| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| 16 "Infamous" Words. Media and Democrats Gone Wild. |
| 2003-07-14 |
| THE "INFAMOUS 16 WORDS": "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Tim Russert on Meet the Press described this sentence by President Bush in the State of the Union as "the infamous words the president uttered on January 28th." All of Washington and the weekend talk shows were in hysterics over the "False Statement in State of the Union Address." The Democrats running for President think they now have the goods to attack Bush on foreign policy and national security. Forgive me if I think this is all a political sideshow and a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking. Kate O’Beirne on CNN’s Capital Gang did one of the better jobs of summarizing the facts of this "scandal": The dishonesty here are all of the people who are ignoring the facts to this hysterical reaction to the 16 words in the president’s speech. It is, in fact, not true that a possible nuclear program was the most fundamental reason for going to war. Gee, you mean those "infamous words" the president uttered are actually true? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see the huge scandal here. What liberal media? This sentence was a small piece of a very large argument for why the world needed to do something about Saddam Hussein. The President came to the conclusion after 9/11 that Hussein’s Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. and our allies and he made a decision to act and do something about that threat. A lot of these criticisms are very easy to make with 20/20 hindsight, but you have to remember before any war starts you can not be sure how things may go. Given their honest belief that Hussein posed a real threat to the U.S., Bush’s administration had an obligation to produce as much public support as possible for the country’s effort in Iraq. It’s not a shocking revelation that in attempting to do this the administration would choose to highlight any reasonably credible evidence available at the time that bolstered its argument. Furthermore, it’s very easy after the fact to say you shouldn’t have included this or that piece of evidence. The flaw in this argument is that it assumes the "evidence" contained in the intelligence reports on which the White House rely are akin to simple math problems like 2+2=4 when they are really much more ambiguous documents that force policy makers to make judgment calls. And I would much rather want the President to err on the side of protecting our country, its citizens and its national interest. |
| Posted by:ColoradoConservative |
| #17 I think Sammy was trying to buy uranium from Karl Rove (The Most Evil Bastard Who's Ever Lived), myself. He has lots of it in his secret evil headquarters according to NPR. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-7-14 11:27:00 PM |
| #16 CC this dog just aint going to hunt! The Dims can't say that the WMDs existed under Zipper Cliton and after he left office they were gone? It COMICAL how the alphabet channels are trying to ride this lame horse. I predict that by next month the Dims will be eatin a big ole slice of crow with humble pie for dessert. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-7-14 9:48:07 PM |
| #15 11A5S With respect to medical personnel not being willing to stand up for this country; perhaps I could enlighten you. As a healthcare provider who has volunteered services to the local disaster services program for several years I've stuck my neck out several times with no compensation or thanks. (Consider driving TOWARD the ocean when my home town gets a hurricane evacution notice). Instead, as a group we are considered fair game for every insurance company, storyless reporter, and litigant that happens along. Since I have eczema; I CAN'T take the smallpox vaccine; so will have to rely on my old smallpox vaccine as a child. This is not a dead issue, since smallpox vaccine may be the vaccine of choice for 'monkey pox'. But I will still be expected to man my post on call in our local emergency room if the unthinkable occurs. I don't fault you for not giving more consideration to your comment. Most people in this country don't give medical personnel much credit until the excrement hits the rotary oscillator. Then the Public marvels briefly at the courage displayed by these otherwise unsung heroes (until Britney comes out in a new outfit...) OK; that's my rant, reckon I'll go back and lurk... |
| Posted by: neofyte 2003-7-14 8:48:24 PM |
| #14 LH, I think that you may well be right about Josh Marshall and "others of that ilk." They REALLY, REALLY believe that the issue was about getting impeached over some "technical lies.' Some of us don't see the issue as quite so trivial, but they certainly do believe that it was. Without wanting to reopen the entire debate about Clinton and his "exaggerations," I'd offer as an example of a REASON why there's room to disagree about the triviality of his statements the fact that they bore on the Paula Jones Lawsuit which he ultimately settled "out of court" for a payment of $850,000. That is a sufficient sum for some of us to view the matter as being non-trivial. However, that doesn't change your point about the probable perception of Josh and company and why they might believe this is worth "making a big deal of." Most of us do tend to act rather rationally based on what we BELIEVE the truth to be. |
| Posted by: Ralph 2003-7-14 7:05:32 PM |
| #13 LH: Maybe the Bush team figured that the first responders would be patriotic Americans and suck it up and soldier on and line up for the god-forsaken vaccines? Is that too much to ask when you're fighting a "war on terror." That was always my assumption, anyway. If we took down the Husseins without them mounting a smallpox attack, then the need to innoculate no longer exists. Why waste the money and political capital. The really sad thing is that there never should have been any political capital spent. I can't even imagine us fighting WWII today. "What! Plant a victory garden in my yard. Do you know how much the sod cost me? I want compensation!" Or, "You want me to give my recyclables to the government for a 'scrap drive.' I used to get paid for that at the recycling center. I want my money." |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-7-14 5:59:01 PM |
| #12 i looked at Josh Marshall, and he seems to be flooding the zone on this (uranium) , and has been for days - nothing on Sharon, Abbas and Arafat, nothing on Paul Bremer and the Iraqi council, nothing on the 3rd ID being held in Iraq, nothing on ANYTHING other than Uranium from Niger. I think folks like Josh are misjudging the times. They recall that when Clinton made some technical lies about trivia, he was impeached and almost removed from office, and almost certainly cost Gore the presidency in 2000. They figure that even if Bush wasnt under oath in the SOU, this was not about trivia, and so this is as big as monicagate. What they forget is that Monicagate was a luxury of peace and prosperity. We're at war now. Suppose Bush did lie in the SOU about Niger Uranium or whatever - or they can show Condi lied, or whatever. Most Americans wont care, as long as they believe the war in Iraq made them safer - and whether THAT is true has far more to do with whats happening now in Iraq and the Middle East and Iran than with technicalities about 16 words. So the GOP may look like hypocrites for arguing about what you mean by the word "is" (I dont know whether thats precisely what its about - i dont really care) who cares - we wanna know will the Iraqi people support the new council, will the 3rd come home soon, will there be change and will we get Bin Laden. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-14 5:36:42 PM |
| #11 from todays WaPo editorial "Analyzing what went wrong with the civilian program, insiders and outsiders point in part to the government's mistakes and in part to the political and even psychological resistance of the doctors and nurses who were meant to carry out the vaccinations. Health workers say the government failed to consult widely enough with hospital administrators and doctors, who, short-staffed already, feared the vaccination program would prove too costly and take staff away from other tasks. The administration's initial failure to propose compensation for health workers who were made seriously ill by the vaccine helped fuel a union-led revolt against the program. And because the program was launched on the eve of the Iraq war, many concluded that it was part of a Bush administration propaganda campaign and declined to participate on political grounds." And yet the admin calls the program a success. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-14 5:27:34 PM |
| #10 it was the admins job to make the case to the first responders on why it was necessary, and if they refused to see the light, to pressure them, or to come up with another way of doing things. Instead they seem to have "moved on" - ie theyre ignoring it. BTW, IIUC the unions wanted compensation for (what turned out to be rare) side effects - the admin didnt have this in place early. In any case i think that issue is now settled. So what the hell is going with the vaccination program? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-14 5:05:37 PM |
| #9 LH: With all due respect, the smallpox vaccination program was killed by the (ahem) Democratic nurse and first responder (cops and firemen) unions. I think I'd stay away from that one, myself. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-7-14 4:57:24 PM |
| #8 if the dems want to attack dubya on security, they should ask what the hell happened to the Small pox vaccination program. If they want to attack him on foreign policy, they should ask why Russia keeps getting a free pass among the weasels, why we're neglecting afghanistan, and if we have any idea what we're doing with Pakistan. Uranium in Niger? A distraction, that at best will be of interest to inside the beltway types, and at worst will blow up in the Dems faces. Dean, Levin and the brit left are leading on this one, and Kerry et al are being swept by the tide. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-14 4:08:04 PM |
| #7 The Uranium flap cannot help Kerry, Gephardt et al. The only Dem who can really make hay from this is Dean. But why would Terry McAuliffe want to help Dean, a sure loser? Maybe hes thinking what I am - No dem has a chance against Bush in 2004 - (historically you cant beat an incumbent unless the economy is in the tank - which this economy WON't be in fall 2004, not if it takes Keynsian pump priming to save it) Ergo its better if Dean takes the fall in 2004 so that a New dem gets nominated in 2008, rather than a new Dem losing and handing the party to the left for years. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-14 4:03:13 PM |
| #6 Actually, Lt. Smash reminded me of one teensy reason it is not possible for those 16 words to have "tricked" us into war: State of the Union Address: January 2003. Congressional war resolution adopted: October 2002. Just waiting for the explanation of how the space-time continuum was warped to bring about that little cause and effect accusation... that would be quite the trick, I'd say. |
| Posted by: BJD (The Dignified Rant) 2003-7-14 3:54:32 PM |
| #5 Also, to their 16, I reply with 4, by acronym: F O A D |
| Posted by: Hodadenon 2003-7-14 2:56:35 PM |
| #4 Severe strategic mistake. If the Dumbs were going to try and make a big deal out of this, the should have saved it for 3 days before the election, like the DUI thing. They've given us way too much yime to discredit them in their turn. |
| Posted by: Hodadenon 2003-7-14 1:07:15 PM |
| #3 NPR and its on-air analyst, Cokie Roberts, are so excited about the "16 infamous words" I thought they were going to puddle themselves this morning. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-7-14 12:58:10 PM |
| #2 Good job CC. Also, wasn't this story about the forged Niger document reported months ago? I know because my anti-war hs senior son told me so. From what I gather, the current storm rises from Ari's statement on Monday saying the line should not have been put in the SOTU. Why? It wasn't based on US intel. Fine, OK. Why can't we live with that? But, no. I watched PBS Newshour on Friday, and at least 25 minutes was devoted to this story. Nobody, except David Brooks, said the Brits still stand by their sources. Good enough for me. But the slant was pronounced on that broadcast. I was ready to break the TV. Yesterday's shows were good. I'm glad Condi and Rummy were there, especially Rummy. He gave it good to George by telling him," You don't listen". There was no such dissecting by the Western media of Iraq's documents submitted back in December detailing its WMD program. It was recognized by everyone as being bogus, but since it was Saddam lying, then OK, that's normal, now let's move on to the question of "Has the Prez made the case for going to war? Eleanor Clift, what's your opinion?" bs. One thing I wish W would do is when answering this question, please be as specific and stiff-boned as Condi and Rummy were. Geez, it looked like he was avoiding the issue altogether while in Africa. Fine, Iraq is/will be better off because Saddam is gone, but W, if your story is true, give dates and an understandable context so those of us watching Jennings and Brokaw can see a prez standing up for himself rather than spouting generalities. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-7-14 12:43:31 PM |
| #1 Here's a fun little mental exercise: Assume the worst; assume that the Democrats' critique is true--there was no Iraqi WMD program, Bush knew this, he deliberately misrepresented it to build up the case for war, there was no threat, yadda yadda yadda. Now what? Do we withdraw from Iraq? Restore Saddam to power? Put the secret police and fedhayeen back on the job? Put the kids back in the children's prison? Shoot a few thousand more Shiites and Kurds as a gesture of conciliation to the Ba'athists? What? C'mon, trolls, let's hear it. (And no, "regime change in Washington" is not a complete answer; you have to tell us what the new regime will do.) Don't everybody raise your hands at once. |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-7-14 12:32:12 PM |