A Question Of Trust (Time Magazine)

[UpInArms]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030721-464405,00.html

The State of the Union message is one of America's greatest inventions, conceived by the Founders to force a powerful Chief Executive to report to a public suspicious of kings. Delivered to a joint session of Congress in democracy's biggest cathedral, it is the most important speech a President gives each year, written and rewritten and then polished again. Yet the address George W. Bush gave on Jan. 28 was more consequential than most because he was making a revolutionary case: why a nation that traditionally didn't start fights should wage a pre-emptive war. As Bush noted that night, "Every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead."

Just how aware was Bush of the accuracy of what he was about to say? Deep in his 5,400-word speech was a single sentence that had already been the subject of considerable internal debate for nearly a year. It was a line that had launched a dozen memos, several diplomatic tugs of war and some mysterious, last-minute pencil editing. The line—"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"—wasn't the Bush team's strongest evidence for the case that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. It was just the most controversial, since most government experts familiar with the statement believed it to be unsupportable.

...more...

[radfringe]

1. shades of Nixon

would you buy a used car from this man????

[jamesinca]

2. I have not bought anything Bush has said yet

Why would I start with something so big as a car? Bush is truly bad, they are all evil.

[dArKeR]

4. Shades of Hassenfus, North, Abrams, Poindexter...

[gristy]

16. This Cover of Time is HUGE!

The 5th paragraph hits multiple nails on the head:

"Yet the controversy over those 16 words would not have erupted with such force were they not emblematic of larger concerns about Bush's reasoning for going to war in the first place. Making the case against Saddam last year, Bush claimed that Iraq's links to al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) made the country an imminent threat to the region and, eventually, the U.S. He wrapped the evidence in the even more controversial doctrine of pre-emption, saying America could no longer wait for proof of its enemies' intentions before defending itself overseas?it must sometimes strike first, even without all the evidence in hand. Much of the world was appalled by this logic, but Congress and the American public went along. Four months after the war started, at least one piece of key evidence has turned out to be false, the U.S. has yet to find weapons of mass destruction, and American soldiers keep dying in a country that has not greeted its liberators the way the Administration predicted it would. Now the false assertion and the rising casualties are combining to take a toll on Bush's standing with the public."

[Snellius]

17. That hits the old nail square on the old head

TIME Mag finally gets it. Duh? Nixon and Clinton at least got through one term before the White House walls started to cave in. If Bush gets a second terms, he won't just be toast he'll be ashes. I can foresee Republicans wanting to get out from under this coming holocaust, just so they can let some Dem pres take the fallout when everything finally begins to collapse.

[osaMABUSh]

3. They just got a little too cocky and now they've been exposed

The SOTU is kind of a sacred annual event for every president. And I think Americans respect the tradition. Before the SOTU, the Admin (*, Cheney & Rove) were feeling pretty good about themselves with the approval ratings high and the Iraq War set to begin whenever they said go. So it is understandable that they were feeling a little heady and cocky and went ahead said some things that were questionable but they thought they would be unquestioned.

Americans took a slap in the face when the pres lied to them in the SOTU. Now the finger pointing and coverup begins. Even if this incident is hushed up and pinned on the CIA and America buys it, the damage has been done and *'s credibilty has been shot.

His big advantage going into the '04 campaign was to be his record oon the fight against terra and the victory in Iraq. Well, that's gone as Iraq turns into a quagmire and his motivations for going to War in the first place will forever be questioned.

[Dudley_DUright]

5. Check out the cover!

[MoonAndSun]

6. WOW!!!!!

I just might have to buy this issue:evilgrin:

[Beetwasher]

7. That's big!

That's a big big cover. Man oh man...

[phillybri]

8. That's friggin beautiful!!!

Yes!!!

[huckleberry]

9. That will be a collector's item!

I'm buying one today!

[kskiska]

11. Untruth?

Why not just come out and call it what it is – a LIE!

[Cooley Hurd]

20. Because they couldn't get too cutsey with the title, I guess...

"Untruth & consequences" - tee hee (gag)...

It's one hell of a damning cover, though. Rivaling the NY Post's "Bush Knew!"

[rocketdem]

13. that was the first thing that I saw

Time magazine, for better or worse, is a mega-magazine, bought by thousands, seen my millions. This is very, very big.

Now what has to happen is that this has to be tied back to the 200 campaign and the whole "Gore is a liar" bullshit. Bush got as many votes as he did based upon the delusion that he was the more trustworthy choice. Once that pillar is kicked away, everything else with regards to reelection crumbles into a heap.

[WilliamPitt]

14. September 10, 2001

The last time a major magazine came out with a damning cover.

:scared:

[proud patriot]

18. That's exactly what just I was recalling

crap :scared: It was the Newsweek Cover "The Accidental President"

I still have that copy of Newsweek

I'm going to buy this weeks Time Mag. too

[DS1]

15. I'm buying it, and framing the cover

methinks.

Hey, if they get a spike in sales, as they say money talks and bullshit walks.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

22. I wonder why they highlighted the UN of UNTRUTH?

Could this be a subtle visual dig at the refusal to go through the UN?

[Native]

25. Can't make out the smaller print on the cover...

anything worthwhile?

[Dudley_DUright]

10. I think this is a very important paragraph

<snip>

When it got to Washington, the Iraq-Niger uranium report caught the eye of someone important: Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, told TIME that during one of his regular CIA briefings, "the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report." Cheney's interest hardly came as a surprise: he has long been known to harbor some of the most hard-line views of Saddam's nuclear ambitions. It was not long before the agency quietly dispatched a veteran U.S. envoy named Joseph Wilson to investigate. Wilson seemed like a wise choice for the mission. He had been a U.S. ambassador to Gabon and had actually been the last American to speak with Saddam before the first Gulf War. Wilson spent eight days sleuthing in Niger, meeting with current and former government officials and businessmen; he came away convinced that the allegations were untrue. Wilson never had access to the Italian documents and never filed a written report, he told TIME. When he returned to Washington in early March, Wilson gave an oral report about his trip to both CIA and State Department officials. On March 9 of last year, the CIA circulated a memo on the yellowcake story that was sent to the White House, summarizing Wilson's assessment. Wilson was not the only official looking into the matter. Nine days earlier, the State Department's intelligence arm had sent a memo directly to Secretary of State Colin Powell that also disputed the Italian intelligence. Greg Thielmann, then a high-ranking official at State's research unit, told TIME that it was not in Niger's self-interest to sell the Iraqis the destabilizing ore. "A whole lot of things told us that the report was bogus," Thielmann said later. "This wasn't highly contested. There weren't strong advocates on the other side. It was done, shot down."

<snip>

[salin]

12. WHEN are they going to challenge more of the other dubious

claims made - the centrifuges --- what exact language did Bush use for these? Not sure if it was SOTU - but I believe that several times he refered to these (or others did) as having NO OTHER USE but for nuclear weapons - even at the time those statements were made they were disputed by experts.

I have seen a little bit of early questioning in mainstream media about the dubious al queada tie/claims made - what was said in the SOTU and how well documented is it that this too was in no way a certainty.

They won't fall on the Uranium/Niger claim alone. It will be the PATTERN of deception and use of intelligence... especially at a time when intel was supposed to be "strengthened" due to "failures" (that they have blocked investigations into) that purportedly led to the lack of preparation/response to 911. Put all of those things together and only the most diehard supporter will still remain steadfast in their trust of the bush admin.

Folks who claim that part of the voting reasons in the next election will be based on "security" (people are still scared and angry). The strategy taken now should not just be outrage at the lies - but at the misuse of power and intel - that leads to the US being LESS SECURE. THat is the message that, in my opinion, would resonate.

Sure WE express that here - but for many folks not paying close attention to the news this is not a common sense sort of thing. Tie the stories that ARE finally making it into the public psyche and the common sense assessment that we make here, will become much more mainstream.

[study_war_no_more]

19. and how about that story of the guys with the boxcutters?

LIHOP is coming over the hill like a big black bear and its heading straight for the bull!!
I know I said this before but its not a bad mantra when ya think about it, I think this is where the truth lies.

[indepat]

21. The body of available information suggests the invasion and occupation

of Iraq was a done deal, a PNAC vision, long before the 2000 general election if they could just get their man in office. And by God, they pulled it off, thanks to Jebbie, Ms. Harris, and those five Supremes.

[snippy]

26. This is a great time to refocus on PNAC but only to show the Bush lies.

The public is beginning to doubt Bush because of the lies about the yellowcake. But those lies were only a small portion of the WMD related lies. And the WMD lies were only a portion of the lies justifying the Bush Invasion of Iraq. And the lies justifying the Bush Invasion of Iraq were only a portion of the lies about why and when the decision was made to launch the Bush Invasion of Iraq. And despite the "Fuck Saddam, We're taking him out," statement by Bush in March of 2002, and subsequent lies for 9 or 10 months about no decision having been made, the decision to invade Iraq was made in the 1990's by the people at PNAC.

Focusing on PNAC provides the structure to identify and link many of the Bush lies about Iraq. But the emphasis should be on the litany and progression of the Bush lies about invading Iraq and not on the evil of PNAC.

[kentuck]

23. How could anyone trust a leader that lies about going to war?

I don't see how the credibility can be saved..

[msmcghee]

24. This should now become . .

THE ISSUE!

We are vulnerable in many ways from having a president with no credibility. Enemies can now take advantage of this.