Good Work, WaPo

This’ll piss off the wingers:

Asterisks dot White House?s Iraq argument
Administration had access to intel that wasn?t shared with Congress
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

Heh indeedily-doodily. Read the whole thing, as they say.

UPDATE: See also World O’Crap.


Comments: 13


“This’ll piss off the wingers:”

By “winger” I assume you mean “right-winger,” and I didn’t get “pissed off” when I read the article. Though left-wingers would have all of you believe we are all a bunch of loose cannons, I was even able to maintain my composure when the same sentiment was expressed in extreme form by anti-war activist and shock artist Stephen Pearcy in my recent interview with him:

I was nearly as calm and collected as Eric Bailey of the Los Angeles Times, who also recently interviewed Pearcy. Compare our two articles. Bailey puts a completely different spin on Pearcy’s incendiary displays (you’ll have to google that in as the link is much too long and I’m not computer savvy enough to shorten it). Though we probably should not, we all spin, even Bill O’Reilly spins. When we spin, we leave out certain facts that don’t support our argument and exaggerate the facts that support our argument. I believe there is also spin in the arguments presented in this article you have linked us to. The spin will go on even well beyond the point in which this issues has been resolved. But as long as we don’t go to extreme, Pearcyesque measures to deliver our message, there is no reason for any of us to get “piss(ed) off.” Let’s all keep our heads cool, “unite” and conquer.


I can’t wait until BushCo. and their flying monkey minions in the media are reduced to using the childlike, sophistic, “well, you guys used to let us get away with this shit before, so what’s different? Why have the rules changed? Waaah, Waaah.”


But as long as we don’t go to extreme, Pearcyesque measures to deliver our message

Would killing 100,000 people in order to deliver the message of democracy — and failing — count as ‘Pearcyesque’?

Also, who the hell is Stephen Pearcy? Does he have a column in a major newspaper?


And yet it didn’t piss off the wingnuts — instead they cherrypick a paragraph and move one — instahack-like.


Jade, you could simply google in his name, although I offered you a way to learn who Pearcy was above, by posting links to LA Times writer, Bailey’s recent article on him and my recent interview, published in Capitol Coffee House. Also, his recent Bush-bashing, anti-American artwork was recently the subject of national controversy when it ended up being displayed at the Justice Department in Sacramento, California. It was on the front page of most of the major newspapers. You must have been too busy blogging that day to notice.

As for all those people that were killed, I think that was a message terrorists were trying to send. Although I am sure terrorists would have appreciated the work displayed in Sacramento as well as his soldier effigy, I wouldn’t go so far as to blame Pearcy for those deaths you’ve mentioned. And, just for the record, I the death toll for the Iraq war is much higher than the figure you’ve quoted.


Correction: Last sentence should read, “I believe the death toll…”


I’m sorry, Jade, I didn’t post a link to that LA Times article like I said I did above. I’m making errors left and right today (no pun intended). So, to make an honest man out of myself, here is that link:,0,3080143.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Hmmmm, That was a pretty poorly done interview BLT. You may have been “calm and collected” but your questions were stunningly inept.
No surprise though, when I went back to the front page of this “Capitol Hill Coffee house” I’d never heard of before, one instantly gets an idea as to the general calibre of the articles submitted to it, the first 2 article names were (and I shit you not)
“Why the Nutty Ninth Circuit Is Nuts” and, get ready for this one “Makes You Almost Think Some Women Get What They Deserve”… Seriously…
get ready for next week’s stunning expos?s’ “Why Islamofascists are taking over California” and “Get back in the damn kitchen and make me my sandwich woman!”


1) My question was rhetorical. From the sound of it, I doubt that this dopey artist has anything interesting to say beyond ‘Bush is yucky’. So who cares.

2) I have no blog, and do not spend much of my time online reading about minor scandals in Californian bureaucrats’ offices.

3) I would classify a lot of Bush-bashing artwork as PRO-American.


Jade, when “minor scandals in California bureaucrats’ offices” make national news, that makes them major scandals. Hello? Of course, Pearcy is obviously not my hero either, only a friend whom I strongly disagree with about almost everything.

Timmah420, if your opinions and criticisms weren’t so transparently fueled by a deep-seated hatred for conservatives, I would be more apt to take them seriously. As for now, I’ll take them with a grain of salt. I am curious as to how many nice things you’ve said to and/or about conservatives in the last 2 weeks. Wouldn’t you agree that you hate conservatives and that you can’t even read one or two sentences of anything they’ve written without going into a blind rage? Based on your blog entries, I can’t imagine you getting through even one paragraph of any conservative article, so how I am to take you serious as a critic?


As for all those people that were killed, I think that was a message terrorists were trying to send.

Which portion are we talking about here, BLT? The roughly 1/3 killed by various IEDs, etc., or the 2/3 we killed bombing cites and using “charming” weapons like white phosphorous, you know, the one that literally melts children?


Inaccuracies in Bush’s defense of lead-up to war / Congress had far less information than White House had

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent day


What is your source, Marq? Also, Timmah, if I may add this one more suggestion: If Capitol Coffee House is beneath you, there are plenty of other places you can find my interview with Pearcy. Try the Intellectual Conservative for example:

Of course juxtaposing the terms “intellectual” and “conservative” to you is probably the mother of all oxymorons. If your goal is to discredit me, (which I believe it is, as it is with anyone who does not share your point of view), or to discredit any news/editorial publication that would include me, (or any conservative for that matter) it doesn’t matter where I send you, you will return with the same caustic comments.


(comments are closed)