July 12, 2003

"The president considers the matter closed and wants

Rove could have not asked anything more from the
NYTwits than what they gave him this morning -- on the
front page, CIA Diector George TooNice (as in, "Oh ou
are too nice!") takes the blame for the Niger Uranium
lie, and next to it, a color photo of the _resident
smiling with adorable African children dressed in
their tribal best to great the visitng warlord and
under it a caption equating Bush's name with fighting
AIDS in Africa (another big lie, BTW). Rove could not
have asked anything more from SeeNotNews last night,
in its report on TooNice's lie to rescue the _resident
from his lie, SeeNotNews chose a headline that quoted
TooNice as caricaturizing the LIE as "just 16 words."
Well, Mr. TooNice, it is NOT "just 16 words," it is
200+ US solders' lives (and counting), or as Rumsfeld
would say "just 200+ US soldiers lives." Lies, in the
_resident case, translate into lives, i.e.
deaths(unlike Clinton's lie, which translated into a
perversion of the impeachment clause in the US
Constitution for partisan political gain by the
right). Rove could not have asked for more from SeeBS,
after getting out of control and using the word
"FALSE," shocking everyone and almost leading to
everything becoming unstuck, they quickly pulled
themselves to together and changed "FALSE" to
"Exaggerated" and then finally settleed on the even
vaguer "dubious." What a disgrace all around. Now the
_resident has declared the matter closed, "move on."
Well, the Niger-Uranium lie is not the only one (just
as the Watergate plumbers was the begining of the
scandal not its sum total), although the "US
mainstream news media" will desperately try to make it
so, so they do not have anymore sleepless nights like
those SeeBS executives and producers must have had
Thursday night. Or did they lose any sleep? Patriots,
the "US mainstream media" is craven, and addicted, it
could still change but it would have to understand its
problem and want to change. BTW, Terry McCauliffe and
the Democratic National Committee have been feirce on
this issue. There is a devastating TV spot on the
site. It should have been aired and talked about by
the propapunditgandists. Instead, it will be ignored
and the Democrats will be attacked for not standing
for anything. If you stand up for something and no one
sees you stand up have you stood up? Here is the truth
about the "US news mainstream news media" and the
White House, from the extraordinary
www.mediawhoresonline.com. Oh, BTW, the site was
unreachable yesterday. Another little glimpse into our
future. "Long Live Big Brother!" (Or in this case,
"Long Live Little Brother!")


Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
July 12, 2003

Memo: SOTU Matter Closed.

"The president considers the matter closed and wants
to move on."

- Ari Fleischer

Got that, NY Times? Wash Post? CNNFOXMSNBCABCNBCCBS?

The Littlest King has declared the matter of his
deliberately lying to the American people in his State
of the Union speech closed. He "wants to move on."
(For the slower among you, that means you are now to
"move on.") All further inquiry will be noted in the
building, and will be answered by our informing the
questioner: "The American People trust this president
[blah blah blah]..." thus, making the rogue reporter
appear not only at odds with "The American People,"
but unpatriotic.

However, in the event any of your colleagues do ask
additional questions requiring further stonewalling,
you are permitted to continue to write with "grudging
admiration" about White House "discipline" in staying
"on message" and "handling" the news media



Public support for President Bush has dropped sharply
amid growing concerns about mounting U.S. military
casualties and doubts whether the war with Iraq was
worth fighting, according to a new Washington Post-ABC
News poll.


New statements, paraphrased:

George Tenet: I should have insisted on removing a
deceptive line the White House pressured us to allow
into the SOTU speech over my agency's objections.

George W. Bush: I still have confidence in Tenet,
even though he betrayed my regime by allowing us to
tell the lie we pressured his agency to allow us to
tell. Case closed.

Will this fly?

Was Tenet's statement "arranged" between the White
House and CIA the same way the SOTU was arranged? Is
it all just another skirmish between two incompetent
political entities ultimately resulting in yet another
agreed-upon deception perpetrated by the Bush Regime
against the American people and the truth?

The Tenet statement concludes:

Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came
to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was
given. Various parts were shared with cognizant
elements of the Agency for review. Although the
documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium
deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries,
officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on
uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary
nature of the intelligence with National Security
Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed.
From what we know now, Agency officials in the end
concurred that the text in the speech was factually
correct — i.e. that the British government report said
that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not
have been the test for clearing a Presidential
address. This did not rise to the level of certainty
which should be required for Presidential speeches,
and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

Several questions arise. Most obviously - What is
this statement supposed to remedy? All Tenet has done
is tell us what the news reports have told us, and
essentially suggest, "Blame me, not the Unelected

And this part of the statement raises more questions:

Some of the language was changed. From what we know
now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the
text in the speech was factually correct — i.e. that
the British government report said that Iraq sought
uranium from Africa.

The Unelected Fraud didn't say, "A British government
report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."
The Unelected Fraud said, "The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa" - an
even more deceptive statement, suggesting an
additional degree of certainty regarding the soundness
of the information.

Is Tenet simply paraphrasing in a quickly-drafted
statement? Or, did the CIA sign off on a more
factually correct and less misleading statement that
"the British government report said" that Iraq sought
uranium from Africa? Was it later changed to "the
British government has learned," and if so, by whom?

Both versions would be egregiously misleading, of
course - as additional relevant information about the
CIA's problems with the British government report was
deliberately withheld from the American people. But
who can put it past this regime not only to knowingly
make a dubious claim as they have done, but to
misrepresent to the CIA reviewers the degree to which
they intended to deceive when making the uranium

When will the White House release copies of the drafts
seen by the CIA, and the revisions along the way to
the final draft?

"United Front Unravels"...
"Pandora's Box" opening...
"Brewing Political Scandal"...
"Gathering Storm"...

Posted by richard at July 12, 2003 12:44 PM