March 27, 2004
Tee-Hee
Guess who lied? It rhymes with Tush Badministration.
Remember, the Bush Administration was supposed to have approached terrorism with more energy than the Clinton Administration ever did. I mind that they're lying sacks...but more than that, I mind that they're lying sacks who are attempting to shut down legitimate debate about their response to terrorism by making up complete horseshit.
Posted by Jesse Taylor at March 27, 2004 03:23 PM | TrackBackIn their defense, making shit up is the only way they can justify their actions. After all, you expect an administration built on lies to tell the truth and threaten to tumble their own house of cards of their own accord?
Posted by: Kryptik at March 27, 2004 04:37 PMThat's not really a defense, to be honest. ;)
Posted by: jesse at March 27, 2004 04:41 PMIt's of a piece with Condi Rice not wanting to testify under oath. If she swears to tell the truth, the remnant of her conscience *might make her do it or she will surely go to Hell* -- and we can't have that, can we? Imagine what truths are hidden behind her refusal.
Scorpio
Eccentricity
Nah, it's simpler than that. If Condi lies and is caught, she goes to jail if it was under oath, not otherwise. That's pretty much the only difference; the only reason to refuse to take the oath is to avoid jail.
Posted by: Bob Munck at March 27, 2004 05:33 PMSo where is the CNN report? The Misleader doesn't lead me to it. Maybe they don't keep archives like that? Well, we have to have the actual report to do anything with it; we can't just use a partisan website saying CNN said it to convince anyone.
This would be very damning stuff but we need the original transcript.
Posted by: Norman at March 27, 2004 05:57 PMThat's not really a defense, to be honest. ;)
It's as much of a defense as they deserve, really. :P
Posted by: Kryptik at March 27, 2004 06:05 PMAtrios had the link to the CNN transcript yesterday; here it is.
Not sure why the Misleader didn't have it...
Posted by: dave at March 27, 2004 06:14 PMAhhh....the sweet sound of a corrupt administration crashing and burning....
Posted by: Norah at March 27, 2004 06:38 PMWhile I hate defending the Bush administration, I would like to see the context around this quote, because depending on how it was used it could very well be true. Many terrorism experts contend that bin Laden is essentially a figure head with money, while al-Qaeda's lieutenants do most of the planning and dirty work but get none of the credit. Also, Paul Bremer said in the late '90's that Clinton had been fantastic on terrorism, but that focusing on bin Laden "had strengthened him." Fighting terrorism is a hell of a lot more complicated than just catching bin Laden and used in that sense, this quote is accurate. Of course, if it's some kind of defense for the invasion of Iraq, then it's idiotic.
Posted by: AtlDem at March 27, 2004 07:40 PM"a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."
A case of Mickey's Big Mouths says it's John Bolton. The wanker.
Posted by: some dude at March 27, 2004 09:05 PM