How can the White House fly in the face of the public record? The level of newspeak coming from the Bush administration seems to increase in audacity (and illogic) almost daily. The State of the Union was a great example of describing failure as success with a straight face and generally getting away with it. Check out what Scott McClellan was able to say without choking--

The following material comes from daily.misleader.org

When asked about the issue yesterday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed the entire WMD issue was unimportant because the Bush Administration had never said Iraq was a threat. He said, "the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'" to describe the Iraqi "threat" - not the Bush Administration.

But the record shows the Administration repeatedly said Iraq was an "imminent threat." On May 7th, less than a week after the president announced the end of major combat operations, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked, "Didn't we go to war because we said WMD were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S.?" He replied, "Absolutely." Similarly, in November 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" Most notably, Vice President Cheney said two days after President Bush's 2003 State of the Union that Saddam Hussein "threatens the United States of America."

Cross listed on "WSpeak."

Send comments to stoner1@csus.edu

In a 7 January 2004 report on “All Things Considered” (NPR), Daniel Zwerdling reported on the number of US casualties in Iraq apart from those killed. (As of 17 January 2004 the number killed was 501.)

Zwerdling’s efforts to find out how many soldiers who have been seriously enough injured or ill to be evacuated from Iraq were substantial—the military is not forthcoming.
As of early January, Zwerdling was able to get a number of casualties only from the Army. The number of American soldiers who have become seriously sick and injured in Iraq was 8, 848! That’s amazing!
To hear the entire story go to:
www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=7-Jan-2004
When/if the link doesn't work, go to npr.org, archives, "All Things Considered" for January 7, 2004

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has received a withering re-joinder from the Bushies regarding the book, The Price of Loyalty in which O'Neill portrays George W. Bush as being disengaged in White House meetings. According to the Toranto Star, "The book is replete with stories of a president who appeared zoned out at meetings and said he operated on "instinct" and "gut," not briefing books." Unfortunately, O'Neill has seemingly retreated from his positions. The Toronto Star reported on January 14, 2004:

Under concerted attack from the White House, former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill retreated yesterday.

O'Neill said his contention that President George W. Bush came to office fixated on ousting Saddam Hussein was really just a government policy of regime change in Iraq that he inherited from the preceding Bill Clinton administration.

O'Neill said he would probably even vote for Bush in November's presidential election.

The author of the book detailing O'Neill's 23 months in the Bush cabinet, Ron Suskind, also came under fire from his former employer, the Wall Street Journal, where he won a Pulitzer.


In an editorial yesterday, the paper called its former reporter a "well-known Bush antagonist."

That's amazing! The Wall Street Journal apparently doesn't mind sharing the glory when Suskind wins a Pulitzer, but distances itself when it comes to criticizing Bush.

We need to keep in mind how focused the White House machinery has been in responding to an unflattering portrayal of Bush in meetings, but apparently unfocused on such things as finding the leaker who outed Valerie Plame. Wesley Clark "compared the length of time it took Bush to investigate a White House leak that identified a CIA agent last summer and the alacrity with which the treasury department decided it had to investigate whether O'Neill had secret documents.

'They're not concerned about national security, but they're real concerned about political security,'Clark said." Absolutely right.

As I've written elsewhere, in this day in age, you "don't mess with Texas" --even if you were a member of the Bush Cabinet. None of this is lost on Colin Powell, I'm sure. Bush gave him a second chance after Powell was soft on the invasion of Iraq initially. But he got religion. For those who seek power as these guys do, that is NOT amazing.