Home > Political Ranting > It’s About the Constant Lying

It’s About the Constant Lying

April 11th, 2006

Man… a lot has happened politically this week. First and foremost, Bush is again in the midst of a maelstrom regarding intelligence and the Iraq War, this time with Plame leaker Libby testifying that Bush authorized the leaking of selective portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to reporters.

The argument for Bush is that the president has the authority to declassify anything simply by saying it (though there is a formal declassification process). But that’s not the issue. The issue is twofold: first, Bush did not authorize the leak of classified information for the purpose of national security or serving the public–the only valid reasons–he did so as part of a political attack in response to criticism (now known to be true) that he lied about intelligence used to justify the Iraq War.

Which leads to the second matter: Bush did not authorize the declassification of the entire NIE, he authorized the declassification of specific parts that supported his argument–while other parts of the NIE that worked against his argument were held back. In other words, Bush lied about our intelligence information on Iraq, then when he was shown up to be a liar, he declassified selective parts the NIE to make it seem like he was right when the whole NIE suggested he was wrong–in short, he used the NIE to compound the lie.

And that’s why people are objecting. Because Bush lied, and then used secret intelligence to lie again.

And get this quote from Bush after the leak which he authorized came out:

“If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”

So he leaks classified information for political purposes, then goes to the press and acts all righteous, saying he’s gonna catch the leakers. And he’s leaking.

I know what the remaining Bush apologists will say: at least he didn’t lie under oath. Like lying to the American people to make us go to war is OK, so long as he’s not doing it under oath. Interestingly, Bush and Cheney did testify to Fitzgerald on this matter–but they insisted that they not be sworn in to testify under oath. gee whiz, I wonder why they would ever do that? The answer is easy: they knew they would lie their asses off.

But the technicality that they lied while not under oath may not be enough–if Bush lied during his 70-minute interview with Fitzgerald on June 24, 2004, he could be charged with making false statements or obstructing justice, both of them felonies, not to mention impeachable offenses. That interview is not public at this time.

Furthermore, this marks the first time Bush has been directly implicated in the White House scheming that involved the leak which blew Valerie Plame’s cover. While there is no evidence (yet) that Bush authorized that specific leak, the fact is that Bush has now been proven to have lied repeatedly on this issue. How can anyone believe a single word from his lying mouth? How incredibly gargantuan a liar does this president have to become before the American people start disapproving?

Oh, wait, they are disapproving. Bush’s approval ratings remain in the toilet, festering in the mid-30’s. Right now, only Rasmussen, the poll that adores Bush, has him above 40, while the other dozen major polls have him between 33 and 38 (including Fox, at 36%). Which simply leaves the question, how do those 30-odd percent of Americans actually approve of this lawbreaking liar?

It gets better. We’ve also found out that Bush lied about lying about Iraq in other ways as well. Part of his pack of lies about Iraq concerned the infamous aluminum tubes he claimed were proof that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon. Of course, we found out that was false, the tubes were not used for that purpose; Bush later claimed that he’d been misled by bad intelligence. But Murray Waas of the National Journal discovered that Bush had been “repeatedly apprised” of grave doubts in the intelligence community concerning the validity of the claim:

Karl Rove, President Bush‘s chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush’s 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address — that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon — might not be true, according to government records and interviews. [emphasis Waas’]

Just like his infamous “16 words” where he claimed Saddam was looking for uranium from Niger, Bush had been told before he used such claims in his State of the Union address that the intelligence was probably phony–and yet he used it anyway.

And then Karl Rove covered up the lies for the election.

And now, Joseph E. diGenova, a federal prosecutor under President Reagan, is saying that Bush may even dare to pardon Libby:

The special prosecutor [Fitzgerald] signaled in his court filing last week that he intended to call several former Bush aides as witnesses against Libby, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer — raising the specter of court proceedings that could lay bare the inner workings of the White House.

“I can’t imagine this case going to trial,” DiGenova said. “You’ll see a pardon first.”

I am dumbfounded at the idea that Bush could pardon Libby. Even Bush 41 waited until just before he left office to pardon high officials who could have implicated him in wrongdoing; if Bush 43 pardons Libby before an election, that would be an incredible abuse of power; frankly, I can’t see how Bush could survive that, how a pardon for Libby wouldn’t ignite a firestorm or criticism from all quarters.

What’s next on the radar? Bush is planning to nuke Iran. I wish I were joking. This idiot is out of control.

Categories: Political Ranting Tags: by
  1. April 12th, 2006 at 01:58 | #1

    This is what gets me, if this was part of the NIE leak, why not just say so 3 years ago? Why wait till now?

    I think this points to the fact that the Administration is in full retreat mode on this story. Bush lied… so now they say it is declassified material.

    Bush’s Press Sec. even said that this was all declassified for the good of the “public interest.” What possible public interest would be served by outting a CIA agent? Even if she was retired for years, an outting could still get her and her family killed. But I guess her death is in the public interest?

    I apologize, I am just outraged by all of this.

    And one other thing that bugs me. Plame’s undercover job was to track nuclear technology and prevent it from falling into the hands of rogue nations, specifically Iran.

    And this week we learn that Bush has nuking Iran on his to do list. Was Plame in the way of two items of Bush’s agenda?

    BTW, good article, I linked my cartoon it. We just need to get the world out.

    Nuking Iran must not happen. Nuking ANYONE must not happen again. I would be interested in getting your take on the issue there in Japan.

  2. ykw
    April 12th, 2006 at 03:30 | #2

    I recall this period before the Iraq war where the administration was trying to get support for the war from the un security council, allies, congress, and the american people. I recall this effort as being Very intense. I think the white house told the various agencies to “push, push, push” to get that support. I think this was the root cause of all these problems involving libby, leaks, bad wmd intelligence reports, etc. And I think the cause of this intial “lets go to war” was a Belief that Sadam had wmd or was acquiring wmd and that he would use them and we would have another 9/11 thing times 10 or times 100.

    Also, if there actually was a 1 in 10 chance of Sadam getting wmd and hitting us with them, for example, then it might actually be ok to do the Iraq War thing, even though in 9 out of 10 cases there are no wmd. I think that was the 9/11 lesson, which is if there is a small chance of something very bad happening, you need to act on it. And the Iraq War lesson might be that one needs to fully understand the various parameters before acting.

  3. Bill
    April 12th, 2006 at 03:46 | #3

    What bothers me; Congress attempted to impeach Clinton for lying, his lies did not kill or physically hurt anyone. Bush’s lies on the other hand have killed 1000s and crappled several 1000s more. What is going on here? My view is Bush should be in a court room charged with war crimes, sitting next to Saddam.

  4. sj
    April 12th, 2006 at 15:20 | #4

    I remember that quote from Bush and thinking at the time that it sounded odd. Notice how carefully crafted the wording is: “If somebody did leak classified information…” “There are too many leaks of classified information…”
    He said this knowing full well that he had DEclassified the information in question. If there was truly nothing wrong with what he did, why didn’t he just come right out and say it then? Why did he let Fitzgerald spend months of effort and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to dig up the truth? The fact that he waited until now proves his dishonesty (as if any more proof were necessary).

Comments are closed.