Again?
Tweet
The Bush administration again (previously) uses federal property for partisan political use. There’s some kind of violation going on here.
26 Responses to “Again?”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Condi Rice fan fiction. LOL.
Answering Democratic untruths has to violate some kind of law, right, Oliver?
Political attacks don’t have any business being funded with taxpayer dollars. You know this, but you don’t care because its a Republican. I understand your hypocrisy quite well Frank. Isn’t it time to write more Condi Rice fanfic?
Important difference on this one, OW.
The White House is responding to an article in the Washington Post. How, exactly, is that “partisan”?
You’re not giving in to the right-wing fantasy that the WaPo is an organ of the Democratic Party, are you?
Good job, Tuco. Played that “Clinton did it!” hijack very nicely. Now go read the Starr report and get back to us on how that worked out, willya?
Oh, yeah. Tell that to Billy Ray Dale.
I agree with Quaker. The WaPo article is not a “partisan” attack. It was an attack of the truth by a respected newspaper and the White House needed to conjure up its prototypical lying machine to defend itself.
No, the WaPo is no ally of the Dems (they were among the most hawkish enablers among the media jackals), but this is still a partisan attack using public funds.
WaPo is an ideological ally of the Democratic Party, but Bush is nice enough to pretend they are a non-partisan paper (Pincus, righttttt) and blow them, officially, full of holes.
When the white House fights back its like the first time they spray pesticide in a building: all sorts of little roaches and insects are driven out of hiding.
Dugger (Feel free to use that wonderful metaphor)
Oliver, are you kidding me? How many times do Senators and House members use their websites for partisan purposes?
The White House staff is composed of all sorts of little roaches and insects, small surprise that they are frequenlty spotted in close proximity.
Now Oliver. I know that you’re not that dumb. (You can pretend to be all you want, but I know you’re not.)
A press release from the White House about position on any subject- whether it is exposing and rebutting statements from the bloviator general TK or trying to tell their side of the story that the Washington Post ignores, as you well know, is a perfectly legit use of the White House web site. All White House press releases can be found there.
It’s only partisan to you, because you don’t agree. Now if the president was using the site to raise money for Reblican candidates, then there would be a concern.
But keep banging that shallow drum as hard as you can. It’s sound is just past it’s peak, and it is beginning to wear out. It’ll have a mushy, worn out tone to it when you’ll need it most- about half a year from now.
The WaPo article points out that there hasn t been an investigation into how the Bush administration used pre-war intel to convince us all that war was the only choice.
An investigation into what? Congress had access to the same intelligence. President Bush did not look at the raw data. That’s why we have intelligence experts. They put it all together. He saw it and Congress saw it.
The accusations are simple Quaker. They have been accusing the administration of putting together “misleading” intelligence or that they “manipulated” it.
If the intelligence agencies who put together this intelligence have said over and over again that they were not pressured or told to alter data, then the data presented to both the President and Congress is what was used.
Where is the evidence that they misled people and where is the evidence that the intel was manipulated? And don’t give me a half-assed, “Well that’s what an investigation would prove” response. There has to be some evidence to trigger an investigation, not just the inane ramblings of a few left wing politicians.
You’ll have to look elsewhere for your answer on that one, Jay.
My earlier comment made no aspiriations to answer what you’ve asked. All I was saying was the White House press release denied something that was not charged in the WaPo article.
You, unlike the White House press office, want to discuss the substance of the WaPo article. My only purpose was to point out their reluctance to do so.
Which they did, in this case, by changing the subject.
The WaPo article points out that there hasn’t been an investigation into how the Bush administration used pre-war intel to convince us all that war was the only choice.
The press release rebuts that by answering a different question entirely. It claims that all those reports show that the administration didn’t force intelligence agencies to alter their intel data.
Not the same thing at all.
typo- Reblican=Republican
If you really want to fight about it with somebody, Jay, head on over to Kevin’s.
Hey,Oliver, isn’t it time for you to come up with something more original than calling CondiPundit a “fanfic”? That line is so lame, it should be collecting SSD.
Of course, frameone, without even knowing what he’s laughing at, thinks it’s funny.
See you at the Pajamas Media launch party, eh, Oliver?
Oliver, please think this crap through before posting. The position you’ve taken would mean that every single communication from a politician could be declared illegal since politicians (by definition) politic, and they’re paid with government funds to do so.
On second thought, this would end a whole lot of Ted Kennedy bloviation, so carry on.
Frank, I’ve been to your site. I stand by LOL.
And Jay, please turn to page 94 of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, there you will find this passage:
A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said, . . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments. The contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16,2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA S analysis.
Would you care to characterize what kind of behavior this passage documents? I say bald face lie to a complicit media whotre (Judith Miller wrote the article). Rebuttal?
Wrong Jay. An administration official cited Oak Ridge experts to Miller specifically because Oak Ridge experts are the final word on this kind of thing. Miller cited Oak Ridge in the article. At the time the article was published the Oak Ridge experts hadn’t even seen the evidence and when they finally saw it they disagreed with it. That’s a straight up lie in my book.
Frame, so what? All you’ve ‘proven’ is separate agencies disagreed over the use of the tubes.
From page 126 of the same report:
Try again.
frameone: “I stand by LOL” So what’s new? Like I would expect something decent from you.
Calling the President a liar on a national security/foreign policy issue of paramount importance = Speaking Truth To Power [clenched fist salute]
Posting his accusers’ own damning words on an Internet web site = Partisan Politics [back of hand pressed to forehead, handkerchief dabbing teary eyes]
Can the Copperheads sink any lower?
“There s some kind of violation going on here.” Amen to that.
Uh, that “Internet web site” would be the official White House web site. And the “damning words” are, in many cases, carefully snipped to make them a little more damning than they actually are.
A point of minor significance, I know.
If we are to accept O-Dub’s underlying premise here, that posting political positions, or actually simply posting the more accurately reflection of your own position, as an elected official, on your government website is illegal … then he will certainly be just as outraged that Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Reid took the liberty of posting overtly partisan press releases on their websites.