Unfreakinbelievable.

Wait, I take that back. Very believable. And the democrat party doesn't even have to pay these liars. They lie for them willingly.

The one amazing thing is that with all the outrageous lies & bias by the MSM, the GOP still manages to win most of the time. If the MSM was fair and balanced, I'd venture to say the democrat party would be history altogether.

Thank God most Americans are still smarter than the liberal MSM thinks they are.

That was one breathless read at the John Locke(sic) Foundation, perhaps to overshadow (by "mind-boggled" OUTRAGE) the fact that the substance remains unchanged. These war wienies being dissected now, were PEGGED almost immediately! http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe080703.html As for the Inspector General: he was testifying on C-SPAN today. There was NO good news for Fox to report. OBVIOUSLY! (I'm sure they could have pushed Anna Nicole's fat cadaver aside if there were!)

Umm, more likely, everyone quoted from the same Levin report, which apparently didn't adequately attribute the quotes. Seems a more likely explanation than COLLUSION!

Re-reading my own link, I note Elizabeth Cheney "in the loop" for our immoral war. Now where did I put my Turkey Baster Jokes book?

Jo,

The "outrageous lie" that you refer to was an incorrectly attributed quote that said the Feith report was of "dubious quality or reliability.", supposidly made by Acting Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble.

The actual summary by Gimble stated that the Feith report contained "alternative intelligence assessments on Iraq and Al Qaida relations" that were "inconsistent" with the intelligence community's consensus view in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq." Furthermore Gimble stated that the actions taken by Feith with the authorization of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were legal but "the actions, in our opinion, were inappropriate."

One of the work products from Feith and his team was a briefing entitled "Iraq and al-Qaeda: Making the Case". The CIA screened the briefing when it was ready, and disagreed with 50% of the report, and agreed or only partialy agreed with the remainder.

This was one of the big justifications for going into Iraq, and was presented to the American people as fact.

Basicaly, what happened is the Administration directed their political officer to create briefings supporting the Administrations point of view, which was then presented back to that Administration and then presented to the American people as fact.

No "Outrageous Lies" in the MSM reporting however. Quote got misattributed, but the Feith reports were certainly of dubious quality or reliability. We went to war and we're blowing 500 billion dollars over this.

Should you not be more concerned about that?

John, were you a fly on the wall. None of the investigations have turned up anything close to your lies. A lying congressman twisted the facts on purpose and the inept media jumper the shark and published his lies as fact. Now they are publishing corrections and some of the facts. Of course the original story was in big block letters and the correction will require bi-focals to read. Surely someone will loan you a pair.

I've always wondered why anyone would walk into a room full of people and open fire with several weapons for what seemed like nothing. Now I know, they were dealing with lying left wing politician (aka dhimmi communist) bast***s and killing them was the only way to get rid of them. Just like a hero in war, they made the sacrafice and served a prison sentence.

Well, ScrapIron, you are clearly off your meds today.

The correction was that Gimble did not say the Feith report was of dubious quality or reliability. Gimble said that the report was inconsistent with the intelligence community's consensus and the administration policy decisions that produced that report were inappropriate.

Oooooh, boy. That really changes everything, doesn't it?

The investigation by Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble turned up exactly what I state above. You can read about it pretty much anywhere, or you can follow this link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17077437/

PS: Don't shoot people. It's not nice.

The Left, of course, would prefer to have relied solely upon the CIA analysts' views, which included the conclusion that Saddam's WMDs were a "slam dunk."

The same folks who missed: Castro's embrace of communism instead of democracy, the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the Tet offensive in Vietnam, the Indian bomb, the Iranian Revolution, the Pakistani bomb, the Israeli bomb, the South African bomb, the Libyan bomb program, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Soviet Empire, the North Korean bomb, etc., & etc.

Yes, God forbid any alternative look at their analysis!

Yes, God forbid any alternative look at their analysis!

An alternative look that is based on what? The first look was based on an analysis of the facts, analyzed by the vast and myriad intelligence resources of the United States. Just who exactly would you say is qualified, and what resources should be used, to come up with an "alternative look"?

Actually, you may have a point. I used to think it appropriate that mortgage companies would base approval decisions on an analysis of one's employment, salary, tax returns, and credit history. But now I think they should discard that information and bring in the president of the mortgage company to execute the "alternative look" approach.

The Left, of course, would prefer to have relied solely upon the CIA analysts' views,

Yes, absolutely. Because the CIA's analysis did not conclude that Saddam had WMD.

which included the conclusion that Saddam's WMDs were a "slam dunk."

Nope. It wasn't the CIA analysts who came to that conclusion. That was just Tenet misrepresenting his own agency's findings, likely an effort to give Bush what he asked for.

By the way, given that you brought Castro and Vietnam into the thread, be prepared to be attacked for going off-topic. They're really cracking down on that around here.

...the GOP still manages to win most of the time.

Few too many shots tonight Jo? Besides losing the popular vote in 3 of the last 4 presidential elections this is the rest of the Republicans sorry record:

Governorships
Dem 28 56%
Rep 22 44%

State Legislatures Controlled
Dem 56 57%
Rep 40 41%

State Legislature Seats
Dem 3964 54.5%
Rep 3307 45.5%

US House Seats
Dem 230 54%
Rep 196 46%

Senate Total Votes
Dem 32.8mil 55%
Rep 25.4mil 42%

Contested US Senate Seats in 2006
Dem 24 72%
Rep 9 28%

Get a grip on reality Jo. Your side is losing, not winning. Republicans lose MOST of the time.

Larkin, Explain how democrats being in the complete MINORITY for the last 6 years straight translates to Republicans losing most of the time?

Then maybe you can explain why democrats engage in election fraud two years before an election?

Rob, you should worry about where the country is going, instead of where it has been...On all the important issues: Iraq, global warming, transparency in government, science, and health care, the country is going one way and the the Republican Imperial Vice-Presidency, behind Bush is going the other.

Steve, are you reading right out of your lefty handbook or do you quote it from memory? Very boring. Something I have never read before. Not.
ww

Lorie

This posting by Jon Ham via you Lorie is a fine example of the extremist RWB's trying to get out in front of the full impact of the DoD's IG report reflecting that Feith's OSP was determinedly developing counter-evidence to deliberately support what Cheney wanted: a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida, whether there was one or not. And unlike the lame rightwingnut claim that everyone including Clinton, various foreign nations, the Congres, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and even Abraham Lincoln, not to mention Mother Goose and the BVM, all believed that Saddam had WMD, it was essentially the stand-alone OSP making the manufactured assessment that there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida.

All the uproar over some misattributed quotes that actually came from Levin do not diminish the significance of what the IG report says in the least.

One can only wonder what the full classified report shows.

One can be fairly certain that the full classified report has been classified, not to prevent the enemy from seeing vital intelligence, but to keep the American people from seeing what Bush & Cheney did to maneuver this country into war under the falsest of pretenses.

There is already enough info out in the public realm that there should be full public Congressional investigations into exactly what was done in the run-up to Bush's disastrous war
of choice.

Sorry Lorie, but all the screeching from your extremist right wingnuts is not going to distract this nation much longer.

Brian:

By the way, given that you brought Castro and Vietnam into the thread, be prepared to be attacked for going off-topic. They're really cracking down on that around here.

That only applies to us "trolls" (read: people who disagree with the flat-earth perspectives expressed by wizbang regulars and sympathizers.) Everybody else can do as they please -- which is consistent with neocon values.

Or, in other words, aRepukelican doesn't mind that the original Washington Post article was faked - he just cares that it said what he wanted to read.

OhioVoter

The original WaPo article was no more faked than the Washington Chymes articles about Pelosi's planes.

BTW your reference to my alleged misogyny on the other thread simply overlooks the old SNL Chevy Chase/Jane Curtin routine where Chase always retorted to Jane Curtin with. "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

In this case, Jo is ignorant, abominably so. As to her morals, I make no assumptions.

As for the nuances in the Inspector General's report that the press incorrectly attributed,(that it is worthy of a reprimand) However, the Inspector General wrote: Feith's "alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community, to senior decision-makers." This to the senior decision maker(Bush) who had peresumably been briefed on Feith's report, and who declared in December 2002" that in

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive"..

When you can't distinguish between Al Queda and Saddam, or between Shiites and Sunnis (as Bush couldn't then) what will be the consequences of such ignorance when you invade and occupy that country? Exactly what were seeing now, where there are about 4 or 5 insoluble conflicts going on simultaneously. On the bar of consequence, incompetence and bias, Lorie holds the press with their deadlines to meet, to a much higher standard than she does to our our president, for whom ignorance ( of the enemy) was bliss and sacred, and for whom, with Cheney, the Feith report would have been red meat.

I know exactly where the Country is going if evil is allowed to prevail, a place we have already been , back to the hell and corruption of another criminal democrat President.

"On all the important issues: Iraq, global warming, transparency in government, science, and health care,"

Iraq? real issue , Democrats can't deal with

Global Warming? Ha! A Farce pushed by Democrats to take focus off real issues , issues Democrats are too incompetant and inexperienced to deal with.

Transparency in Government? Only when democrats are in the Minority do they aid and abbet the enemy and work together to undermine Our President and his Party in a time of war to take back control at the same time. Spare me, the criminals in the democrat party still remain don't they? Ya , Not only do they get re-elected , many get a promotion.

Science? What about it? Oh you mean the attempted use of science to deceive the people?

Health Care? You mean Communism right? Big Government? Give us your vote and we'll give you Health Care(shitty) Social Security(ponzi scheme)? no thanks.

Democrats care about health care as much as they care about our Soldiers. Which means they don't , period. Democrats are criminal frauds who only care about themselves. The fact that they continue to try and push their failed and Rejected HilaryCare down our throats is proof positive they give a shit about our health.

The farce that is "Global Warming" being the greatest threat we face today is a load of crap. A smoke screen to divert attention away from massive democrat failures to confront and fix Social Security and entitlement reform. "PAID VOTES"

Democrats are running out of things that they can pretend to care about. They must rely on their Media to work 24/7 and tell blatant lies to get them back in Power. Not to mention working in tandem with our enemy. Our enemies have openly admitted helping the Democrats win and still less honest that our enemy is the democrat party.

aRepukelican,

Or, in other words, you are fine with a faked article if it says what you want to hear.

The original Washington Post article stated that the quotes came from the IG's report. They did not, BUT you have no problem with that and don't consider it "faked".

Your response does nothing but confirm my original statement.

As to the old SNL skit, I am well familiar with it in its original form. It's brilliance is in the unexpected use of the term.

However, since you consistently refer to women who have the temerity to disagree with you as harlots, etc, the your reference to Jo as a "slut" was hardly unexpected. It is simply 'business as usual" for you.

"or between Shiites and Sunnis (as Bush couldn't then) what will be the consequences of such ignorance when you invade and occupy that country? Exactly what were seeing now, where there are about 4 or 5 insoluble conflicts going on simultaneously."

Are you going to try and pass these shameless lies as opinion?

Why don't you give a name to your 4-5 alledged insoluble conflicts.

"The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

Wrongly sourced quotes do nothing to diminish the conclusions reached by the IG. Throw up all the smoke you want, but this report, along with the Libby trial revelations about the lengths to which Cheney et al, went to in their attempt to discredit and damage Wilson and Plame shown increasingly clear picture of the pre-invasion planning. The White Hose was desperate to misrepresent the accuracy of intel. They knew damn well much of it was BS and were in crisis mode to prevent anyone from getting a look behind the curtain at the people pulling the strings.

Groucho, you and the rest of Jerry's kids should really STFU. You are forever on the record as being liars and frauds and it's all in writing on the WEB.
You losers never tire of reinventing your lies to cover previous lies etc.

"went to in their attempt to discredit and damage Wilson and Plame?

You retarded shit for brain, what part of "WILSON IS A TWICE PROVEN LIAR" don't you understand?

You and your lying sleeper cell buddies should have your tongues cut off the same way they cut off the hand of a thief in Saudi Arabia. I realize you all are getting very impatient and antsy not having heard or seen your leader Osama for some years. You have made so much progress learning the english language while waiting for your cell to activated. That must explain why you come here to unleash your hit and run verbal displays of utter stupidity with your pathetic little circle jerk bombs to pester the adults at this sight.

I don't think your going to hear from the tall bearded stick man so you should get a life or blow yourselves up already.

Bwahahahahahahahah ...

The libbies are here en masse today because they HATE it when they hear the media has done their bidding for them and they have been BUSTED.

Face it. You guys need the big ole media helping out like a parent who does his child's homework for him. Yet with all that help, they STILL whine about "unfairness" 24/7.

Like I said before, Dear God, please give back the liberal's male genitalia. I've never seen such (insert Amanda-the-blogger type language here).....

Good times, good times.

Trip down memory lane:

"Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. . . . They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them . . . that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."

Evan Thomas of Newsweek
Summer 2004

The only humorous part of that statement was when he said "I think" about the MSM wanting Kerry to win. Ya Think??? bwhahahahah..

Anyway, point is, Bush still won by over 3 million votes and we kept the House & Senate.

But keep on calling up daddy (MSM) to do your heavy lifting. Lord knows you need help.

Good times, good times.

"John" what school was it you went to? Or did you "forget" to tell us? Which "media" outlet was it you worked for"
"pukeface" knows why he is called PUKEFACE.

From the New York Times :

THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT

Published: July 25, 2004

Of course it is.
...
Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.
...

Wrongly sourced quotes do nothing to diminish the conclusions reached by the IG. Throw up all the smoke you want, but this report, along with the Libby trial revelations about the lengths to which Cheney et al, went to in their attempt to discredit and damage Wilson and Plame shown increasingly clear picture of the pre-invasion planning. The White Hose was desperate to misrepresent the accuracy of intel. They knew damn well much of it was BS and were in crisis mode to prevent anyone from getting a look behind the curtain at the people pulling the strings.

Have you followed the Libby trial AT ALL?

Fitz' case...well, it's not going well. Already had one charge dismissed and the prosecution was hardly impressive in their presentation.
-=Mike

The original Washington Post article stated that the quotes came from the IG's report. They did not, BUT you have no problem with that and don't consider it "faked".

A quote that actually existed but was misattributed, and then later corrected, is "faked"? Man, you sure are desperate.

The libbies are here en masse today because they HATE it when they hear the media has done their bidding for them and they have been BUSTED.

Actually, the word you're looking for is "vindicated". I LOVE the media for reporting on the IG report! It leaves the right nowhere to go, except to whine, "yes, we did misrepresent the facts, but there was no law against doing that!"

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Exactly what were seeing now, where there are about 4 or 5 insoluble conflicts going on simultaneously."

"Are you going to try and pass these shameless lies as opinion?

Why don't you give a name to your 4-5 alledged insoluble conflicts."

Posted by: Rob LA Ca. at February 10, 2007 10:38 AM

Okay Rob..I will take you up.

"What I have said in my testimony is that I think that the words "civil war" oversimplify a very complex situation in Iraq. I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq.
One is Shi'a on Shi'a, principally in the south; the second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad, but not solely; third is the insurgency; and fourth is al Qaeda, and al Qaeda is attacking, at times, all of those targets." Before you question the bias of this authority you might look at at the source..

Libs need to ask themselves: If the media isn't biased towards the left, why do you all defend them so much?

LOL.

I just love to watch the libs get their panties (and I include liberal men when I say panties) in a wad because they know full well the media is their sugar daddy, and they still struggle to win elections.

Yeeeeeehaw.

A quote that actually existed but was misattributed, and then later corrected, is "faked"? Man, you sure are desperate.

Another person voting for "fake" information.

Brian, if the point of your argument is "the IG said ..." and the IG DIDN'T say it what your articles claims that he/she did, your article is fake.

What I don't understand is this ... Anyone who TRULY cares about information being correct and accurate should disclaim the WashPost article for being poorly sourced and written. If someone does that, then they have demonstrated that they are truly concerned about accuracy REGARDLESS of who is telling the story.

However, if you defend all the inaccuracies in the press as "fake but true", then you aren't concerned about accuracy - you are concerned about winning a partisian contest.

Therefore the "OTHER" person lied (not was mistaken, but LIED) while those on your side of the aisle were simply "guilable". (Not the greatest campaign slogan, BTW, - "Vote for me - I was too stupid to know better.') And, you don't care how much the truth has to be stretched to get your viewpoint heard.

Ohiovoter,
My hat to you for your logic and analysis. But the liberals like Brian, aRep-communist agent, Lee, etc... are not concerned about honesty or accuracy. Otherwise, they wouldn't have participated, enabled, and promoted a known liar like Wilson and his wife. The liberals rewarded their liars. Their mode of operation is "fake but accurate".
They are desperately trying to cover up the own dishonesty. They are projecting their mode of operation on others.
Just look at the evidence, the liberals here are either ignorant/dumb or simply dishonest. Wilson can lie according to liberals, but Cheney and Co. cannot counter their lies. This is the common tactic the liberals have used to smear the US and anyone who are willing to fight the enemies of America. The liberals will ignore or even excuse the mass murderers or the terrorists who cut off people 's heads in cold blood. When the US military responded to these cold blooded killers, the liberals will find every mistake (using the perfection fallacy) to smear them.

Bush and Cheney simply repeated what Clinton adm and the Dem leaders have repeated said about Saddam, WMD, and the threat of terrorism. aRep may be too dumb to know the facts and history. Brian is simply too dishonest to engage in an honest debate. He is simply here to lie and spin for the liberals. However, we need to acknowledge that Bush did make one big mistake in this war: he didn't prepare for the propaganda the Dems/liberals is willing to wage to attack him for partisan gain. They stoop so low that they are willing to do that even it will aid the enemies. That 's why liberal behaviors in general are so despicable.

About the liberal press, they are nothing but a leftist propaganda organization. I don't expect truth from them in any case. I expect lies, distortion, cover-up etc... I do have very low expectation for the press and liberals in general now. They haven't disappointed me yet.

Brian, if the point of your argument is "the IG said ..." and the IG DIDN'T say it what your articles claims that he/she did, your article is fake.

No, the article was mistaken. Every newspaper runs "corrections". Do you perceive every article that had a single correction as then being completely invalidated as "fake"? If an article about a person includes the wrong photo of that person (later corrected), then that makes the content of the article "fake"?

You are being disingenuous (and "fake") if you're going to argue that a newspaper attributing a quote to the wrong person somehow completely invalidates the underlying report the article was based on.

But if you insist on dismissing Levin's quote since it was misattributed, go right ahead. You can't dismiss the rest of the report, which is far more harsh.