Scott McClellan wrote a book. The former Press Secretary admits some of his answers to White House Press Corps questions were badly misguided. One section of his book accuses George W. Bush of deluding himself about his alleged cocaine use. Of course, part of the blame for the entire mess should fall on the liberal media for being "too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war...".
posted by Bathtub Bobsled on May 28, 2008 - 185 comments

Murray Waas is the new Bob Woodward. An opposing view. Wuh-duh-yuh-bet most Americans will be much more interested in this story?
posted by spock on Apr 10, 2006 - 28 comments

Bush and Blair slated by Pinter George W Bush and Tony Blair must be held to account for feeding the public "a vast tapestry of lies" about the Iraq war, writer Harold Pinter said. [Postroad: but then, what do artists know about politics?]
posted by Postroad on Dec 7, 2005 - 41 comments

Bush teleconference with troops staged. Nothing in the article says who is responsible for organizing the staged question and answer session, The White House, military officials, or others in the defense department. Just that it infact was staged, and that the troops were coached for 45 minutes prior to the actual teleconference. When Bush, in an unscripted move, asked an officer if he had anything to say, he stammered through a sentence, in stark contrast to the well put together responses to all the other questions, thanking the President and saying, "I like you." More PR from the Bush administration.
posted by SirOmega on Oct 13, 2005 - 173 comments

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along? [...]By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval. But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong? It's hard to swallow, isn't it?[...]
posted by Postroad on Feb 2, 2005 - 240 comments

Request for guidance regarding the OGC's EC regarding detainee abuse, referring to “interrogation techniques made lawful” by the “President's Executive Order.” comes from Records Released in Response to Torture FOIA Request.
Smoking Gun ? asks the ACLU--or just another stepping stone from Torture's Path ? As Ex-Military Lawyers Object to Bush Cabinet Nominee, and in Torture begins at the top, Joe Conason suggests that a recently disclosed FBI memo indicates that "marching orders" to abandon traditional interrogation methods came from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld himself and all the while Guantánamo torture and humiliation still going on, says shackled Briton. (more inside)
posted by y2karl on Dec 20, 2004 - 35 comments

Medals of Freedom awarded and I'd like to make some smart comment about current Iraqi conditions and the award and the presenter, but why bother - make your own.
posted by jim-of-oz on Dec 17, 2004 - 27 comments

LAWs instructions for starting criminal procedures against Bush Today in Vancouver, Lawyers Against the War filed torture charges against George W. Bush under the Canadian Criminal Code. The charges were laid by Gail Davidson, co-chair of Lawyers against the War--LAW, under provisions enacted pursuant to the U.N. Torture Convention, ratified by both Canada and the United States. The charges concern the well known abuses of prisoners held by US Armed Forces in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The charges were accepted by the Justice of the Peace and referred for a hearing to decide whether Bush should be required to appear for trial. The Attorney General of Canada's consent is required within eight days for proceedings to continue, and the question of Bush's diplomatic immunity will have to be resolved by the court.
posted by sunexplodes on Dec 1, 2004 - 66 comments

Sleeping with the president is not a good idea. Bush had no answers to big questions, such as 'what happens on the morning after.' The Daily Telegraph reports that documents show Prime Minister Tony Blair signed up to the U.S. policy of regime change in March 2002, a year before the conflict started... after he was warned that postwar stability would be difficult and the U.S. had few answers. Oh, no problem. This week, Bush said he is 'pleased with the progress' in Iraq.'
posted by fleener on Sep 19, 2004 - 14 comments

Factfilter: Sen. Bob Graham's new book shows coverup.on Saudi's behalf Bush had concluded that ''a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account,'' Graham wrote. "It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety.'' And there's stuff about Iraq, too. After wearing 9/11 like a tiara during the convention, will the facts finally be aired?
posted by amberglow on Sep 6, 2004 - 29 comments

PAIR UP FOR PEACE PRIZE It is possible to see the war against Iraq as a good thing,finally, but this Orwellian War is Peace seems a bit strange: :Tony Blair and George Bush have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for waging war on Saddam Hussein. They have been put forward by a Norwegian politician who said ousting the dictator had reduced the threat of a war with weapons of mass destruction."
posted by Postroad on Feb 1, 2004 - 26 comments

Dear President Bush, I'm sure you'll be having a nice little tea party with your fellow war criminal, Tony Blair. Please wash the cucumber sandwiches down with a glass of blood, with my compliments. Harold Pinter, Playwright. Some caustic open letters in The Guardian for the big state visit.
posted by serafinapekkala on Nov 19, 2003 - 45 comments

"Now we know that no other President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably... The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything." So says Ray McGovern, who worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Now, who still believes the P(L)OTUS?
posted by acrobat on Nov 10, 2003 - 50 comments

President confirms denies confirms link between Iraq and terrorism! " The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction."

In other news, we're at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia... Food rations have jumped by 10%! Doubleplusgood!
posted by insomnia_lj on Sep 23, 2003 - 39 comments

$20,000 bonus to official who agreed on nuke claim A former Energy Department intelligence chief who agreed with the White House claim that Iraq had reconstituted its defunct nuclear-arms program was awarded a total of $20,500 in bonuses during the build-up to the war, WorldNetDaily has learned...His officers argued at a pre-briefing at Energy headquarters that there was no hard evidence to support the alarming Iraq nuclear charge, and asked to join State Department's dissenting opinion, Energy officials say. Rider ordered them to "shut up and sit down," according to sources familiar with the meeting.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly on Aug 13, 2003 - 22 comments

GOP Warns TV Stations Not to Air Ad Alleging Bush Mislead the Nation Over Iraq They claim that the ad itself is dishonest, and cite the obligation of broadcast outlets to be free of misleading information. “Such obligations must be taken seriously. This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement.” Despite the implicit threats, only one station has refused to run the ad, a Fox station.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly on Jul 23, 2003 - 74 comments

Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
posted by thedailygrowl on Jun 7, 2003 - 49 comments

Bush "will reveal the truth". But what truth is that? Where he says freedom, he means curtailing press freedoms. When he talks about restoring the dignity of a great nation, he means handpicking Iraq's new government. When he mentions WMD, he could be referring to two trailers lacking any biological agent inside and show no signs that they had been used to produce biological weapons, or alternatively, a swimming pool, a drinks distillery and a factory making car license plates. Curiously enough, it's not him but his pals who find themselves in awkward positions. Then again, maybe it is them who are bringing it onto themselves.
posted by magullo on Jun 6, 2003 - 47 comments

Paul Krugman writes that the Bush administration will fight a "khaki election" next year, taking advantage of the general good feeling after the Iraq war. The original khaki election was the British election of 1900, contested during the Boer War. Our armed forces don't really wear khaki so much anymore and I think we need a new term. I suggest calling 2004 the "Camo Election." Any better suggestions?
posted by Mekon on Jun 3, 2003 - 26 comments

Howard Dean writes about the Bush doctrine (and more) for Common Dreams.

"I am what is commonly referred to as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative."

In other words, he's not only about the war, it's the economy stupid.
posted by CrazyJub on Apr 19, 2003 - 17 comments

Richard Perle resigns the Defense Policy Board chairmanship. Richard Perle, after being accused of profiteering and conflict of interest, has resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Was this the real reason he resigned, or is the administration distancing itself from Perle due to his claims the Iraqis would be "dancing in the streets" after a US invasion, his links to an advocate for invading Saudi Arabia, or perhaps his call in the British press to get rid of the UN?
Don't start missing him yet, however. Perle will still remain on the Defense Policy board at Donald Rumsfeld's request.
posted by insomnia_lj on Mar 28, 2003 - 5 comments

Stan Goff puts it best in his anti-war article entitled "The Idiot Prince will have his war", outlining many of the logistical issues involved with waging war in Iraq, pointing a finger at a problem facing the United States that runs far deeper than the need for oil or the opposition of the United Nations. A fascinating and very chilling read.
posted by PWA_BadBoy on Mar 17, 2003 - 102 comments

The tide is turning. A new poll from the Pew Research Center indicates that the Bush Administration is losing support for a war against Iraq, with only 29% favoring war if U.N. inspectors fail to find weapons of mass destruction. Polls are looking considerably worse in Great Britain, where 47% of the public disapprove of an attack on Iraq, compared to just 30% in favor of such an attack. Blair is certain that he can get the British public to support war, however, even if Britain goes to war without U.N. support. "When and if that time came, people would find the reasons acceptable and satisfactory because there is no other route available to us."
posted by insomnia_lj on Jan 21, 2003 - 55 comments

Take your pick, Mr. Hussein. You have two choices: War or peace pumpkins.
posted by insomnyuk on Oct 7, 2002 - 31 comments

An Open Letter to Congress from the editors of The Nation. All the makings of a final plea.
posted by mooseindian on Sep 26, 2002 - 91 comments

In the new LRB, a pretty good attempt to answer the pressing question - why do the Bush people want to attack Iraq so much?
posted by Mocata on Sep 25, 2002 - 20 comments

Is Germany next on the list? Well, no, but the way the Bush administration approaches diplomacy needs some work. Is a war in Iraq worth "poisoning" America's relationship with the international community?
posted by elwoodwiles on Sep 23, 2002 - 30 comments

White House: Bush misstated report on Iraq A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed. 'What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report ,' The photograph in question was not U.N. intelligence imaging but simply a picture from a commercial satellite imaging company Did he think no one would notice?
posted by bas67 on Sep 7, 2002 - 32 comments

Iraq's Aziz Says U.S. Attack Would Fail This is a news story? What is the Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz supposed to say? "W. has been right all along, Saddam is a tyrant. We need to get him out. Even Saddam agrees he has gone to far." or "Now that you mention it, our military is a mess, the stuff we have bought is junk and your tanks will rip it to shreds."
posted by Coop on Aug 20, 2002 - 14 comments

The anticipation of war stirs uncertainty and puts people on edge, which is the way the country, already shaken by Sept. 11, is feeling these days. It is time for Mr. Bush to level with the nation about his intentions and to talk candidly about why he feels military action against Iraq may soon be necessary, and what the goals, costs and potential consequences of a war would be. (NYTimes, registration required)
posted by sudama on Aug 2, 2002 - 48 comments

Why , why, why? Bush vs. Saddam. Prequel to Desert Storm II.
posted by password on Jun 16, 2002 - 60 comments

While W is off building the case for a war against Saddam, senior military officials have serious doubts about the wisdom of a US invasion of Iraq. But they're keeping quiet because "they fear they would come out on the wrong side of Bush's eventual decision." Can you blame 'em?
posted by dack on May 23, 2002 - 41 comments