Incomplete, Exaggerated, Incorrect or Fabricated

Posted by Chris | Apr 8, 2006 | 11 |

This article, from Knight Ridder, is direct enough to burn a hole through anybody’s Saturday morning hangover

WASHINGTON – The revelation that President Bush authorized former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby to divulge classified information about Iraq fits a pattern of selective leaks of secret intelligence to further the administration’s political agenda.

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials have reacted angrily at unauthorized leaks, such as the exposure of a domestic wiretapping program and a network of secret CIA prisons, both of which are now the subject of far-reaching investigations.

But secret information that supports their policies, particularly about the Iraq war, has surfaced everywhere from the U.N. Security Council to major newspapers and magazines. Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated.

You don’t say? My only real problem with the above, is the contention that anything, at this point, is the subject of a far-reaching investigation. When the “powerful” and “independent” head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, refuses to swear in witnesses while investigating warrentless wiretapping by the NSA, “far-reaching” isn’t the first term that comes to mind.

And what of the “incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated” leaks? You certainly don’t need me to tell you what those leaks have gotten us. While much of America spends its Saturday shopping for lawn care equipment, car bras and duct tape, some will not be so lucky. Still others will scream that “there is no failure here sweetheart,” as if saying it makes it so. I’ll let you find those power tools on your own, because I have a train to catch.

(Via some guy you’ve never heard of)

About The Author

Chris

11 Comments

Kahli on April 8, 2006 at 9:14 am

Car bras? Are they to wear while driving over bumpy roads?

Seriously, I’m about ready to scream. It seems most Americans are happy to fiddle while our country burns.

I’ve never watched Boston Legal but a friend sent me this link. It’s an amazing indictment of what is going on in our country and how citizens are reacting to it all.
- Chris on April 8, 2006 at 12:58 pm
  
  I haven’t lived in suburbia in well over a decade, so I wasn’t certain car bras were still around. To my undying releif, it seems they are.
  - Kahli on April 8, 2006 at 1:40 pm
    
    Uh, wow. I never knew that is what those weird things were called. BT is very enlightening! Now that I know what car bras are, I’m trying to decide if I have the courage to ask why they exist.
    - Chris on April 8, 2006 at 9:52 pm
      
      I can tell you why the sky is blue, but the reason for car bras is beyond the scope of my limited mind.
      - keepinon on April 8, 2006 at 10:32 pm
        
        Chris: They are used by some to protect the front of the car from stones that fly up from the vehicle ahead and chip the paint on the very front of the car, I THINK. To me, it is a lot easier to simply buy a bit of touch up paint to take care of stone chips, but who am I to quibble? BTW, Hell of a post!!
  - ImSquarePegDamnIt on April 9, 2006 at 2:25 am
    
    I’m just tremendously relieved to know that you can buy your well endowed SUV a sport bra. With all that bumpy off-roading that SUVs do, they could give themselves a black eye.
    
    I’ve been there myself. 🙂
Steven D on April 8, 2006 at 10:18 am

Yes, but according to Scotty they were “good leaks” which helped the American People (Lies=Good) whereas the other ones were the “bad leaks” since they hurt the American People (Truth=Bad). And so it goes in the endless war against <strike>EastAsia</strike&gt Terror (Terror=Golden Opportunity for Tyrants).
upyernoz on April 8, 2006 at 10:37 am

hey chris, your “some guy” link is broken. don’t piss off some guy!
- Chris on April 8, 2006 at 1:00 pm
  
  God forbid! I certainly wouldn’t want to deprive him of any traffic, because I know he’s hurting for it. I hope he doesn’t try to sweat all over me the next time I see him.
Ed J on April 8, 2006 at 10:42 am

was positively shameful, even by his low standards. His dodge of the question of the date of declassification of the NIE is really strange. Sorry for the length of this, but the time he put into not answering the question is important. This from the White House:

Q Back when the NIE was released on July 18, 2003, you were asked that day when that had been actually declassified. And you said in that gaggle that it had been declassified that day. And if that’s the case, then when the information was passed on to the reporter 10 days earlier, then it was still classified at that time.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you’re referring — a couple of things. First of all, it was publicly released that day, so that’s when a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that we were making available to the public was released. The second part of your question is referring to an ongoing legal proceeding, and referring to a filing in that legal proceeding. We have had a policy in place, going back to the October time period of 2003, that we are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation or an ongoing legal proceeding. That policy remains unchanged.

But let me point out a couple of facts, step back from this legal proceeding. The President of the United States has the authority to declassify information. I also indicated to some reporters earlier today that the President would never authorize the disclosure of information that he felt could compromise our nation’s security. Now, the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified — portions of it were declassified. We made sure that we did not — that we continued to protect sensitive sources and methods within the National Intelligence Estimate.

But let’s go back to the time period that you’re talking about, because I think it’s important for the public to know or recall that time period.

There was a lot of debate going on about the pre-war intelligence that was used in the lead up to the decision to go into Iraq and remove a brutal tyrant from his position of power. There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration, suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence. That was flat-out false. The National Intelligence Estimate was a document that was provided to members of Congress. It is the collective judgment of the intelligence community. And because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around at the time, we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified, be declassified. And that’s exactly what we did.

Q I understand the reason why you thought it needed to be declassified, because of the debate at the time. The question was, when was it declassified. And you were asked that day, when — the question was, “When was it actually declassified?” And you said, “It was officially declassified today.”

If it had been officially declassified on July 18, 2003, then 10 days before, when the information was given out, it was still classified at the time.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you’re going back to an assertion that is made in a filing related to an ongoing legal proceeding when you talk about the second part of your question. There is no way for me to separate that question and talk about this issue without discussing an ongoing legal proceeding. And I can’t do that. We have a policy that’s been established, and I’m obligated to adhere to that policy.

Q But answer the question, it’s a factual question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but you can’t separate that question from the legal proceeding —

Q Was it declassified that day —

MR. McCLELLAN: — because of one of the assertions that was made in the filing.

Well, you can go back and look at comments that were made at that time. That was when it was —

Q Those were your comments.

MR. McCLELLAN: — that was when it was publicly released at the time. I haven’t looked back at exactly what was said at that time.

Q Well, let’s be really clear about this. It says right here on July 18th, “When was it actually declassified?” Mr. McClellan, answer, “It was officially declassified today.” Is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you’re asking me to get into the timing. I’m not backing away from anything that was said previously — that’s when the document was released, so that’s when it officially —

Q They don’t say “released.” They say “declassify.”

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, Jim. Let me tell you. That’s when it was officially released. So I think that’s what I was referring to at the time. I’d have to go back and look at the specific comments, but I’m not changing anything that was said previously, so let me make that clear.

Q But if you were —

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, secondly, the question you’re going to, again, relates to the timing of when certain information was declassified —

Q I’m not going to that question —

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but there’s no way you can separate that question out from the ongoing legal proceeding —

Q Scott, you are very careful with your words here. I think if you wanted to say “released,” you would have said “released.” You said, “declassified.”

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q Well, what does that tell —

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s when the information was released publicly.

Q Scott, did you not know —

MR. McCLELLAN: But there was —

Q That’s not what —

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, for the National Intelligence Estimate, Jim, it did go through a declassification process; you are correct. And the information was carefully looked at by the intelligence community before the portions of the National Intelligence Estimate were made available to the public —

Q But, Scott, you said, “declassified.” If it’s declassified on that day, it wasn’t declassified before. And you’re saying you’re sticking to — you’re not taking back anything you said before, and what you said that day is it was officially declassified.

MR. McCLELLAN: I’d be glad to take a look at exactly what I said, and I’ll do that.

Q You didn’t say — I mean, we’ve got that here —

MR. McCLELLAN: I can’t do that here in this room right now, but I’ll be glad to take a look at it —

Q Then why are you saying you’re not backing up from anything if you —

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what I’m saying is that — I think what I was referring to is the fact that that was when it was made available to the public. So all that information is officially declassified at that point.

Q Then why are you saying you won’t back off anything you said before if, in fact, we have transcripts here where you say that’s when it was officially declassified? Are you still saying that’s when it was officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s when it was made available to the public. So it’s officially —

Q When was it officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: — so it’s officially declassified at that point. I think we’re talking past each other a little bit. I’ll have to go back and look at the specific transcript — and I’ll be glad to do that — and we can talk about it further later.

Q Okay. When was it officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, in terms of the timing of when information may have been declassified, that gets into a question relating to the legal proceeding in a filing that was made by Mr. Fitzgerald earlier this week.

Q What were you referring to on July 18th, then? Was that the official release, or official declassification?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that’s what I’ll have to check. I’ll have to go back and look. But my sense is, and my recollection is — while we’re sitting here talking about it is — I was referring to the fact that was when it was officially declassified for the public.
Nancy LeTourneau on April 8, 2006 at 11:27 am

Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated.

I’m glad to see this kind of statement in the media. As I watch a little of the coverage on tv – this is what I keep feeling like screaming at the set. Its not just when and how the information was leaked – but that it was incorrect, fabricated, misleading (how many ways can we avoid the use of the word “lie.”)

Incomplete, Exaggerated, Incorrect or Fabricated

About The Author

Chris

11 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments