Daily Ramblings

Today, the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism released a study documenting all the false statements made by the Bush Administration in the two years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In total there were 935 distinct false statements made by the Bush Administration. George Bush led the way with 259, followed by Colin Powell with 244.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

It's great that this study came out. It's great that we are all very concerned about the lies told to the American people and the world. However, this is a bit late. We should have had this study in late summer of 2004, when pointing out that George and company are a bunch of liars could have made a difference. It could have also come out in early 2006, when George and company were pushing for a surge of troops in Iraq. It could have pointed out that if he lied before, what makes anyone think that he was telling the truth now.

At this point, this is only good for academic reasons. In the future, historians will only need to look up this study when diagnosing the Bush Presidency instead of conducting the study themselves. Hopefully, this will lead future historians to the same conclusion I have already reached, that this is the worst presidency in American history, bar none.

All of that being said, I do have some personal favorites I would like to share with you.

In a speech on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly asserted that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet later wrote that Cheney's statement "went well beyond what our own analysis could support." Tenet was not alone within the CIA. As one of his top deputies later told journalist Ron Suskind: "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from? Does he have a source of information that we don't know about?'"

Here's another one that I liked.

In a national radio address on September 28, 2002, President Bush flatly asserted: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

What the American people did not know at the time was that, just three weeks before Bush's radio address, in early September, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was no National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Such an assessment had not been done in years because nobody within the intelligence community had deemed it necessary, and, remarkably, nobody at the White House had requested that it be done.

And finally, here's my personal favorite false statement. Here you can tell George Bush is starting to get desperate about finding WMDs.

In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush was referencing two trailers or "mobile labs" discovered in Iraq.

Just days earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that the trailers "could not be used as a transportable biological production system as the system is presently configured." It was ultimately acknowledged that the trailers had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were probably used to manufacture hydrogen employed in weather balloons.

At a book signing in Tel Aviv, Israel, John Bolton decried that the 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate, as well as the reporting around it, is a sign of the "illegitimate politicization" of the American intelligence establishment.

"I know the people who wrote this intelligence estimate," Bolton continued. "They are not from our intelligence community. They're from our State Department. It was a highly politicized document written by people who had a very clear policy objective."

Bolton goes on to make the following point:

Bolton calls the NIE "a quasi-coup by the intelligence services," which was "intended to have a political and policy effect. I think that's illegitimate [for] the bureaucracy [to have done]. In our system, constitutional legitimacy flows from the president, who was elected, through his officials. It's not like a European system, where the foreign policy establishment really does develop foreign policy. Too much policy is developed by the bureaucracy independent of political control. It's a longstanding cultural problem, and it will take a long time to fix it."

Needless to say, John Bolton has a skewed view of the American political system on so many levels, but let's look at them one by one. First, politicization of the NIE and needing to establish political control of the process that develops the NIE. Bolton conveniently forgets and/or leaves out that the NIE is independent by design. It was created to generate a report based on facts and intelligence findings. The purpose for its independence is to keep the facts and finding from becoming tainted by the politics of the day that may want the report to read in a particular way. This is exactly what Bolton is expecting. He expects that the writers of the NIE should reflect the political leanings of the president and should be there to support him.

Second, as stated by Bolton, "...constitutional legitimacy flows from the president, who was elected, through his officials." This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, constitutional legitimacy flows through Congress in the laws they create. It is the responsibility of the president to carry out those laws. The president is elected by the people, not through his officials. Unfortunately, Bolton chooses to leave out the text book definition of constitutional legitimacy and the place from which all power originates in our constitutional government, the people. The reason for his omission... the people agree with the NIE and have every reason to believe its content.

Bolton, like his neo-conservative compatriots and conservatives in general, attempts to discredit any source of information that does not match up with their ideology. So starting with the President, Bill Kristol, and John Bolton, they are speaking out against the legitimacy of the NIE and the people who wrote it. But why did they not speak out against the wrongs perpetrated by this group when they wrote the NIE that provided the rationale for the Iraq War? Simple, it agreed with their plans, policy and ideology, now that it doesn't, "It's a longstanding cultural problem, and it will take a long time to fix it."

In case you have not had a chance to take a good look at your calendar, it's only one more year of George Bush. January 20, 2009, is Inauguration Day for the next president.

After seven painful years of President Bush, it's nice to be a short-timer. It's nice to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel and know we are in the home stretch of the worst presidency this country has ever seen.

I have two personal wishes that I am reflecting on today. One, is that voters reflect a little more on the choices they make in the voting both, and don't just vote with their emotions but with also their brains. Two, is that future presidents learn the right lessons from this president. That future presidents realize that stubborn obstinacy is not a sign of strength, that pro-active war is un-American and that secrecy just leads to more people asking questions.

357 days and counting (its a leap year).

1. Its a violation of federal law to not make every effort to preserve the information for history and for a record of what happened. The study states that there are 473 days of missing emails. That is huge!
2. Those emails contained information related to work done during the 2004 election where Karl Rove and other staff where conducting election business on white house grounds and computer, this is also against federal law. In addition, no white house work is supposed to take place outside of White House computers, which is also a violation of federal law. That information was stored on Republican National Committee email servers and those emails were deleted.
3. Those emails contained evidence behind what happened during the CIA Agent Valerie Plame outing, evidence of Voter Caging lists for Florida and Ohio during the 2004 presidential election, evidence of correspondence between the White House and CIA over the destruction of the CIA Interrogation/Torture Tapes and who knows what else.

It's all too convenient. The data backup systems go offline for 470+ days and nothing is done about it. Nothing is being archived. When questioned about it, deny its a problem. When evidence is presented that this is a problem, deny that it is a problem again and if that doesn't work spin the argument around so that it only works if you look at it in that specific way, but there is no reason to look at it that way. (You should read how Tony Fratto acknowledges that all the emails are missing but the fact that its missing should not lead you to believe that all emails are missing... WHAT!!)

Yesterday, the CIA acting General Counsel John Rizzo testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee on the destruction of the CIA Interrogation Tapes. In the testimony, Rizzo seems to indicate that all senior CIA and White House officials involved advised against destroying the tapes. He says that this happened on two separate occasions, in 2003 and in 2005. He said that even Porter Goss advised against destroying the tape. But Rodriquez went ahead and destroyed the tapes anyway.

I had commented on this story a little over a month ago that Rodriquez was going to be the fall guy for this issue and all the pieces are falling together. First, the fall guy has to be someone that acted alone. In this case, Rodriquez was the guy, the only guy, with access to the tapes. Second, the fall guy needs to have acted against the advise and/or knowledge of his superiors. According to Rizzo, everyone of the top CIA and White House officials advised against destroying the tapes. Third, and most important (because its about to happen) everyone who testifies about the issue will have the same story and all will point at the fall guy. There will be a few more people to testify in front of congress on this matter and they will all say the same things, that Rodriquez acted alone. This will all happen before Rodriquez gets a chance to testify in front of congress, if he testifies. Currently, he is refusing to testify until he gets some immunity.

It's all too convenient. I wonder if there will be anyone that will see through the BS and try to get to the truth. Rodriquez is just the guy who followed orders. The question is, who gave those orders, especially given the testimony of John Rizzo, all senior officials advised against the tapes destruction.