The Empire Strikes Back
White House Shoves Back on Bush ClaimBy ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON, July 14 � The White House mounted an aggressive campaign today to contain what several Republicans said was a potentially worrisome dispute over President Bush's use of suspect information in pressing for a war on Iraq.
As part of their offensive, White House officials released new information to buttress Mr. Bush's claim, attacked the credibility of his Democratic critics and accused the news media of a "feeding frenzy."
After weeks of declining to disclose such information, Mr. Bush's aides described a chronology that they said mitigated Mr. Bush's citation of unsubstantiated British intelligence in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28. The president referred to the intelligence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa to further a nuclear weapons program as one reason in making his case for invading Iraq.
Today Mr. Bush, personally addressing the issue for the fourth time in six days, asserted at the White House that questions about the evidence he used did not undercut his overall case for war.
At the same time, Mr. Bush's political advisers pushed back against Democratic presidential contenders who have in recent days accused him of losing credibility on what had been seen as his strong suit, foreign affairs. The Republican National Committee issued a statement tonight asserting that "Democrats politicize war in Iraq," while party leaders declared that
Democrats did not have the standing to challenge Mr. Bush on the subject.
Excuse me, but what the hell does "Democrats did not have the standing to challenge Mr. Bush on the subject?" I mean, since we have to look at the meaning of each word individually and in context and all I thought I'd ask.
The standing? My 16 year old grand niece has the standing to challenge Mr. Bush on any subject she sees fit, all right? This isn't American anymore? You have to have "standing" to hold a public servant responsible for the words he speaks? You have to have "standing" to point out when a simple question is simply being evaded?
As for a media "feeding frenzy" one should note that they only come about when there's blood in the water. When there's something to eat, know what I'm saying?
My rule for debate applies here: first ad hominem loses. And I haven't seen such a pack of losers as the Bushistas before in my life.
posted by Prometheus 6 at 7/15/2003 12:51:30 AM |
Posted by P6 at July 15, 2003 12:51 AM
| Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1206
