|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
by Rational Normal Person
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 4:03 AM
But those words helped launch a thousand ships and a few hundred thousand U.S. men and women to Iraq, some to their deaths. Now, it's clear not only that the information was incorrect but that people at several levels of the administration knew it to be incorrect before the 16 words were uttered.
Posted on Wed, Jul. 16, 2003
SORRY, BUSH BACKERS: 16 WORDS STILL MATTER
BY DAVIS MERRITT
In its efforts to free itself from the painful horns of the African uranium dilemma, the White House has dusted off one old saying and is in the process of creating a new one.
Needing somebody to fall on his sword, the administration revived that old saw "Let George do it." That would be George Tenet, the CIA chief who also happens to be a rare holdover from the previous Democratic administration and therefore expendable.
The president's talk-show minions faced a tough task over the weekend: How to minimize the heat flow from an unfortunate and untrue sentence in his State of the Union address --"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- without actually admitting that the president, under the kindest possible interpretation, didn't know what he was talking about.
The two-pronged strategy: Hoist up Ol' George Tenet to twist in the wind and keep referring to the offending sentence as "those 16 words," as if they were obviously unimportant among all the thousands of other actually important and honest words.
In a three-minute segment of one Sunday show, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice used the phrase six times, always accompanying it with an undertone of polite ridicule, implying, "How on Earth could anyone attach any real importance to only 16 words?"
But those words helped launch a thousand ships and a few hundred thousand U.S. men and women to Iraq, some to their deaths. Now, it's clear not only that the information was incorrect but that people at several levels of the administration knew it to be incorrect before the 16 words were uttered.
Most good people in the public-relations business learned a long time ago that when you're caught dead to rights, admit it, fix it, and move on. But that's not the page the president's people are reading in the political manual. They're still on the page about re-election at all costs.
So we're subtly told not to worry about 16 little ol' words. Forget it, we're told. How can so few words be really important?
Let's see:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." (13 words)
"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." (14)
"That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states." (15)
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal... of landing a man on the moon." (19)
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...." (15)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth...." (16)
Ah, and here's an apt one:
"Who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?" (14)
Oh, and....
"I... do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States...." (18)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis Merritt is a former editor of The Eagle. Reach him at bmerritt@southwind.net.
www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/6310488.htm
Report this post as:
by Rational Normal Person
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 4:14 AM
""launch a thousand ships ""
The names of these thousand ships is not given in the article.....
""a few hundred thousand U.S. men and women ""
2,3,4,5 how many is a "few" hundred thousand??????
""it's clear not only that the information was incorrect ""
and we see that the information about a thousand ships and a few hundred thousand U.S. men and women is incorrect also....
DON'T TRY TO EXPOSE LIES BY WRITING AN ARTICLE FULL OF "INACCURACIES" (Lies......)
Oh well.... I guess it is OK to lie and mis-represent facts to suit your own political agenda if you are against the government.
Report this post as:
by Diogenes
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 12:51 PM
If you are AGAINST George Bush committing MASS MURDER they your are FOR Saddam.
What dishonest Bull Shit.
PR PR PR.
Babble on BA it is tremendously amusing to watch the contorted rationales come and go and come and go and come and go....
Report this post as:
by Logician
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 12:58 PM
Diogenes,
There are two choices:
1) Saddam rules Iraq
2) Saddam is removed from power
By default, if you don't support #2, you support #1.
Report this post as:
by spaz
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 1:06 PM
logic doesn't have an either or solution.
It involves real world variables.
3rd grade reasoning is not logic.
Report this post as:
by Bush Admirer
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 1:48 PM
You are exactly correct Logician.
Those are the only options.
You can choose to remain a virgin, or to get laid. You cannot do both (unless your name is Clinton in which case who knows?).
Report this post as:
by Jen
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 4:42 PM
Okay so maybe that's just the same thing, silly old me. I don't support Bush. I also know that Saddam is bad. But I still don't support Bush. I don't think you can say "if this then this" without looking at a person's reasoning and their ideas for an alternative solution, if they have any. There are rarely any totally black and white matters although they get closer to that as you eliminate possibilities and move toward a solution. There is, though, a point of no return. I think that we reached it through every fault of our own. You can't say "Well he has to take repsonsibility for this" and then go fuck up a lot of people and their home and say "If he hadn't X then I wouldn't have Y."
Report this post as:
by Rational Normal Person
Tuesday, Jul. 22, 2003 at 3:30 AM
I posted the article then commented on it. You just shot your mouth off.
The "Article" stated how Bush lied, and how Bush was innacurate. The article then went on to be inaccurate in itself!
My point was, If you want to show the goverment lied the best way to do it is not write an article full of lies and disinformation. But, Bush Admirer, you blew it by showing yet AGAIN you do not read, or do not understand things before you reply.
as usual for LA Indymedia a thread mutates, we go from discussing the number of ships and troops to posts about virgins and sex!!!!
I can't wait for the alternative LA IMC......
Report this post as:
by Scarecrow
Wednesday, Jul. 23, 2003 at 2:30 AM
You can whine and post all the articles you want, so that you preselect the ones you know you can fault, but it does not change the fact that Shrubya is no good, fourflushing, deserting, can't even serve in the privileged Unit daddy got him into, Lying Sack of Shit.
Bush is Liar.
16 words.
10,000 dead.
Impeach the Bastard NOW!
Report this post as:
|