November 14, 2005 by s.z.

The White House Tries to Mislead Us About WaPo Article Claiming WH Misled Us About Having Misled Us The White House didn't much appreciate that piece by Dana Milbanks and Walter Pincus which claimed that WH assertions 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" are not "wholly accurate." So, they issued a rebuttal: "Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence."  And the way they set the record straight is by once again making assertions that aren't wholly accurate, in that they are sleight of hand and attempts at misdirection.  First, regarding Dana and Walter's claim that Congress didn't see the same pre-war intelligence that the White House did, the WH offers statements from the Robb-Silberman Commission report which indicate that the President's Daily Brief "was if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE," and relied on "attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition." Yes, apparently the WH is claiming that while Congress didn't get to see the PDB, what they saw was BETTER than what was given to the President, since the CIA gave Mr. Bush the "Highlights for Children" version of the reports. So, fine, it wrong of the CIA to snooker the poor, innocent, inexperienced President the way they did.  But wait, wasn't Dick Cheney out at CIA headquarters regularly, grilling analysts? How did he fail to ask the right questions in order to learn that while the PDB gave the "impression of many corroborating reports" there were in fact "very few sources"? How come he couldn't tell that the Agency was failing to notify him about "information casting doubt upon the validity" of some of the reports about weapons programs? This talking point kinda makes the VP sound like an incompetent bungler who was duped by a bunch of slick-talking Henry's Hills -- which is one way to fight the Post's charges, I suppose, but not one I would have taken. Oh, and wasn't Dick tasking the Agency on a regular basis to get him intelligence on specific topics? Didn't they provide him with reports (some of which would have included very sensitive information about the foreign assets providing the information)? Were those reports shown to Congress? And what if the reports said that there was no evidence that Iraq hadn't gotten any enriched uranium from any other country, and it looked like they probably never would -- was Congress allowed to see those kinds of assessments? And didn't Dick set up his own private intelligence agency, headed by Doug Feith? Did Congress see everything coming out his shop? Anyway, to cut to the chase: while the WH attempts to "set the record straight" by knocking the CIA and the PDB, it doesn't address Dana and Walter's first major charge: That "Bush and his aides had access to much more intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material."     Now I am willing to condemn members of Congress from both parties for not doing their jobs with all due diligence.  But White House, you screwed up willfully .  And just because some gullible, lazy, and/or too-eager-to-be-seen-as-anti-terrorist-to-ask-any-questions legislators followed your lead, you can't now say that it was their fault as much as yours that they believed you, when it was your show.  But on to the WH's second point: The Washington Post Implies That There Have Been No Findings On The Use Of Intelligence. "But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: 'Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.'" (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, "Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument," The Washington Post, 11/12/05)  But Congressional And Independent Committees Have Repeatedly Reported No Distortion Of Intelligence The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Report "Did Not Find Any Evidence" Of Attempts To Influence Analysts To Change Intelligence.  [Snipsection of the SSCI report which says say nothing at all about whether "officials mischaracterized intelligence."] The Robb-Silberman Commission Finds "No Evidence Of Political Pressure  [Snip findings by this commission, which, as did the previously cited report, states only that they found no evidence that analysts were pressured "to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."  The British Butler Report Finds "No Evidence" Of Intelligence Distortion. "In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq.[...] We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC." So, this British report says that British intelligence analysts gave accurate reports to their senior officials.  Um, that's nice and stuff, but it doesn't address Dana and Walter's charge thatNO COMISSION has "determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence."  And you know, it's not honest to imply otherwise.  Hey, if you want a commission to determine whether or not your administration  misrepresented intelligence, then get one going.  Otherwise, stop trying to distort information in an effort to mislead us -- because despite what Powerline et. al. told you, going on the offensive to counter damaging charges isn't effective when (a) the charges are correct; and (b) your best liars are busy preparing their own defenses to charges raised by Mr. Fitzpatrick. 6:41:37 AM

Everybody Loves Patty You say you want to learn more about Patricia Heaton?  Well, okay, I'll oblige you, but only because I like it when people look at her like she crapped in the middle of the table. So, let's look at an Agape Press article about her from January 2005.  In this section, Patricia is talking about being honorary co-chairman of the group Feminists for Life, and discusses her opposition to abortion. Heaton explained that it doesn't make sense for women to treat their own children as property that they can dispose of as they see fit. "It really goes against all feminist ideals," she said. [...] "I think you have to look at the picture of what does nine months out of your life compare to giving life to another human being who will go on for hopefully 80 years," Heaton reasoned. "It's a small sacrifice, and I think it's a way for people to learn about responsibility and consequences," she added. Yup, if you're going to have illicit sex (or irresponsible marital sex) and get yourself knocked up, missy, then you will damn well have that baby, in order to learn about responsibility and consequences! (I'm assuming that after giving birth, the baby s given up for adoption -- because nobody would be so cruel as to suggest using children as 80-year punishments for being irresponsible.) The article also indicates that Heaton walked out of the 2003 American Music Awards (where she was scheduled to be a presenter) because the thought the proceedings were too vulgar. "What I object to in Hollywood is not necessarily vulgarity. It's vulgarity with no purpose. It's vulgarity with no message. It's vulgarity for the sake of exploiting vulgarity .... Most of the time, it's purely an exploitive thing," Heaton said. "Jesus was really against all kinds of exploitation," she added. Uh huh.  But He would have loved those Albertsons ads. It is such exploitation Heaton seeks to keep out of her life and her home as she strives to balance her career as an actress and her responsibilities as a mother. In fact, Heaton is considering taking some time off in the future and being a full-time mom to her four sons since Everybody Loves Raymond is in its ninth and final season. "I'm thrilled people really loved the show and [that] I got an opportunity to do it," she said. "I love to laugh. I love doing comedy." But she is also excited about the possibility of spending more time with her sons and further instilling in them the faith and values that mean so much to her. Well, apparently that "full-time mom who teaches her sons faith and values" thing just didn't work out, because, per ET online, Heaton has been keeping busy with non-mom stuff since "Raymond" wrapped up. Patty has a development deal with ABC for another sitcom, a documentary, 'The Bituminous Coal Queens of Pennsylvania,' currently screening at film festivals, and "The Engagement Ring," a romantic comedy for TNT, which also stars her husband David Hunt. So I guess neither parent was all that excited to spend more time with their sons. Anyway, Heaton told UPI that she hasn't figured out what the TV series will be about. 'I have a development deal with ABC,' Heaton told United Press International in a recent phone interview. 'So, I`ve been working on putting something together. I don`t know yet (if it will be another family sit-com.) I`m not really sure what it`s going to be." Patricia, allow me to pitch my idea for a series. It's about a conservative actress who sits down to eat with some fellow celebrities at a Beverly Hills dinner party, only to be bombarded with anti-Bush rhetoric. The actress becomes infuriated at their insensitivity and their lack of respect for her status as a persecuted Hollywood minority, so, to protest their liberal hate speech, she craps in the middle of the table. She is arrested, and her case goes to trial before a Judge Judy-esque magistrate. The judge orders the actress to be implanted with a Snowflake-brand frozen baby. and to carry it to term, since the judge thinks it will teach her responsibility and consequences. Adding to the hilarity, the judge forbids the actress from telling anyone about her punishment, and so all of her conservative friends think she's a slut. Oh, and the actress develops gestational diabetes and eclampsia, and nearly dies. Wackiness ensues.  Adding to the fun are some wacky neighbors (the Hiltons), an annoying best friend (Laura Schlessinger), and a Fox News blowhard with some issues about his sexuality (Sean Hannity), who will serve as the love interest. Anyway, I think it would be a show fhe whole family would enjoy, and I hope I can meet with Patty's people to discuss it. 3:41:00 AM