Wash Post: "no hard evidence that Bush lied"

[maggrwaggr]

(snip)
Yet that does not mean the decision for war was based on false information. The Africa nugget, after all, formed a small part of the president's argument -- and like other questionable parts of the administration's case, it was widely disputed before the war. The heart of the argument -- that Iraq had repeatedly defied disarmament orders from the United Nations -- was endorsed in December by all 15 members of the U.N. Security Council, and remains indisputable. Similarly, the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had retained chemical and biological weapons was one shared by the Clinton administration as well as every major Western intelligence service. That conclusion is now being challenged, but it hasn't yet been disproved; nor has it been established that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. Indeed, the recent unearthing of designs and machinery for producing bomb-grade material in a scientist's garden seems more suggestive than the discrediting of the report on Niger.
(snip)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62128-2003Jul15.html?nav=hptoc_eo

I'm a little angry this morning.

We need to write the Washington Post and tell them to do their fucking jobs as outlined in the constitution, which supposedly guarantees us a right to a free press.

Here's part of what I wrote them:

<<The "heart" of the president's argument outlined in his SOTU speech was that Hussein had literally huge bubbling cauldrons of nasty chemical and biological weapons, and could deploy them in 45 minutes against the United States ...

AND that he intended to use them against the United States ...

AND that he was "this close" to having a nuclear bomb that would then produce "mushroom clouds" over American cities ....

I am absolutely appalled that you would state such a cautious, pussy-footed attitude toward the president's LIES that led to the deaths of thousands of people and continues to get people killed on a daily basis.

The president and his crime cronies should be run out of the white house, tried, and convicted.

You members of the "free press" are simply NOT doing your job by being such wimps about all of this.

ANSWER ME THIS: Why did the press, such as yourself, only jump all over this when the White House finally ADMITTED that they lied in the SOTU speech??????

Why aren't you doing your jobs?>>>

WRITE THEM WRITE THEM WRITE THEM

Okay, big deep breath and off to work I go .....

[Punkingal]

1. Letting his sorry ass off the hook......

as usual. :puke:

[clarkbarr]

26. Once again, the WHORESHINGTON POST TOASTIES spin for the GOP

What do you expect from the WHORESHINGTON POST, the SCREW YORK TIMES, the ATLANTA KKKONSTITUTION, the CHICAGO FIBUNE, GOP TODAY, the WALL STREET JACKOFF and the LIES ANGELES TIMES?

THEY ALL LIE FOR THE GOP 24/7!

It is time to boycott all of these worthless rags. I wonder what would happen if 100,000 people surrounded the WHORESHINGTON POST and SHUT THAT HOUSE OF PRESSTITUTION down?

[GumboYaYa]

2. Read Walter Pincus' article in the WP today and you

will feel better. Pincus lays out the case that basically all of the compelling "evidence" cited by Bush on the eve of war was evaporating.

The article is very interesting for what it implies as much as what it actually says. Pincus has always been a mouthpiece for the CIA. It was his article a few weeks ago that put out the CIA's position on the Niger uranium. His article today tells me that the CIA is about to take the Bush admin down. Add this together with the CIA not backing planned testimony re Syria and the future is bleak for Bush.

Don't focus on one editorial. Look at the big picture. This is going very well for us right now.

[Trajan]

22. Walter Pincus has been a 'Messiah of Truth' since last fall .....

Before Bush, we would rail against Pincus for his PRO CIA tilt ....

But AFTER Bush, .... the CIA professionals are ANGRY .... and Pincus, given his closeness to those professionals, has become their conduit to lash at Bush in response to his dishonesty and public cowardice .....

You DONT hang the Intelligence guys out to dry like that .....

Pincus has been our savior ....

[CatWoman]

3. isn't this an editorial?

I would be pissed if this were hard news, but this is an opinion piece and should be treated at such: posted in the editorials forum, and taken with a grain of salt.

[maggrwaggr]

4. it was on google news

so I assumed it was a "news" story.

[TahitiNut]

16. Please read the LBN rules.

This isn't Breaking News, it's an editorial. It says so at the very top of the article, right above the headline. Thus, it belongs in that forum. Even if it were LBN, the subject line should reflect the title of the article ("Wait for the Facts "), not what you've provided.
:eyes:

[Az]

5. Unfortunately their job is not outlined in the Constitution

What is outlined is their freedom to be whores. It would be nice if the media saw its job as reporting the truth but there is little profit in truth. You so often have to tell people things they don't want to hear.

[Richardo]

10. Remember: The media does not TELL the news, it SELLS the news, ...

Good point, Az.

[jackstraw45]

6. Washington Post es. board whores

They supported the war and have been defending Bu$h all along.

They are no better than the Washington Times in their lead editorials.

F-you Washington Post editorial board!

[CWebster]

7. But was it cause to invade?

It was a deliberate picture of imminent threat they constructed in order to follow-thru on their war plan.


It does seem like there is a concerted effort to spin this coming down the pike. If he didn't knowingingly lie, he wasn't being truthful. If he wasn't responsible for the lies, and how could he not be since most of them had been challenged, then he is incompetent.

That is his choice: He either knowingly lied to further his case or he was an incompetent puppet unfit for his unelected position.

[Mountainman]

8. This reads like a report from Fox News

It looks like the repuks and their media whores are putting the cabash on this story.

It is so amazing to me that this administration can do so much to screw us all and yet no one in Washington and no one in the media dares to challenge them.

This makes me believe that this cabal is going to steal the next election. They will do anything to remain in power and all we can do is watch from the sidelines.

If the American people don't find another source for their news, they will have to hurt much more than they do now before they will demand a change.

Yesterday's news about the record deficit, the Americans being killed in Iraq, low consumer confidence, the possible war with Korea, should be shaking people up but not a peep out of anyone.

I just don't understand the power these people have over everyone. It's like we all are living in a stuper.

[jackstraw45]

9. Post here too

AFter you write them, feel free to post here as well:

http://forums.washingtonpost.com/wpeditorials/messages/?msg=2402.1

[JackSwift]

11. Bush asserted he statements were true

caused fear and war with them. He knew for a fact that they were based on forgeries. What is the WP? A f****** OJ juror? Condoning this kind of deception to send the nation to war is a complete derogation of duty. Did lil' Donny Graham get a call from Granny Babs?

It sounds like it was written by Ari Fliescher, relying on the fallacy of burden of proof shifting and the ridiculous claim that one rusty old buried calutron is a weapon of mass destruction. A thousand calutrons would be needed. They were found and destroyed after GWI, we know that for a fact because we destroyed them.

[diamond14]

12. Anyone have pics of the centrifuge parts found under the bush? nt

.

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

13. "LEARNED" is different from "BELIEVED"!!!!!!!!!

This is all, and always has been, a matter of VERBS ... Bush said the British had LEARNED of the uranium; The Post lets him off the hook by pretending he said only that the U.K. THOUGHT the yellowcake story was true. When you say "learned," it means YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE!!!It is unbelievable that The Post would fall into this RNC-spun trap.

<snip>
In the absence of evidence, there has been an extraordinary amount of attention paid to marginal issues -- most recently, those 16 words in President Bush's State of the Union speech that said, accurately, that British intelligence BELIEVED Iraq had been seeking to obtain uranium in Africa. In fact, British intelligence did BELIEVE that -- and still does, even though one set of documents purporting to show an Iraqi procurement mission in Niger proved to be forgeries.

[Beetwasher]

14. Hmm, this is definitely some whoring here

"The heart of the argument -- that Iraq had repeatedly defied disarmament orders from the United Nations..."

That wasn't the heart of the argument. The heart of the argument was they were an immediate threat to this country because they had stockpiles of WMD's. The above argument begs the question. Apparently they DID in fact disarm, there are NO WMD's! So how did they defy disarmament orders? Fucking unbeleivable specious bullshit from the WP.

"Similarly, the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had retained chemical and biological weapons was one shared by the Clinton administration as well as every major Western intelligence service. That conclusion is now being challenged, but it hasn't yet been disproved; nor has it been established that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program."

This is an appalling bit of reasoning from a so-called "respectable paper. The conclusion hasn't been disproved?!?! Incredible. They arguing for critics to prove a negative. I also can't "disprove" the existence of Santa Claus....

This editorial is shocking to me that they would use these types of fallacious, illogical and downright absurdly ignorant types of arguments. Shame on the WP.

[underpants]

15. 'Hasn't been disproved'?? Was it PROVED before being added?

This is BS. So I guess now he can say anything he wants and as long as it can't be disproved it is okay.

They have to okay it to put it in the speech. Condi is responsible for that and the fact that he quoted Brit intel (very rare) shows that US intel wouldn't back it. We know they told them several times to take it out of speeches or at least that they couldn't sign off on it.

Total and complete BS.

[Beetwasher]

17. Yup. By that reasoning, it hasn't been disproved that Bush is a liar.

Let them disprove it by producing the WMD's and the Nukes!

[underpants]

18. This is close to having to prove a negative

W isn't a liar! Okay prove it.

[caledesi]

23. Kinda like: Saddam said he didn't have WMD. Prove it! eom

* wanted SH to provde a negative.

[KalicoKitty]

27. What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive! n/t

<>

[Kahuna]

19. I sent them an email...

I would encourage everyone to do so.

[indypaul]

20. This type of falsehood is much like

pornography, "we know it when we see it". If the WP
cannot or will not recognize it does not mean
a majority of the nation cannot. The news
media has a problem with recognizing degrees of falsehoods.
When one carries out a tradition that "Gentlemen don't
tell tales" and makes an effort to save the reputation
of the other party, that is one degree of falsehood. When
one repeats a story known to be false and without fact
and people die, that is certainly another degree of falsehood.
One would need to be on the verge of insanity not to recognize
the difference and act accordingly. But perhaps the inmates are
now indeed running the institution.

[Walt Starr]

21. This is NOT a news story

It is an editorial and as such does not belong in LBN.

[Frances]

24. Covering Bush's ass

<<Indeed, the recent unearthing of designs and machinery for producing bomb-grade material in a scientist's garden seems more suggestive than the discrediting of the report on Niger.>>

So, is the Post saying that it's OK to go to war for paper that was buried in 1991?

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

25. Their E-Mail Address

[email protected]

Let 'em have it!

On Edit: Here's what I sent them:

Today's editorial entitled "Wait for the Facts" raises an interesting question: Didn't we have the facts before committing our nation to war? And if we didn't, should Americans be righteously outraged at the government?