Daily Kos

Frank Rich on Iraq: 'What was not a lie?'

Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 01:51:27 PM PDT

Raw Story has an excerpt from Frank Rich's column tomorow.  Wish Frank would appear on TV more often.
A column set to appear in Sunday's New York Times by Frank Rich explores a number of 'cover-ups' attributed to the Bush Administration about the war in Iraq in recent reports, RAW STORY has learned.

Among other examples, Rich covers the PDF briefing ten days after 9/11 that showed "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with al-Qaida" which Murray Waas reported was kept from Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and last Sunday's LA Times story which described German intelligence officials as being "shocked" that President Bush and Colin L. Powell used "not proven" WMD intel in key prewar speeches.

Excerpts from Rich's Sunday column:
Advertisement

#

Each day brings slam-dunk evidence that the doomsday threats marshaled by the administration to sell the war weren't, in Cheney-speak, just dishonest and reprehensible but also corrupt and shameless. The more the president and vice president tell us that their mistakes were merely innocent byproducts of the same bad intelligence seen by everyone else in the world, the more we learn that this was not so. The web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a PR operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House. The real point of the Bush-Cheney verbal fisticuffs this month, like the earlier campaign to take down Joseph Wilson, is less to smite Democrats than to cover up wrongdoing in the executive branch between 9/11 and shock and awe.

....

What these revelations also tell us is that Bush was wrong when he said in his Veterans Day speech that more than 100 congressional Democrats who voted for the Iraqi war resolution "had access to the same intelligence" he did. They didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief that Waas uncovered. They didn't have access to the information that German intelligence officials spoke about to The Los Angeles Times. Nor did they have access to material from a Defense Intelligence Agency report, released by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan this month, which as early as February 2002 demolished the reliability of another major source that the administration had persistently used for its false claims about Iraqi-Qaida collaboration.

The more we learn about the road to Iraq, the more we realize that it's a losing game to ask what lies the White House told along the way. A simpler question might be: What was not a lie? The situation recalls Mary McCarthy's explanation to Dick Cavett about why she thought Lillian Hellman was a dishonest writer: "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the."'

Tags: Iraq, Frank Rich, New York Times (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 30 comments

  •  Frank Rich (4.00 / 9)

    Too bad he's behind Time"s firewall.  He needs a wider audience.

    Tips Please

    •  If it's Sunday (none / 0)

      it must be Biden. He's on Meet the Press tomorow.
      •  I wish for less Biden (none / 1)

        More Murtha and Feingold.   My wishes are not anyone's command, alas...

        War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

        by Margot on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 06:11:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Biden & Revelation 3:16 (4.00 / 2)

          "So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth."  
          •  You got it (none / 0)

            I was mentally comparing him to picket fences and dry toast. You've seen one, you've seen them all.  Bleah.  
            I can't remember a single thing Biden has said except for his words to Ashcroft on torture, saying his son was serving and it was a danger to our troops.  That's it.  I need  more than a bit of intense speech (3 years ago) to want to vote for someone.  

            War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

            by Margot on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 06:45:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah Feingold (4.00 / 4)

      on This week with George Stephanopoulos

      Russ Feingold
      Will Feingold Be the Anti-War Candidate?

      George Stephanopoulos sits down with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., in the senator's home state to discuss the war in Iraq and Feingold's presidential aspirations in 2008.

  •  Great excerpts. The only reason Bush wants to (4.00 / 5)

    pull troops out is to avoid impeachment.  We should impeach him anyway.  Take the House in 2006!

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 01:55:57 PM PDT

    •  We would (4.00 / 3)

      have to take out Cheney first
      •  You Take Them...... (4.00 / 8)

        Both Out, Along With The Rest Of The Administration, Via Impeachment and Criminal Charges!!!!

        The Proof is All out there, and what hasn't come to light Will!!

        Just ask those who were Speaking out long before the Illegal Invasion and Thru this Whole Time!!

        McCain Uses POW Status as Sword & Shield

        by jimstaro on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 02:04:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, take them both out simultaneously (4.00 / 11)

        Co-conspirators get tried together all the time.  A Bush/Cheneyt Double Impeachment would probably garner the largest global TV audience ever, and would be a fitting end for this juggernaught which is now screeching unceremoniously toward a brick wall, all sparks and molten slag, its wheels now completely off.  Of course, any talk of Impeachment makes the truly questionable assumption that the '06 elections will reflect the will of those who vote, thus giving the House and Senate to the Party That Didn't (my new, all purpose name for the Dems).  

        80% of the national vote is now counted by two Republican-controlled companies whose equipment is completely immune from any impartial, objective auditing and whose track record would have caused them to fold up shop 4 years ago, had they been selling their lemons to the private sector.  The Democratic leadership's relative inaction on this lynchpin issue (and GOP trump card, if you will) is their biggest claim to the "Party That Didn't" moniker.  I know; I fought that one in the trenches here in Maine where "we" have total Dem control.

        If there isn't a complete electoral breakdown this cycle, I'll be surprised.  The title of Rich's essay, which points to the size of the pile of evidence already in the public realm, indicates the dilemma we face: even though we have the goods on these gangsters to the tune of 1,000 Watergates (or 1 million Monicas, if you like) there is virtually no public mention of the obvious, necessary remedy - the dreaded I-word - amongst the ranks of elected Dems (let alone in the MSM).  What the hell?

        Nonetheless, Bushco's spiraling down is fun to watch, like the old Wide World of Sports footage of the ski-jumper wiping out predictably, week after week.  The trouble is, the "agony of defeat" may not belong to the guy who is wiping out, but to us, the audience.  

        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

        by nailbender on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 02:42:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How is it done and What dod we do after that? (none / 0)

          •  Artticles of Impeachement are filed... (none / 0)

            ...in the House Judiciary Committee which votes to proceed or not; if the vote is yea, an investigation and assembly of facts ensues with the full subpoena power of the Congress (which Nixon tried and failed to diminish on the basis of executive privelege, providing a good precedent)and the motion is then voted out of committee, upon which it is brought up before the full House.  The House then considers the motion to impeach (ie, charge with crime(s)) or not.  If Impeachment is successful, a Bill of Particulars is drawn up, the case is handed over to the Senate to try, the house appoints managers (prosecutors) to present the case to the Senate, the the Chief Justice of the Supremes  (aka the Rookie) presides, and the world watches. (nb this is all off the top of my head from memory of Clinton and Nixon; I might have some particluars backwards or sideways).

            This only plays out if the Dems gain control of the house and/or the GOP doesn't successfully pull off some version of an October surprise.  If they are able to Impeach both Pres and VP simultaneously (because they are partners in crime in the truest sense) and they are both convicted simultaneously, then there would be no vp to take Bush's place, Nancy Pelosi (assumably) would be next in line.  There would be all kinds of objections to this and it would depend on the rulings of Roberts who has the last say.  Rhenquist was very even handed in the Clinton fiasco, so there's no telling how Roberts would behave, but the world would be watching and you've got to assume that the mountain of damning evidence would dissuade him from bending over backwards for these obvious criminals (note that the gathering of evidence is very public, and that public perception is pretty much galvanized before the Senate ever gets its commission - witness both Clinton's perceived innocence and Nixon's perceived guiltiness of impeachable offences, neither of which Congress could have contravened without serious political harm to itself).

            Another, possibly more likely permutation that could get both Bush and Cheney thrown out at the same time would be if Cheney were to be impeached and convicted first, then Bush would have to nominate a new VP, but either the Senate or the House (majorities of both houses are required to ratify the new vp) stalls on this nomination (or if either house rejects it) while Bush's impeachement (which was naturally being processed in the House while the Cheney trial was going on in the Senate) proceeds rapidly, because it is based on the same basic case as Cheney's.  Then the House sends the case to the Senate to try before the new vp has been vetted.  If that were to happen, Bush would still be forced down without a proxy and Pelosi would take the oath.  As far as I can tell, either scenario is completely kosher constitutionally.

            To be sure, tt would be a power-play either way, but hey, are Republicans the only ones who can execute power plays?  No, only those who lack imagination or chutzpah are exluded from that club.  (The difference between the two scenarios above, and FL '00 or Texas redistricting grab ((to cite to recent GOP gambits)), for example, is that the former follow the rules.)

            A hunger-for-justice-induced fantasy to be sure, but not impossible.  What isn't disputable, imo, is that there are already enough incriminating facts out there to take them down dozens of times over, if the political will were to materialize in the ranks of the slowly awakening Dems.   That last clause is the big IF.

            "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

            by nailbender on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 06:14:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Pulling out the troops (4.00 / 6)

      Doesn't negate the criminal activities of Bush and his administration. It doesn't even mitigate them.

      Senator McCain, we don't have to twist everything that comes out of a Republican's mouth - you guys come pre-twisted.

      by PatsBard on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 02:13:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I heart.... (4.00 / 13)

    Image hosted by Photobucket.com

    When the oak is felled the whole forest echoes with its fall, but a hundred acorns are sown in silence by an unnoticed breeze. -Thomas Carlyle

    by Caldonia on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 02:06:17 PM PDT

  •  Re-writing history (4.00 / 7)

    How many times has Bush re-written his reasons for this war?  We started with WMD's and 9/11.  Then it was that Saddam had the "capability" to make WMD's.  Then it was, God knows how many more lies....  Wound up being so we could spread our form of government from the barrels of our tanks....

    Bush has already re-written the history of this war so many times he's in no position to accuse others of doing so.

    Pennacchio for Pennsylvania

    by PAprogressive on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 02:37:39 PM PDT

  •  TV vs. Print (none / 0)

    I've always thought that Frank Rich comes off much better in print than he does on TV.  He has a tremendous way with words, and that eloquence and flow just doesn't exist when he's being interviewed or when he's part of a panel.
  •  Frank Rich (none / 1)

    for President!

    Progressively annoyed for over seven years.

    by BrenP on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 04:00:21 PM PDT

  •  Where is Scotty? (none / 0)

    Speaking of the WH and the press finally turning on them, has anyone seen Scott McClellan lately?  His last conventional press briefing was on November 9th.  I realize Bush has been out of the country for awhile, but I can't wait to see Scotty again.  A lot has happened in the last few weeks.
  •  The saddest part is that: (4.00 / 3)

    The web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a PR operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House

    was obvious in real time for anybody that cared to look or was too much of a wimp to call foul.  Those who seek peaceful resolutions to disputes need to stop allowing themselves and others to label them as weak.  Obviously, the only people with guts and courage in 2002 were the ones that stood up to Bu$hCo.

    What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

    by Marie on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 04:42:41 PM PDT

  •  Rich's column not on website yet n/t (none / 0)

    "Mom, did you hurt yourself, or are you yelling at the TV again?

    by litigatormom on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 05:26:45 PM PDT

  •  Jeez ! And to think we did't make all that stuff (none / 0)

    up, and it REALLY is TRUE, and the MSM is now going to report it !
    Holy Cow Batman !

    Frank Rich = the best reason to read the NYT.
    Keep it up Frank but stay out of single engine planes.

    "There are no rules" Alberto Gonzales' Senate testimony regarding the midnight visit to sway John Ashcroft.

    by fedupinca on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 05:34:45 PM PDT

  •  Bush says (4.00 / 6)

    Congress had the same intelligence that he had. In that case, he shouldn't mind if Congress now takes a look at ALL the intelligence he had.
  •  Thanks to MaryScott O'Connor (none / 0)

    I can read it tonight! Whoo Hoo!

    It's not easy being a Floridian

    by lawstudent922 on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 06:04:06 PM PDT

Permalink | 30 comments