Poor Little Eleanor
She’s writing with half her brain tied behind her back again. And it isn’t flattering. Let’s take a look at her babblings:
President Bush promised to restore honor and dignity to the White House. It was a not-so-veiled reference to the indiscretions of his predecessor. Bush relied on the trust that stemmed from his supposedly higher character to take the nation to war, a war we have since learned was waged on mostly made-up intelligence.
Ms. Clift’s not-so-veiled inference is that the Bush Administration is more immoral and scandal-ridden than Bill Clinton’s scandal-a-week Administration. Nobody in their right mind thinks that. If you need proof, just look at Ms. Clift and try arguing she’s in her right mind.
Lewis (Scooter) Libby’s claim that it was the president who authorized the leaking of classified information for political gain may not mean that Bush did anything illegal, but it sure strips away the last fig leaf of his moral standing. It places the president at the center of a schoolyard fight to bully retired ambassador Joseph Wilson into shutting up about the administration’s lies that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Africa. Wilson had traveled to Niger and reported back to the CIA that the claim was false, yet Bush made the alleged purchase a centerpiece of his case for war.
It must be impossible for Ms. Clift to admit that Wilson lied about Bush lying. Here’s what FactCheck.org, a research facility at the definitely not conservative University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center said about Bush’s infamous 16 words:
The “16 words” in Bush’s State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.
The Butler report said British intelligence had “credible” information — from several sources — that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa†was well-founded.
Then there’s this:
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or “yellowcake.” That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.
Last but not least, let’s not forget this:
The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn’t likely to happen.
Nice try, Mr. Wilson, but that isn’t what the President’s 16 words claimed. Here’s what he said:
Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
So it seems that President Bush never claimed that Iraq had bought yellowcake, just that he tried buying it. The difference matters.
Needless to say, Ms. Clift’s initial premise is destroyed. And that’s before I demolish her saying that the President authorized the ‘leaking’ of classified information. That’s like Laurence Wilkerson’s claiming that the “Vice President had hijacked” U.S. foreign policy from a two bit bureaucrat. Right Larry. It’s the bureaucrats that the Constitution puts in charge of setting foreign policy.
The President didn’t authorize a leak. He declassified the NIE and put it out on the web for the entire world to read. And he took responsibility for doing that.
By definition, leaking involves someone secretly and/or anonymously dispersing information without proper authorization. It’s impossible for Ms. Clift to successfully argue that the President did this secretly or without proper authorization. Frankly, if she wants to argue that, I’ll gladly make her look like an idiot every time on that. Without an effort even.
SIDENOTE: Frankly, it’s astonishing how journalists like Ms. Clift either don’t know anything about the Constitution’s enumeration of authorities or their reckless disregard for the Constitution. It’s journalism like this that’s driving people away from the NY Times and the network news in droves. It’s also what’s made the Right Blogosphere the prosperous powerhouse that it is.
The leak set in motion the chain of events that led to the unmasking of Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife, as an undercover CIA officer who had been working for an energy-related front company while investigating nuclear proliferation. It is a serious crime to reveal the identity of a covert operative, and Bush called for a criminal investigation to “get to the bottom†of the scandal. It turns out he may be the bottom.
Again, Ms. Clift’s cluelessness is staggering. If she can’t figure out that President Bush didn’t authorize the leaking of Mrs. Wilson’s name, then she needs to get a life. Or at least get a clue.
As for Mrs. Wilson being a covert operative, please don’t argue that. If you do, I won’t be able to stop laughing. The Chicago Tribune ran a series of articles on how ‘covert’ she was. In their series, they said she was registered at an embassy, something that CIA operatives never do. They don’t register anywhere because the Russians check out everyone assigned to embassies.
I know throwing words around like “leaking classified documents” and “covert CIA operative” sounds mysterious or intriguing but they don’t have a place in responsible journalism. Unfortunately, Ms. Clift’s columns aren’t responsible journalism. They never were. Think of it this way: She’s the ‘youthful’ version of Helen Thomas.
Technorati Tags: Eleanor Clift, Newsweek, Joe Wilson, FactCheck.org
Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog
April 8th, 2006 at 1:57 am
Well if prostitution is a profession, so is journalism. 100% political hack is Ms. Clift. Overwhelming evidence contraty to what flows from her keyboard. Total denial flows from her “brain”.
And the diagnosis is Bush Derangement Syndrome. Delusional. Psychiatric. 95% of the MSM is affected as well as leading Dim politicians.
Great material for Rove to work with, let’s pray he does so. My main beef with W is he doesn’t spend enough time effectively countering these Dims.
April 8th, 2006 at 6:42 am
It is you who needs to get a clue. Why don’t you think a little more rigorously and widely about what Bush & Co. are doing in the world and whether you really want to support it as a ‘conservative.’
Your ‘conservative’ president unilaterally launched a war in the most volatile region of the planet without knowing that there were these groups, see, of Sunnis and Shiites, whose ethnic tensions could produce a genocidal civil war. He didn’t know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, or that they didn’t get along.
Why you continue to support this guy who launched a stupid war that has killed uncounted thousands of people, and instead selectively quote documents to attack Eleanor Clift, is mindbogglingly sad.
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_iraqwar.htm
Peter Galbraith - former U.S. diplomat: January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, “You mean…they’re not, you know, there, there’s this difference. What is it about?”
April 8th, 2006 at 6:51 am
CLB, You’d do well to read Christopher Hitchens’ article on how Sunnis, Kurds and Shia intermarry all the time. And Hitchens is one of the foremost, if not the foremost authority on Iraq and their people. And he isn’t a Bushie. He agrees with Bush on the war and nothing else. He’s an old-time lefty who is a bigtime friend of Salman Rushdie.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Gosh, I wish I was as educated and wise as clb72. I guess I was just too dumb to pick up on the public education pap that was spoon-fed when I went through the system, and then had the gall to question authority when the authority was a liberal college professor feeding me more pap.
I wonder how that garbage gets filtered through brains never taught to compare reality with theory, that never learned to discriminate between PC crap that says all actions are equal as opposed to the Constitution that says all men are created equal (implying that what you do with that equal creation is what separates the winners from the losers).
This guy really needs to get a clue.
April 8th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Um…only the kool-aid drinkers fail to see that bush is in deep trouble and will be lucky to finish his second term.
By the time he is out of office, blow jobs in the oval office will seem quaint and not such a terrible thing afterall.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
What sad responses from you all. Gary, you seem to suggest that there is no ethnic strife in Iraq. Shiites and Sunnis intermarry? Okay, fine, that’s a sign of hope. So that Sunni bombing of the Buratha mosque this week, which killed over 80 people, was a marital spat?
Carlos, your ‘criticism’ has no content. It requires no response. But as a point of agreement, I went to public school too and support its continued funding, unlike the Republican party.
Gary, I guess you point out Christopher Hitchens as an example of a lefty who supports the war in Iraq. Guess what- lots of conservatives oppose the war in Iraq. Here’s one who opposed it when Bill Clinton was president.
http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm
Here are two speeches by Republican congressmen on the House floor opposing the war:
http://www.antiwar.com/av/?articleid=6824
What I really don’t get is why you conservatives would favor the Iraq war. I would have a coalition of nations that would intervene to protect a country from a murderous dictator and help support democracy. But that hasn’t generally been the conservative line. The problem is, the government we have has neither the will nor the operational intelligence to make that happen. They aren’t funding those things, only security.
I guess the question you have to ask yourself is: What do you really want, and when did you start wanting it?
April 8th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Um, I was under the impression a kool-aid drinker kinda tended to moonbat politics. You know, the kind that says everyone else pays for everything I want.
GW is in deep trouble, no doubt. But the two things he’s got going for him are that the donkeys are scared to death of Cheney and won’t get rid of GW for that reason, and the elephants are scared to death of anything a donkey would do in office, like start a war (Bosnia) to get people to forget what kind of a sleazebag he is), or wring his hands and wonder why the Iranians are so mean to their hostages (although I have to admit, he did try to gain the hostages release by boring the Iranians to death with his talking).
Guess we’re stuck with the status quo ’til January 09.
As a side note, GW makes me sick with some of his policies (e.g., ILLEGAL immigration and no vetoes for out-of-control-spending, including medicare/social security), but at least he doesn’t come out and cheer for the destruction of America at the hands of terrorists, unlike a few of senators from NY, CA and MA.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
“After that, the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for the 15 agencies that then constituted the U.S. intelligence community. Did Iraq and Niger discuss a uranium sale, or not? If they had, the Pentagon would need to reconsider its ties with Niger.
“The council’s reply, drafted in a January 2003 memo by the national intelligence officer for Africa, was unequivocal: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Four U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that the memo, which has not been reported before, arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html
Lies, all lies.
April 9th, 2006 at 5:47 am
The actual words President Bush spoke: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” suggests that his source was British intelligence and not the forged documents.[2] However, the Administration has admitted that the claim was “a mistake.” The Butler Report issued after a review by the British government concluded that the report Saddam’s government was seeking uranium in Africa was credible. Nevertheless, the Butler report fails to advance any evidence to substantiate this conclusion. Furthermore, the Butler report concluded that “The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it,”[3]which again could not be verified. Further, the Financial Times released a story in the summer of 2004, indicating a “strong belief” among European intelligence communities that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger (June 28. 2004). Again, no proof is shown for this claim. In any case, French intelligence had repeatedly warned the Bush administration a year before his State of the Union address that the allegation could not be supported with evidence.[4]
In January 2006, the New York Times revealed the existence of a memo which stated that the suggestion of uranium being sold was “unlikely” because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles. The memo, dated March 4, 2002, was distributed at senior levels by the office of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and by the Defense Intelligence Agency.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery
April 9th, 2006 at 5:49 am
It seems all the “proof” on the accuracy of Bush’s statement is just based on more spin.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Great job ! Please add me on msn at juancarlo345@hotmail.com so we can chat together !!