's like they are a country onto themselves.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:12 AM on October 15, 2003

"Sometimes I get the idea that Bush & Co are actually in charge of some other country"

That would be Halliburtistan.
posted by 2sheets at 10:21 AM on October 15, 2003

Of course they aren't representing your interests. What a laugh! Do you still think you yanks have a functioning democracy any more?

It's a laughing stock!!

They draw the districts. They buy the politicians.
They count the votes. They own the Justices. They lie to your face.

They kill your brothers.

Get rid of them, they're a danger to the world.
posted by dash_slot- at 10:21 AM on October 15, 2003

The only reason I can think of that Bush & Co. have not fired anyone publicly is that they think it doesn't matter.

Why should they worry. Diebold delivers, as does ES&S. Both companies are republican controlled & have almost total control of the US market for electronic voting machines. These voting machines are insecure and can be hacked.

In other words, you dont have to care what the electorate thinks if they can't get rid of you. So they might be correct in thinking that "it doesn't matter."
posted by jester69 at 10:22 AM on October 15, 2003

When did the Republican party start controlling Diebold and ES&S? Just because their board/owners are staunch Republican supporters doesn't mean the companies are owned by a political party.

I will concede that the results are similar if the claims are true, but we'll never know as long as we can't audit.
posted by infowar at 10:30 AM on October 15, 2003

I think the conservative response to this thread would be, who cared if they lied - we freed the poor oppressed Iraqis and are building a bastion of democracy in Iraq, and the ends justify the means.
posted by kgasmart at 10:39 AM on October 15, 2003

I think the liberal response to this thread would be, Treason! Impeach everyone. Republicans only want to create a state of fascism, and my heart bleeds for everyone, although I have no actual solution for the world's problems.

/troll
posted by BlueTrain at 10:43 AM on October 15, 2003

Old news? Well, I think these things need to be pointed out ad nauseam until these bastards get booted from the white house. Scary Times.
posted by GiantRobot at 10:43 AM on October 15, 2003

we freed the poor oppressed Iraqis and are building a bastion of democracy in Iraq, and the ends justify the means.

That's not why you're soldiers & citizenry were told to fight.

Powell lied to you. You went to build a nation, but thought you were defending your own.

Different kettle of fish, kgasmart. Why do you hate american democracy so much?
posted by dash_slot- at 10:47 AM on October 15, 2003

Oh ye of little memory. Doesn't anybody remember General Alexander "The Great" Haig? An etymological nightmare of fabricated words, doublespeak, and empty blather?

"That's not a lie, it's a terminological inexactitude."

Here was a man who could testify before congress for *hours*, saying *nothing* of substance. A man whose evasions of straightforward questions were the stuff of legend. He didn't just have sentences or phrases win awards for doublespeak, but entire page-long paragraphs.

There were giants in those days.
posted by kablam at 10:50 AM on October 15, 2003

I think the conservative response to this thread would be...

I think the fact that there is no conservative response as of yet is a strong indicator in and of itself. The administration has wandered off into no-man's-land, where even the rightest rights can't bear to support them.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:51 AM on October 15, 2003

they haven't heard a word the rest of the world has said, what would make anyone think they'd give the time of day to the nation of imbeciles that put them in office?
posted by quonsar at 10:57 AM on October 15, 2003

Powell is a bit too intelligent for his own good. All good Republicans know that lying is a loyal act and loyalty is always repaid. Ask John Ashcroft - the man could not win a democratic election against a dead man, and was rewarded with one of the highest posts in the government.

Although dash_slot verges on stark raving, I agree with his analysis. We have a good system gone very rotten, with cynical millionaires laughing at us and our naive faith in our democracy, and our lack of either will or money to change it.
posted by zaelic at 11:13 AM on October 15, 2003

Why no-one is resigning or being fired of this adminstration is beyond me.

I think the administration's state of denial is pretty scary. In my (admittedly pre-disposed against Bush) mind, it's much more sinister than your typical "laying low until the heat is off" kind of mentality. Prevalent in this administration is what Josh Marshall refers to as "up-is-downism": that simply by saying something often enough they make it true--regardless of mountains of evidence to the contrary. By not firing anyone they're saying "no one here has done anything wrong". And America believes them.
posted by jpoulos at 11:17 AM on October 15, 2003

Welp, powel had a lot of standing with me before all of this, and he's lost it all.

---

Did anyone really think that the WMD issue wasn't about justifying the neocon's ambitions? As soon as there was pressure on him, Saddam tried to allow weapons inspectors in, but the US kept them out for months.

I guess I simply always assume the government is corrupt from the getgo.
posted by delmoi at 11:29 AM on October 15, 2003

but is there anything new here?

yes. this is the first time i have heard such a stark indictment of powell and his prewar hype to the UN and the world. i did see the frontline piece when it aired a week ago - a must see.

in powell's defense - i suspect he was given an ultimatum, something to the effect of: "get on the team and help sell this war of ours, no questions asked - or there's the door, make your decision now." i wonder if, when future generations (a question in itself) will know how that conversation went ... ?

buckfush.
posted by specialk420 at 11:30 AM on October 15, 2003

Powell is just a bastard. He's sunk so much lower than this. Hell, if I needed someone to spew a pack of lies at the UN I'd hire him. A little background:

By The Associated Press, March 13, 2002

Former Iran-Contra figures who have been given jobs in the Bush administration:

-COLIN POWELL. In 1968, as a staff army major in Vietnam, Colin Powell played a direct role in suppressing the inquiry into the My Lai massacre, and into related atrocities against civilians. As a White House fellow during the Watergate years he earned a reputation -- but only for keeping his mouth shut.

As a military assistant to Caspar Weinberger during the Reagan administration, he helped to deceive Congress about the trading in heavy weapons with Iran, about the exchange of those weapons for hostages, and about the diversion of the illicit proceeds to finance another illicit operation in Nicaragua.

In Panama, in 1989, he helped shape an operation that totally disregarded international law and took many civilian lives.

During the Gulf War, he strongly opposed any military help for the Kurdish and Shia rebellions against Saddam Hussein.

In the Bosnian conflict, he publicly opposed any intervention against Slobodan Milosevic and his forcible creation of a "Greater Serbia."

As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Bill Clinton, he repeatedly intervened to influence political decisions, not only about the Balkans but about the right of homosexuals to serve in the military.

posted by skallas at 11:30 AM on October 15, 2003

Old news? Yes--to those of us with our eyes on the ball. Yet I would encourage everyone, especially my fellow Americans, to carry the message forward. Here in the Midwest most people don't "get it." Either they blindly trust all authority or have turned cynically against any possibilty of citizens making a difference.
To those who would preserve the blessings of liberty--such as they are--I urge you to do as I do, pass out "Bush Lied -- Americans Died" bumperstickers; wear a teeshirt or button with the same message; and engage with those who doubt it . . . not in a patronizing or superior manner, but from honest concern.
It took years for us to turn public opinion around regarding Vietnam and the lies we were told back then. Today time is short. Not everyone is online--if it matters to you, do some supermarket and workplace proselytizing!
posted by ahimsakid at 11:56 AM on October 15, 2003

Sorry, I know it came on as raving.

Don't know what happened, just a little reality intruding on me. Good luck y'all, with that lil experiment ya got going on over there.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:11 PM on October 15, 2003

Quote from CBS new piece:

"Greg Thielmann tells Correspondent Scott Pelley that at the time of Powell’s speech, Iraq didn’t pose an imminent threat to anyone – not even its own neighbors. “…I think my conclusion [about Powell’s speech] now is that it’s probably one of the low points in his long distinguished service to the nation,” says Thielmann.

Quote from Powell's speach:

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing, at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?"

Which doesn't sound like 'imminent threat' to me.

But don't let the fact that Thielman is lying stop the Bush hate arround here. After all, you know Bush is bad - why not be just like him & just believe any old lie as long as it supports your prejudice?

For more on the phony 'imminent threat' meme, see Dan Drezner's take here.
posted by Jos Bleau at 12:14 PM on October 15, 2003

Finally, an appropriate forum for this similar tidbit from the the Former Secretary of Overstate. Check out the complex context in this puppy. Amazing:

Lytle: On March 30th you said, referring to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, quote, "We know where they are." Do you know where they are now? And will they be found?

Rumsfeld: When you quote me, as opposed to somebody else, I do remember the context. (Laughter.) And in that instance, we had been in the country for about 15 seconds; sometimes I overstate for emphasis. The truth is, we'd been there about two weeks. And the forces were fighting up from the south -- maybe three weeks -- fighting up from the south, heading towards Baghdad. And we were besieged with questions: "You haven't found any weapons of mass destruction yet. Why not?" And I said, very simply: Because all of our information is that they are in the -- more -- closer to Baghdad, in the area from Baghdad north, and we were not physically on the ground in that area at the present time.

What we had, as Secretary Powell told the United Nations, is a long list of suspect sites. And they were sites that the inspectors had been in the process of looking at when they concluded that the inspection process really wasn't working, because of lack of cooperation on the part of Saddam Hussein's regime. And I said, "We know they're in that area." I should have said, "I believe we're in that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area," and that was our best judgment. And we were being pressed to find them while the war was still in its earliest, earliest days. And it seemed to me a somewhat unrealistic expectation.

September 10, 2003 / Entire transcript
posted by micropublishery at 12:24 PM on October 15, 2003

def. of imminent: Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; -- said especially of misfortune or peril. ``In danger imminent.''

Powell (in the portion directly proceeding Jos Bleau's except): The United States will not and cannot run that risk for the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.


So even a 'few more months' and an attack could occur, meaning that the threat is "very near at hand". Powell did not say that the danger was "immediate," but that waiting even 'a few more months' was so dire that it was not even an option.

Imminent? You make the call if the word is appropriate, the definition is above. But to suggest that Thielman is lying is incorrect, as it is a matter of degree or word choice to describe Powell's warning, which is dire by any standard.
posted by cell divide at 12:24 PM on October 15, 2003

"And America believes them."

I seriously doubt that. Very few people think we invaded Iraq to stop terrorism. Many might think the end justifies the means, but hardly any think Iraq was a threat to the US. And those that do also think France is a threat to the US. That is - lunaic fringe.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:33 PM on October 15, 2003

"Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world."

What Powell is saying is that when in doubt, take the bad guy out. But that's not the same thing as saying that there is an imminent threat - that's saying that no threat will tolerated. You can make the case that's a very bad policy, but you can't make these that that is a statement of imminent threat because it simply isn't.
posted by Jos Bleau at 12:35 PM on October 15, 2003

And before I get jumped on - By "hardly any" I mean less than 10%. Americans hated Saddam. So we didn't buy into the lies, we just sort of shrugged and called it a wash.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:35 PM on October 15, 2003

You know, I seem to remember Powell taking very seriously his duty to the public when there were calls for him to run for president. People had faith in him, and, you know, it seemed like that really meant a lot to him and he didn't take it lightly.

Perhaps we need to remind him that he's there for us... the people that have called him a hero in the past. Perhaps we need to tell him that we're ashamed of what he has allowed to happen. Maybe he'll take a stand and speak for us. We already have the reports of him calling the speech "Bullshit." Perhaps all he's waiting for is a push... a few hundred thousand people saying "Shame on you, Mr. Powell."

MoveOn.org --> are you listening?
posted by VulcanMike at 12:38 PM on October 15, 2003

When did the Republican party start controlling Diebold and ES&S? Just because their board/owners are staunch Republican supporters doesn't mean the companies are owned by a political party.

You are right, I think I overreacted. On second thought, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy that our voting system has become proprietary, owned by persons beholden to a single party, completely insecure and manipulable, closed to public scrutiny, and has no paper trail or way to be audited.

thanks for snapping me back to my senses.

here is one previous mefi thread on the issue.
posted by jester69 at 12:43 PM on October 15, 2003

Powell followed Howard Dean's advice - why should moveon.org be unhappy about that?

Howard Dean, Sept. 29, 2002:

"Look, it's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the U.N. Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline saying "If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq."

Powell followed the Gov.'s advice. He went to the UN Security Council and got resolution 1441, which is exactly what Dean called for. And 90 days later, not 60, when Saddam attached conditions and failed to comply fully wiht 1441, we went into Iraq.

Moveon.org should be thanking Powell for implementing the Dean Doctrine.
posted by Jos Bleau at 12:45 PM on October 15, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction"

ummm... who is the "we" that powell referred to in that speech?

and what exactly does "know" mean to you???

it sounds like powell was either absolutely sure of something that many (including his top aide in the article linked) were very unsure of.... or he was lying?

subsequent events and absolute lack of evidence has proven that powell, bush and crew hyped the threat, there is not alot of disagreement on this except amongst the head in the sand, "up is down" crowd.


your argument does nothing other than help prove the bush haters case.
posted by specialk420 at 12:47 PM on October 15, 2003

That's quite a bit of hair-splitting you are doing there Jos Bleau.

He says that we absolutely can not wait even a few months, so certainly the word imminent applies, and you certainly seem to think he was a threat. So, um, imminent threat is just about the only take away you can get from what powell said.

You saying it "simply isn't" because you are using your own contrived definition of the term doesn't change that.

But let's say it did, and he wasn't saying that -- so you are saying what powell brought to the UN was "we have no real evidence of anything other than malice from saddam, but that clearly justifies the need to immediately engage in war at any cost". Much better!

Not to mention the preceeding lie in that very quote about saddam hiving WMD.

(on preview) "when Saddam attached conditions and failed to comply fully" You mean when Saddam failed to produce the WMD he doesn't seem to have? Another great one.
posted by malphigian at 12:53 PM on October 15, 2003

attached conditions and failed to comply fully wiht 1441

please refresh our memory of which conditions he failed to comply with? turn over his weapons of mass destructions?
posted by specialk420 at 12:54 PM on October 15, 2003

Sigh. Too bad we don't even have the A-list conservative members making the case for Bush here.

Tom Tomorrow punctured the Clintonian hair-spitting on "imminent threat" last weekend, Jos. Gotta keep up. But we don't even need that literal phrase to make the case that Powell lied. This phrase alone -

"Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction"

- means that Hussein currently is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. There's no shading there, no ambiguity, no realm-of-the-possible-scenario-where-Saddam-acquires-WMDs, it's a straight-out declaration that WE KNOW SADDAM HAS WMDs.

In other words, a lie. Simple enough for you?

If not, maybe Cato Institute scholar and columnist Alan Reynolds can put it in terms you understand: Saddam could not be left in possession of weapons he did not posses.
posted by soyjoy at 1:04 PM on October 15, 2003

Last week heard a quick blip, maybe CNN; Powell wanted an explanation/apology from Bush about all this, it was when the Plame leak was about dying off in the news.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:19 PM on October 15, 2003

By the way, on the subject of truth-trampling on the part of the current administration, be sure to check out this PDF, the unfortunately-titled but comprehensive and well-organized Truth from These Podia, compiled by retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner with help from Mark Fineman of the LA Times.
posted by soyjoy at 1:25 PM on October 15, 2003

Y'know, Jos Bleu, the "imminent threat" thing is a red herring and you know it. The classification of Saddam as a credible threat at all was, from what we now know, pretty much a lie. And Theilman's bottom-line point is that the decision was made first, then the intel was manipulated to show just cause. I've still not seen a credible refutation of this - beyond "too bad liberals didn't care about the poor Iraqis," blah blah blah. Pathetic.
posted by kgasmart at 1:30 PM on October 15, 2003

I think these things need to be pointed out ad nauseam until these bastards get booted from the white house

I wouldn't hold my breath. they're being pointed out ad nauseam here, but the CBS story wasn't exactly picked up a lot by the notoriously liberal media -- today's bad guy seems to be the sorry asshole Cubs fan who yesterday dropped the ball when his team was five minutes away from the World Series.
I mean, with news like this (front page in the LATimes, big photo above the fold, lots of TV coverage) -- who in the RW (ie not Metafilter) has the time for lies about the war in Iraq?

*anxious Red Sox fan*
posted by matteo at 1:33 PM on October 15, 2003

Too bad we don't even have the A-list conservative members making the case for Bush here.

Also, some of us have to work, and can't actively jump in to be the old gang's whipping boy at this particular moment. This does not necessarily indicate that the Nazi barbarian horde (aka Mefi League of Conservative Jagoffs) is not TOTALLY down with our homie, the Dubster.
posted by UncleFes at 1:46 PM on October 15, 2003

That's MLoCJ, which we like to pronounce as "Milosevic", for those of you preparing shoutdowns and unreply-toable nonsequitors at home ;-)
posted by UncleFes at 1:51 PM on October 15, 2003

at the end of the day... one wonders what the "A-list" would be saying had al gore used - up is downism - to get us to this point?
posted by specialk420 at 1:58 PM on October 15, 2003

At the end of the day... does one accept lying and corruption from the present adminstration because a hypothetical other-administration may have been corrupt liars as well?

That's as inane as, say, China claiming that their human rights are superlative simply because they're not as bad as North Korea's.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:05 PM on October 15, 2003

That frontline piece should be its own FPP.
Great link.
Thank you.
posted by Espoo2 at 2:06 PM on October 15, 2003

RE: up-is-downism

I don't know when Josh Marshall started calling it that, but Tom the Dancing Bug did the defining comic strip on it in June of 2002.

Favorite quote: "You say UP must be UP. But the whole theory of tautology is just that: A THEORY!"
posted by soyjoy at 2:24 PM on October 15, 2003

i think we're on the same side of the argument fresh fish... the A-List i referred to is mentioned a few posts up the thread (A-List bush defenders - whatever happened to midasmulligan - or parisparamus? anyway? - i guess if i was a one time bush defender i would be hiding out as well)
posted by specialk420 at 2:35 PM on October 15, 2003

You know, I seem to remember Powell taking very seriously his duty to the public when there were calls for him to run for president. People had faith in him, and, you know, it seemed like that really meant a lot to him and he didn't take it lightly.

You are assuming an awful lot there. From where I stood, it looked a lot more like Powell was the media's darling for a while, for whatever reason, so they portrayed him sympathetically. I don't think we average citizens have a clue what was going through his mind, then or now. I was never impressed with him, and it seems pretty clear that whatever he was then, he is now a traitor to his country.
posted by rushmc at 2:35 PM on October 15, 2003

Kofi Annan: STOP! He who approacheth the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.

Colin Powell: (excitedly) Ask me the questions, Kofi Annan, I am not afraid.
posted by Perigee at 2:40 PM on October 15, 2003

A-List bush defenders - whatever happened to midasmulligan - or parisparamus? anyway

The same hitman that got den Beste, aaron and ljromanoff rubbed 'em out, I heard.
posted by UncleFes at 2:41 PM on October 15, 2003

Here's a list of administration statements regarding Iraq being a "a very grave threat," "a direct threat to the United States," and "a grave and gathering threat." As Anonymous Blogger points out, "gathering" is a synonym for "imminent."

QUESTION: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:03 PM on October 15, 2003

When I said "A-list conservative members," UncleFes, I was including you, absent on the thread to that point. But the fact that now that you are here you've made three essentially silly and off-topical comments speaks to how far gone this cause is.
posted by soyjoy at 8:49 AM on October 16, 2003

Soyjoy: Personally, I don't think there is much doubt now that the administration was lying about WMD. I have said before that I think it was a very foolish mistake to do so, enumerated the reasons why I think they did it, and observed that this decision may cost them the next election, as well as the trust of the nation and the goodwill of the post-9/11 world. Lying about WMD in Iraq was a stupid, stupid thing to do, even if going to Iraq was, in my opinion, a good idea (in fact, my belief that going to Iraq was a good idea makes the decision to lie about the reasons even stupider, I think). As causes go, this one was lost a long time ago. I don't think many conservatives, even the more vociferous ones, are defending WMD marketing campaign anymore.

That said: I tend to distrust the testimony of probably-disgruntled ex-employees on the whole; this article is hearsay and smacks of piling-on; nevertheless, it's probably true; despite the truth, it adds little to any greater debate; this thread was, imo, just the latest in a long line of self-congratulatory threads wherein the anti-Bush crowd gather to preen; when they start calling for the conservatives to weigh in, that usually means they have exhausted the rewards of self-congratulatory indignation and are looking for some fresh meat to roast; there really isn't a defense to be made here, it's just a story about a guy who says a year later that his boss, a politician, gave a content free speech, and that isn't really all that amazing; I really *did* have to work; since when am I A-list? My member number is well into the latter half of the 7K's, I'm B-list at best; silly, off-topic comments were really all I had time for and was my way of (perhaps badly, but nevertheless) weighing in that this thread was a dab of fluff while at the same time trying to make the point that we conservatives are as varied and individual a bunch as you liberals are; a lack of conservative postings does not necessarily mean that we are embarassed, it might simply mean we are reluctant to sucker in to overt provovcation (where are all those chicken-ass conservatives? cluck-cluck-cluck...) or that we're just busy (as I was).
posted by UncleFes at 9:36 AM on October 16, 2003

See, that's why you're an A-lister. Can't argue with much of that - I know how work can intercede, surely, and I certainly wasn't calling you a "chicken-ass" - but I will respectfully dissent on the "dab of fluff " description. The notion "that the administration was lying about WMD" is a huge deal, since battle-ready WMDs were the main basis for going to war right away. And there may not be much doubt now "that the administration was lying about WMD" among liberals (and A-listers?), but the media certainly are not coming out and saying it, and the public essentially still hasn't grasped the gravity of this.

More to the point, this enormous, fundamental lie is just part of a larger pattern of shameless ideological corruption that deserves more exposure, and, yes, debate. It's not just a "marketing campaign," it's a misguided "empire-creating campaign" that needs the most thorough examination.
posted by soyjoy at 10:14 AM on October 16, 2003