White House Tries to Dismiss Iraq Claim as Campaign Issue By ADAM NAGOURNEY ASHINGTON, July 14 â The White House mounted an aggressive campaign today to contain what several Republicans said was a potentially worrisome dispute over President Bush's use of suspect information in pressing for a war on Iraq. As part of their offensive, White House officials released new information to buttress Mr. Bush's claim, attacked the credibility of his Democratic critics and accused the news media of a "feeding frenzy." After weeks of declining to disclose such information, Mr. Bush's aides described a chronology that they said mitigated Mr. Bush's citation of unsubstantiated British intelligence in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28. The president referred to the intelligence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa to further a nuclear weapons program as one reason in making his case for invading Iraq. Today Mr. Bush, personally addressing the issue for the fourth time in six days, asserted at the White House that questions about the evidence he used did not undercut his overall case for war. At the same time, Mr. Bush's political advisers pushed back against Democratic presidential contenders who have in recent days accused him of losing credibility on what had been seen as his strong suit, foreign affairs. The Republican National Committee issued a statement tonight asserting that "Democrats politicize war in Iraq," while party leaders declared that Democrats did not have the standing to challenge Mr. Bush on the subject. "The bottom line is this â what is their policy, what are they for?" Ed Gillespie, the incoming chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in an interview today. "We know what they are against, we know they don't like the president. But what are they going to do?" The rapid counterattack from the White House, the Republican National Committee and Mr. Bush's re-election campaign suggested that Mr. Bush's advisers were unsettled about the turn of events, even as they expressed continuing confidence in the president's overall political support. And while arguing that Mr. Bush would suffer no long-term damage, some Republicans still said it was critical that he respond to the attacks by the Democrats. "They have the potential to hurt, unless they are firmly and forcefully and frequently answered," said Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. "I don't think you can let any of this go unanswered. And I don't think the president is going to take any of this lying down." At the White House, the departing press secretary, Ari Fleischer, used a briefing on his last day to castigate the press for a "media feeding frenzy that misinterprets why America went to war." Mr. Fleischer said that questions about the episode had been adequately addressed by the administration. But Democrats, as well as some people outside of politics, disputed Mr. Fleischer's portrayal of the issue as just a slow summer-news squall. "It's much more than a media frenzy, because it does reflect on the truthfulness of the U.S. government, and whether they distorted facts to get into the war," said Bryce Nelson, a University of Southern California journalism professor. "The coverage is probably less than it should be." Mr. Bush's political advisers said today that they were highly optimistic about his prospects for 2004. Even so, a few recent polls have signaled erosion in Mr. Bush's public standing as questions have grown about his handling of the war. A Washington Post/ABC News Poll over the weekend found that Mr. Bush's overall job approval rating had dropped nine percentage points in 18 days, to 59 percent. That remains a very strong number, though the speed of the decline has caught the attention of Republicans strategists, who said the White House needed to move quickly to make sure criticisms like those swirling around the statement about uranium sales did not take hold. "We learned that from the Clinton folks: You can't let any story get out there without a response, or you'll get killed," said Ronald Kaufman, who was political director for Mr. Bush's father. "You can't leave it unanswered. This is a legitimate news story today. But it won't be a legitimate political story tomorrow." As part of that effort throughout the day, White House officials argued that the statement, as Mr. Bush made it in his State of the Union, was at least technically correct in quoting British intelligence. Mr. Bush defended the quality of the intelligence-gathering operation of his administration, even as he acknowledged that suspect information did not belong in his address. "The intelligence I get is darn good intelligence and the speeches I have given are backed by good intelligence," Mr. Bush said. He added: "When all is said and done, the people of the United States will realize that Saddam Hussein had a weapons program." He also defended the overall mission in Iraq, which Democratic presidential contenders have also criticized, noting the continued casualties and chaos since Baghdad's fall. "Our country made the right decision," Mr. Bush said. Disputing that assertion, though, has produced a rare agreement across almost the entire spectrum of the nine Democrats running for president. Aides to several Democratic candidates said that while they did not believe they could ever actually overcome Mr. Bush on the issue of national security, they could at least blunt his standing in the area. Raising questions about Mr. Bush's credibility in Iraq, several Democratic campaign aides also said, may prove useful as the candidates move to attack his credibility on other issues. Mr. Bush's political aides said that they would continue to rebut any Democratic criticism. "We just need to take head-on their policy discussion here," said Mr. Gillespie, the incoming party leader. "The more we can take it on head-on, the better off we are, because it does highlight a big contest between this administration and Republican policies on national security, and the lack of policy on the Democratic side."
LOL. actually they forgot the media is after ratings. war is good for ratings - hence 'embedded' cheerleader/talking heads, walls covered with pictures of 'america's bravest,' john wayne-style toughguy neocon press briefings, comical aircraft carrier stunts, whatever. bang-bang!! night-vision goggles and explosions and killing are fun! neocons want to bomb people, we love neocons! but who wants to watch iraqi children knee-deep in garbage and sewage, sweating in the desert, miserable widows crying, people wasting away from TB? patrolling and nation-building? bor-ing! neocons now want to hedge and play word games, neocons are out! on to more exciting things. they had a ratings bonanza with lewinsky-gate and the impeachment last time, a replay couldn't hurt the bottom line.
If you always have a government filled with basically wealthy ruling class people, why shouldn't the media try to create a balance by looking for the dirt? Isn't their job to expose the truth? If this is considered "liberal" I am all for it.
of course they should - politicians aren't going to police themselves.... as for "liberal" or "conservative," follow the ratings - if there's a buck to be made, they'll adapt quickly.
Democrats broaden criticism of administration on Iraq Kennedy: 'We may lose the peace' Tuesday, July 15, 2003 Posted: 6:37 PM EDT (2237 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States went to war against Iraq "under false pretenses," a leading Democratic senator charged Tuesday, as members of his party sharpened their critiques of the Bush administration's policy on Iraq. In a scathing speech, Sen. Edward Kennedy faulted both the administration's justification for its war and its handling of Iraq's reconstruction in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall from power. "They have undermined America's prestige and credibility in the world," Kennedy said in a speech delivered at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Democrats broadened their criticism, moving beyond a singular focus on a disputed line about Iraq's nuclear ambitions in the president's January State of the Union address. "The misleading statement about African uranium is not an isolated issue," said Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Levin said Bush's statement -- in which he cited British intelligence -- that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa was "but one of several questionable statement and exaggerations" in the buildup to war. "It is therefore essential that we have a thorough, open and bipartisan inquiry into the objectivity, credibility and use of U.S. intelligence before the Iraq war," Levin said in a Senate floor speech. The Senate Intelligence Committee is already reviewing the matter, but it is doing so behind closed doors and Democrats are pressing for an open investigation. Some Republicans say the administration needs to better explain how an assertion about Iraq based on questionable intelligence made its way into a major presidential speech at a time when Bush was trying to rally support for military action against Iraq. Bush cites 'larger point' Monday, Bush told reporters he had "darn good intelligence" on Iraq despite the since-discredited line in his State of the Union address that Baghdad sought to purchase uranium from Africa. "The larger point is and the fundamental question is, 'Did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program?' And the answer is, 'Absolutely,' " Bush said. Bush also said that Saddam "wouldn't let" U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq, but, in fact, the inspectors were in the country in the months before the war. Tuesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president meant to emphasize that Saddam was "trying to thwart the inspectors every step of the way and keep them from doing their job." The White House has tried to put the uranium issue behind it, arguing that the allegation was just a small part of the U.S. justification for war. "Let's put this in perspective," McClellan said. "I mean, this issue here relates to the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime posed to the region, to his people and to the world. And the statement in the State of the Union was one piece of one part of a much larger body of evidence." But Democrats did not relent in their criticism. Kennedy called the Bush administration's policy in Iraq "adrift" and said the U.S. soldiers facing daily attacks in Iraq "are paying the price." He said the administration must reach out to the international community and develop a comprehensive plan to rebuild Iraq. "America won the war in Iraq, as we knew we would, but if our present policy continues, we may lose the peace," Kennedy said. "We must rise to the challenge of international cooperation."
Is this that same Kennedy who was involved in a young girls' death after a party or something. Seems I talked to some people not long ago who lived very near the scene who said there were some very serious problems with his story. Just the kind of leader we all love.
LOL! Optional777 at his best - when all else fails, when his shallow arguments are bested, his hypocrisy revealed, and his points proven to be unsound to say the least, he resorts to lies, slander, and name-calling. And by the way, the score remains with you decidedly trounced in all categories.
With a self appointed dimwit like you serving as judge no reasonable person would have any other reaction but: BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAA