Sing-Along Time!

For Georgie, On the Way Down

 

Sung to the tune of "Rawhide"

 

Keep lyin', lyin', lyin'

Though our boys keep dyin'

'Til the Dems start fryin' your hide

 

Don't try to justify it

Nobody's gonna buy it

Soon there will be no one on your side

 

Rove may be calculatin'

How to save your ratin'

But Satan can't prevent this slip'ry slide

 

Ship 'em out, shoot 'em down

Box 'em up, ship 'em home

Saddamites? "Bring 'em on!" you cried

Call 'em up, and deploy

Ev'ry Yank soldier boy

Ship 'em out, spread 'em thin, far 'n' wide!

 

Ignore that mess in Golan

Hand the mike to Colin

While you botch press briefings, tongue-tied

 

Your lyin's undermined you

Now all you've got behind you

Are Rapture-possessed fundies on your side

 

Enjoy it 'til they beat you

Subpoena and impeach you

You're near the end of your disastrous ride

 

Ship 'em out, shoot 'em down

Box 'em up, ship 'em home

Saddamites? "Bring 'em on!" you cried

Call 'em up, and deploy

Ev'ry Yank soldier boy

Ship 'em out, spread 'em thin, far 'n' wide!

 

You're fried!

 

Posted 11:11:10 PM   Send comment

---

Tenet Lies Back & Thinks of England America

Tenet Takes Blame on Iraqi Uranium Claim

 

Director George Tenet gave Congress and the White House the accountability they demanded, declaring Friday that the blame for President Bush's false allegation about an Iraqi nuclear deal rested squarely with him and his agency.

 

The CIA should never have let Bush repeat a British report that Iraq was seeking uranium from the African country of Niger when U.S. intelligence analysts could not corroborate it, Tenet said in a statement. Ultimately, the allegation proved false.

 

"These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," Tenet said, referring to Bush's State of the Union speech in January.

 

Tenet's extraordinary statement was released after Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, blamed the error on the CIA and members of Congress called for someone to be held accountable.

 

"This was a mistake," the director said.

 

CIA and administration officials said that despite the mea culpa, they did not expect Tenet to resign. The Democrat is the long holdover from the Clinton administration and, while distrusted by some conservatives, has enjoyed Bush's confidence. ...

 

Tenet Takes Blame on Iraqi Uranium Claim

AP

July 11, 2003

 

I wouldn't resign either -- but only because I wouldn't have time before I bloody well died of shame!

 

Oh, Tenet, what a mistake. What are you getting for taking the fall, undermining the credibility of your whole agency, and playing the fool?

 

Talk about "spineless Democrats" -- you take the cake.

 

And you know, you're only going to provoke more of your own pissed-off agents to come out and tell the truth.

 

Or is that what you're trying to do?

 

In which case, I take back everything I just said.

 

 

Related articles:

 

Text of CIA Director Tenet's Statement

Associated Press, July 11, 2003

 

Posted 11:03:43 PM   Send comment

---

The Senate? Send Him to the White House!

God knows, at least Jerry Springer is honest!

 

Posted 10:11:46 PM   Send comment

---

The Cartoon That Bent Rummy's Nose Out of Shape

 

There are so many cartoons where people, press people, are saying, 'Is it Vietnam yet?' hoping it is and wondering if it is. And it isn't. It's a different time. It's a different era. It's a different place.

 

-- Donald Rumsfeld, cutting off a reporter who compared

Iraq to the Vietnam War as "your classic quagmire"

June 30, 2003

 

Posted 10:02:05 PM   Send comment

---

A Week Without Jessica...

...would be an unusual week indeed, at least in my obsessive little world of chipping away at The Big, Fat, Oozing Lies They Tell You until they come a-crumblin' down like the Walls of Jericho.

 

In a nutshell, the Pentagon released its report on the Jessica Lynch (cough!stagedcough!) "rescue." It's, like, sooo everything-you-already-knew, try not to fall asleep while reading:

 

[A] Pentagon report out today reveals that many of the heroics were made up. There was no bloody shoot-out with Iraqi troops, instead just "horrific injuries" suffered in a crash.

 

And without the medical care given to her by her captors, the blonde 20-year-old would probably have died. ...

 

Military sources said Private Lynch had broken bones, had been shot twice and stabbed once after emptying two revolvers into her Iraqi attackers. ...

 

Miss Lynch, who is now recovering in a Washington army hospital, never confirmed the stories and the Pentagon claimed she was suffering from amnesia. Within weeks however the saga began to unravel.

 

Doubts were cast not only over the alleged gun battle around her wrecked Humvee vehicle but also on the heroics of her rescue.

 

The 15-page report largely concentrates on how the 507th Maintenance Company convoy took a wrong turn and wound up in an area teeming with Iraqi troops.

 

It says the Humvee was probably hit by a projectile in a frantic attempt to escape an ambush. Private Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, who was driving, lost control and the vehicle smashed into a tractor-trailer at 45mph.

 

She was pulled from the wreckage along with Miss Lynch and they were both taken to hospital. Her comrade later died of her injuries.

 

Iraqi doctors have said the US commandos refused keys to doors and insisted on breaking them open, even though there were no troops nearby.

 

They said hospital staff would have been happy to hand over Private Lynch peacefully.

 

US 'made up rescue of Jessica'

Daily Mail

July 10, 2003

 

Yawwwwwwnnn... Oh, I'm so sorry! How rude of me! I must have dropped off there. I don't normally bore so easily; I probably just passed out from sheer disappointment at learning nothing I didn't already know (and which, if you've been following along, Dear Reader, we've been discussing since Day One of the Saving Private Lynch circus).

 

Upshot: They lied to you.

 

Like that's news lately.

 

End of story. Except, of course, for Private Lynch herself, who, at a mere 20 years old now, is probably going to require lifelong therapy after being thrust into the position of pawn in this big, ugly game-o'-war.

 

Posted 9:52:08 PM   Send comment

---

CBS Bait and Switch

Lifted from Take Back the Media

The WMD isn't the only thing hitting the fan.

 

Last night, the CBS News Web site ran the headline:

 

Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False

 

Today, that same story carries the headline:

 

Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious

 

I however, prefer this headline from Take Back the Media: "What the Hell is going on with CBS?!"

 

Apparently, somebody at CBS has also been working overtime to excise the especially-damning statements of Greg Thielmann previously published on the CBS site.

 

The intrepid media-watchers at TBM have documented the CBS switch with screenshots of the before-and-after headlines.

 

One TBM observer also notes the sudden scrubbing of statements by whistleblower Greg Thielmann: "I was reading the CBS uranium denial article from Buzzflash and decided to go to the printable form for emailing. I had been especially glad to note the inclusion of the statements of Gregory Thielmann, ex-State Dept official. Scanning down the printable version, I noticed the last paragraph, which had listed statements of Gregory Thielmann, was missing from the printable screen. Returning to the full article, I noticed it had also disappeared from the site article, accompanied by the title change. The time was 11:30 AM EDT. I guess it was update time for general consumption. ... Thielmann's revelations made it a much more credible report... obviously..."

 

Well, they can change headlines and scrub statements all they want. There's no getting around the fact that BushCo thinks it can squirm out of this by blaming the British:

 

As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that's how it was delivered.

 

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said.

 

The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.

 

"Factually accurate."

 

"Technically correct."

 

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

          

 

Limiting access, limiting information to cover the backsides of those who are in charge of the war, is extremely dangerous and cannot and should not be accepted. And I am sorry to say that, up to and including the moment of this interview, that overwhelmingly it has been accepted by the American people. And the current administration revels in that, they relish that, and they take refuge in that.

 

CBS news anchor Dan Rather to BBC's Newsnight

US media cowed by patriotic fever, says CBS star

The Guardian

May 17, 2002

 

Posted 1:27:21 PM   Send comment

---

He's Cooked

Just look at this headline:

 

Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False

CBS News, July 10, 2003

 

There are many ways to say "Bush lied." This is only one of them.

 

You will see many more in the days and weeks and months to come.

 

I know we're a long way off from impeachment, but God Almighty, I haven't felt such a sense of relief and hope, since they played "Don't Stop" at the 1992 Dem convention.

 

From the CBS piece:

 

CIA officials warned members of the President's National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

 

The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: "Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that's how it was delivered.

 

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said.

 

The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.

 

Stop right there. Back up that mobile-weapons truck.

 

"The statement was technically correct."

 

And so was the statement:

 

"I did not have sexual relations

with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

 

And William Jefferson Clinton was impeached for that "technically correct" statement.

 

It doesn't matter whether you or I believe Bill got screwed when he didn't even get screwed. Fact is, he lied. Nobody doubts that. Nobody ever doubted that (except Hillary, whom I give the benefit of the doubt; for how many of us who have been sexually betrayed by a spouse or lover cling desperately to that sweet, sweet lie, in spite of our sinking, aching, empty, knowing gut?).

 

And nobody is really stupid enough to think that the eloquent, brilliant, worldly-wise Rhodes scholar who delivered us to the Promised Land of peace and prosperity ever really made any differentiation between a hump and a hummer.

 

Puh-leeze.

 

The glaring difference between Bill Clinton's lying and George W. Bush's lying is measured in consequences.

 

And in lives.

 

Bill Clinton lied about a blow job, pissed off his wife, shamed his daughter, and got impeached. Nobody died.

 

Bush and his entire administration lied repeatedly in order to drag three proud nations (and a few pathetically self-delusional, bound-for-glory hangers-on) into waging an unjustified oil war on a smaller, weaker country that presented no threat to the U.S., which resulted in the deaths of at least 6,000 people, alienation of most of our closest allies, the deterioration of American credibility, and the widest, most hate-filled gap between Left and Right in the United States since Vietnam.

 

The impeachment is coming. And if it never comes, then everything I ever believed about -- and cherished in -- my beloved, beautiful, just and righteous United States is a falsehood.

 

Seriously, is there a single American capable of making a valid argument against impeachment proceedings for George W. Bush?

 

I said a valid argument.

 

Not with any shred of intelligence, there isn't.

 

The bar's been set, boys and girls: If a president lies, he must be impeached.

 

(Georgie, are you listening? You have Ken Starr and His Mighty Band of Neo-Thugs to thank for that.)

 

Now, don't try to tell me that Clinton was impeached for "lying under oath," and Georgie Boy wasn't under oath when he lied about the uranium.

 

Because, friends 'n' neighbors -- aside from that niggling little other oath Bush took, promising to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States" -- he will be under judicial oath, as soon as he's called to testify before the Senate.

 

And how can the Senate not demand his testimony once the investigation is underway?

 

Even if the Senate is packed with Republicons?

 

Especially when the Senate is packed with Republicons?

 

Again, we have Kenneth Starr to thank for setting the precedent of compelling a sitting president to testify.

 

Don't blame the Democrats. It was the Republicans who set the rules.

 

And now they're going to be forced to play by those rules.

 

Either that, or set another precendent -- like, revoking Clinton's impeachment.

 

Which ain't gonna happen.

 

Suckers!

 

 

Related articles:

 

A Diplomat's Undiplomatic Truth: They Lied. They may have finally found the smoking gun that nails the culprit responsible for the Iraq war. Unfortunately, the incriminating evidence wasn't left in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces but rather in Vice President Dick Cheney's office. ... The world is outraged at this pattern of lies used to justify the Iraq invasion, but the U.S. public still seems numb to the dangers of government by deceit. ... [A]s we learned from the Nixon disgrace, lies have a way of unraveling, and the truth will out, even if it's after the next election. [Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2003]

 

High Crimes, Misdemeanors. What did the president know and when did he know it? The answer to that question forced the resignation of Richard Nixon as he was about to be impeached. Now, with President Bush facing that same question, congressional Republicans have circled the wagons to prevent a public hearing on whether intelligence was distorted by the White House to convince us of the need for war. Why? Because public hearings could lead to public demands for impeachment. Sound far-fetched? Not when you consider the gravity of the charge. ... [Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2003]

 

Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense? To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power. [John Dean, FindLaw, June 6, 2003]

 

Is Bush's Teflon stick long lasting? How does he get away with it? ... We'll find them, Bush promises... Maybe we'll only find documentation, not hard evidence... But it doesn't matter, the Bushies now say, because we have even more proof than we had before the war about what a terrible, vicious ruler Saddam was. That's certainly true, but the argument that it all boiled down to who you liked better, Bush or Saddam, wore thin a long time ago. This isn't about Saddam. It's about Bush. ... The President of the United States told us a document was real when he knew it was a fake. Bush lied, and it wasn't a small lie. It was a lie told to the Congress and the United Nations, a lie that went to the most important task any president undertakes, leading the nation into war. ... [Rick Holmes, Allston-Brighton TAB, May 23, 2003]

 

What the Meaning of "Is" Is. The recent grand jury investigation of "MonicaGate" gave us several new views of technical communication. It shed light on the importance of correct and complete definitions of terms in a legal context. It showed the importance of correct wording in answering prosecutors' questions. ... [President Clinton's] defense rests on whether or not his actions met the definition of sex supplied in the Paula Jones deposition. It is this definition that, arrived at hastily, is providing the loophole in the President's case. ... President Clinton showed astuteness in analyzing on the fly (so to speak) each question asked, word-by-word. He parsed sentences into words and words into syllables to stay as close to the meaning of each as possible. This analysis reached its peak with Clinton's reply, "That depends on what the meaning of ‘is' is." ... In August the President became a technical communicator. In September, the world judged his work. Welcome to the world of technical communication in the '90s, Mr. President! [Susan Call, Rocky Mountain Chapter, Society for Technical Communication, July 24, 2000]

 

Words: What Do You Mean? You remember it, of course. President Bill Clinton... answered a specific and potentially incriminating question by saying, "It depends on what the meaning of is is." Well, now, throughout the current election fiasco in the state of Florida, politicians and pundits, candidates and commentators are not only citing or paraphrasing that famous line, they are also routinely changing or ignoring what used to be the clear meaning of many words in the English language. ... One might tolerate -- even expect -- such parsing of terms from lawyers, who must sometimes make words mean something different in order to win their way. But what we have here is a war of words, and it's becoming more and more crucial, because when such reinventing of the language stops sounding ridiculous to the public, it signals the deterioration of meaningful communication. When words no longer have meaning, ideas cease to have impact. And as that happens more and more, we will see the erosion of freedom, for it, too, is merely a word, only an idea. And that, of course, will be bad. . . very bad. . . for all of us, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise. But even THAT, you see, depends on what the meaning of "bad" is. [Bob Hostetler, bobhostetler.com]

 

Posted 1:45:15 AM   Send comment

---