The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Liberals always want it both ways - and all three ways if they can get away with it

So which is it? Did Bush lie about justification for the war OR did Bush leak information that supported justification of the war? Half of the time we are being beset with the catch-phrase "Bush lied people died". Now during Libby's testimony it is "revealed" that Bush authorized "leaking" of classified information and that is why he discussed Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

Apparently, CNN was quick to point out that Bush authorized naming Valerie Plame. Unfortunately for CNN, they broke the story before they got the facts. According to NewsMax:
In fact, the so-called leak authorized by Bush had nothing to do with Plame - but instead covered Iraq war intelligence that was mostly already in the public domain.

CNN eventually realized its error and issued an on-air correction, forcing liberals coast-to-coast to cancel their planned impeachment parties.

I guess CNN was not happy with the amount of egg they got on their face. Later Bill Schneider, long time Democrat water carrier, claims the administration is hypocritical and looks foolish. According to NewsBusters, Schneider said:
"Well, the White House doesn't really want to get into a discussion of this issue. For one thing, it makes the President look a little, well, shall we say, hypocritical?...It was not a crime for the President to do that because, as the attorney in the White House said, anything he authorizes is instantly declassified. But it does make the President look a little foolish and deceptive, because this leak was authorized, again, according to Mr. Libby, to discredit a political critic of the administration. It was authorized for political reasons, and that’s a little bit embarrassing."
Schneider goes on to state:
"...Because if they did start to debate the issue of, when is a leak not a leak, then they’re going to be sounding very much like the debate, that you may remember, over ‘it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.’"
I think I know who is embarrassing himself. First, they state that Bush authorized the "leak" - their word. A leak by definition is the distribution of classified or secretive material by someone who does not have the legal or ethical right to do so. Where the president has inherent power to authorize declassification of the material in question, there is no leak. This is simply the release of information in a manner of their choosing. So by willfully choosing to use the word "leak" CNN sets up a straw man to argue against. Liberals are always so quick to criticize conservatives for bringing up Bill Clinton, yet here is Bill Schneider refering to Clinton's debate over the word "is". Where this information is authorized and the word "leak" is restricted to the arena of unauthorized, Bill Schneider is the one who ends up being hypocritical and embarrassed.

As for the distribution of information. Liberals and their friends in the media act as if management of war support is somehow inherently wrong or shady. I am a project manager and project management often requires communication of information in order to retain support for a project. It may require reiteration of the project justification, distribution of new information, clarification of information. Sometimes we need to review expected benefits. Even when benefits are what was projected, if costs exceed that, we may need to review benefits to see if there are other benefits we can declare. None of these actions are shady, unethical or wrong. They are management requirements in an environment that easily loses interest or support at the slightest obstacle.

Somehow, critics of the war seem to think that after the war starts only their side should be heard. They want to paint management of war support as dishonest, unethical or lies. It is the President's and his administration's job to manage war support, yet that is frowned upon. We know who the hypocrites and embarrasments are and it is not this administration.

5 Comments:

  • At 8:35 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    Straw men, for sure. What about project management that actively utilizes bold-faced lies?

    "We know where they [WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
    - Donald Rumsfeld, March 2003

    It is the Bush clan that wants it all three ways. We're just sick of our kids coming home in body bags because of this. Why you and your ilk are not sick of it is beyond me.

     
  • At 12:10 AM, Blogger Repack Rider said…

    Did Bush lie about justification for the war OR did Bush leak information that supported justification of the war

    Both. First, they lied. Then they cherry-picked the intel and released part of it that supported their claims, and withheld the part that blew their claims out of the water.

    Seen any WMD lately?

     
  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    What about project management that actively utilizes bold-faced lies?

    What about it? I was talking about my experiences where lying does not have a place.

    "We know where they [WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

    Both intelligence, witness of top Iraqi people finally starting to talk and the DOCEX papers support that they were there. What is your point? Thanks to our pals in the UN stalling, Saddam had time to move the WMD, likely to Syria.

    I get weary of liberals who will not provide the proof of Saddam destroying WMD that we know he had. Part of his cease-fire agreement was to destroy them and provide proof of their destruction. Where is that proof. Libs just want to play smug and loose with that stuff by simply shouting Bush lied, people died. It is irresponsible to walk away from nailing down when and how they were destroyed in order to score political points against the Bush administration.

    Where there was documented proof that they existed and no documented proof that they were destroyed doesn't it seem the height of stupidity to NOT find out what happened to them? Libs just want to move on and not worry where they are or in whose hands they are. This is the reason why Dems can never be trusted with national security. They always put getting their power back ahead of it.

     
  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Repack Rider, thanks for commenting. There is plenty in my response to Bill to answer your "point". I will simply state a response to cherry picking intel.

    Newsflash: every administration must and does cherry pick from intel. It is called sorting through massive amounts of data that often has conflicting items and doing your best to find what is the truth. Take the example of a simple crime - say a robbery of a convenience store. The police take eyewitness statements later from 5 who saw it. What are the chances that all 5 are going to give the exact same information regarding the height, build, dress, facial features of the person? What about the car he drives off in? Is it light green that has been faded in the sun or is it light blue? Most couldn't tell if it were a Ford, Chevy or Mitsubishi. Yet the police need to sort through all the info and cherry pick as best they can in order to determine the right course of action.

    Whether it is cherry picking intel or contingency strike plans against other countries like Iran, liberals and their water carrying media continue to take routine procedures and purposefully paint them in a bad light. Like I said above, irresponsible and jounalism are quickly becoming synonymous.

     
  • At 2:48 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    Rumsfeld made that statement two weeks after we had begun bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age, during which there was round-the-clock satellite surveillance, and you know this was the case in the long lead-up to the war too. After all, that's how smart bombs get where they're supposed to go. This whole "shipped to Syria" thing is such a tired, worn-out soundbite.

    It was a lie.

    As for the sites that were under UN inspections control prior to the invasion, once the US expelled the inspectors, it was Rumsfeld and Co. who made the mistake about not securing those sites. But of course, right on cue, you want to blame the UN.

    I could give you a pile of sources that document arms demolitions from UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and IAEA, but you will dismiss them as you do any information that doesn't fit your worldview. You do it all the time. You do not care for proof or the truth even when it is staring you in the face. If you did, you would have something in common with US Generals Zinni, Newbold and Eaton, all of whom have a lot more experience than any of us do on this question.

    The concept we use here in America is innocent until proven guilty. That puts the burden of proof squarely on YOU and the Bush clan, which those of us who opposed this fiasco have been asking for all along. So far none of you have come up with anything CONCRETE. Nothing. Zilch. Just a whole lot of wild speculations, faked pictures and finger pointing and blaming the UN, the French, Germans and anyone else you try to rope in. It's pathetic and not becoming of a bunch of tough talking warhawks. So much for "the buck stops here."

    Yes, there USED to be WMDs and they were sold to Saddam by the United States for the war against Iran, and because arms dealing is "good business." That's why we knew they WERE there. Then Gulf War I comes along, and from that day in 1991 until the beginning of US bombing in 2003 there were inspectors in Iraq monitoring WMD compliance with destructions of stockpiles, all of which is documented in the 2004 Duelfer report, the guy hired by Bush to report on it.

    But obviously you won't even accept the word of Bush's guy.

    The fallacy you continue to push that "all western intelligence agreed" has long been disproven, even most recently with the brouhaha over Bush authorizing the NIE leak, which highlighted that a cherry-picked piece was pulled from the depths of the report in direct controversion to a key finding of that same report that clearly stated that the intelligence was in question and should not be relied upon.

    I'm incredibly weary of people like you and this Administration having your lies exposed again and again only to have you continue repeating them again and again even years after the fact. Especially as it continues to provide "rationale" for the continued deaths of American troops and Iraqis and every other person caught in the crosshairs of this completely unnecessary misadventure.

    Your pat broken-record response that "Dems just want power back" as if that makes ANY sense in this discussion is also tired, worn-out and empty.

    I will restate: we're sick of our kids coming home in body bags for what has been PROVEN to be a host of false rationales. So false that they've continued to change over time. First it was imminent threat from Iraqi WMDs. When that fell flat on its face, then it was liberating Iraqi people. 87% of Iraqis want the US to leave, but Bush says no. How is that supposed to show that we honor and support their liberated self-determination? It doesn't. We're all waiting to hear the naked truth.

    Iraq was and is a huge mistake that has cost us dearly - in world prestige, money and human lives. Again, why you and your ilk are not sick of it is beyond me.

    You keep wishing that people will forget what has actually happened. We won't.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home