http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30KRUG.html

Where's the Apology?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 30, 2004

George Bush promised to bring honor and integrity back to the White House.
Instead, he got rid of accountability.

Surely even supporters of the Iraq war must be dismayed by the
administration's reaction to David Kay's recent statements. Iraq, he now
admits, didn't have W.M.D., or even active programs to produce such weapons.
Those much-ridiculed U.N. inspectors were right. (But Hans Blix appears to
have gone down the memory hole. On Tuesday Mr. Bush declared that the war
was justified - under U.N. Resolution 1441, no less - because Saddam "did
not let us in.")

So where are the apologies? Where are the resignations? Where is the
investigation of this intelligence debacle? All we have is bluster from Dick
Cheney, evasive W.M.D.-related-program-activity language from Mr. Bush - and
a determined effort to prevent an independent inquiry.

True, Mr. Kay still claims that this was a pure intelligence failure. I
don't buy it: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has issued a
damning report on how the threat from Iraq was hyped, and former officials
warned of politicized intelligence during the war buildup. (Yes, the Hutton
report gave Tony Blair a clean bill of health, but many people - including a
majority of the British public, according to polls - regard that report as a
whitewash.)

In any case, the point is that a grave mistake was made, and America's
credibility has been badly damaged - and nobody is being held accountable.
But that's standard operating procedure. As far as I can tell, nobody in the
Bush administration has ever paid a price for being wrong. Instead, people
are severely punished for telling inconvenient truths. And administration
officials have consistently sought to freeze out, undermine or intimidate
anyone who might try to check up on their performance.

Let's look at three examples. First is the Valerie Plame affair. When
someone in the administration revealed that Ms. Plame was an undercover
C.I.A. operative, one probable purpose was to intimidate intelligence
professionals. And whatever becomes of the Justice Department investigation,
the White House has been notably uninterested in finding the culprit. ("We
have let the earthmovers roll in over this one," a senior White House
official told The Financial Times.)

Then there's the stonewalling about 9/11. First the administration tried, in
defiance of all historical precedents, to prevent any independent inquiry.
Then it tried to appoint Henry Kissinger, of all people, to head the
investigative panel. Then it obstructed the commission, denying it access to
crucial documents and testimony. Now, thanks to all the delays and
impediments, the panel's head says it can't deliver its report by the
original May 11 deadline - and the administration is trying to prevent a
time extension.

Finally, an important story that has largely evaded public attention: the
effort to prevent oversight of Iraq spending. Government agencies normally
have independent, strictly nonpartisan inspectors general, with broad powers
to investigate questionable spending. But the new inspector general's office
in Iraq operates under unique rules that greatly limit both its powers and
its independence.

And the independence of the Pentagon's own inspector general's office is
also in question. Last September, in a move that should have caused shock
waves, the administration appointed L. Jean Lewis as the office's chief of
staff. Ms. Lewis played a central role in the Whitewater witch hunt (seven
years, $70 million, no evidence of Clinton wrongdoing); nobody could call
her nonpartisan. So when Mr. Bush's defenders demand hard proof of
profiteering in Iraq - as opposed to extensive circumstantial evidence -
bear in mind that the administration has systematically undermined the power
and independence of institutions that might have provided that proof.

And there are many more examples. These people politicize everything, from
military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no
penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear,
you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse.

Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to
America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall
investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight.
They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our country
that allows this president to get away with such things?

Sandman a écrit :

Mr. Sandman let me tell you something.
If I was living in USA I would laugh at you because you *sincerely*
don't care about the war in Iraq.
You are only thinking to the next presidential election... You know I'm
right. Yes ?

"...the point is that a grave mistake was made, and America's
credibility has been badly damaged"
But acting like you are doing on RAO doesn't really change the deal.
Do you understand ?

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30KRUG.html

Where's the Apology?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 30, 2004

George Bush promised to bring honor and integrity back to the White House.
Instead, he got rid of accountability.

Surely even supporters of the Iraq war must be dismayed by the
administration's reaction to David Kay's recent statements. Iraq, he now
admits, didn't have W.M.D., or even active programs to produce such
weapons.

The Iraqi Foreign Minister says otherwise. Why should Bush apologize for
what every one of our allies, even the cheese eating surrender monkeys, said
was true?

Those much-ridiculed U.N. inspectors were right. (But Hans Blix appears to
have gone down the memory hole. On Tuesday Mr. Bush declared that the war
was justified - under U.N. Resolution 1441, no less - because Saddam "did
not let us in.")

So where are the apologies? Where are the resignations?

Check with the BBC, there are plenty going on there.

Where is the
investigation of this intelligence debacle?

Won't happen, since they'd have to go back to the Clinton administration.

All we have is bluster from Dick
Cheney, evasive W.M.D.-related-program-activity language from Mr. Bush -
and
a determined effort to prevent an independent inquiry.

True, Mr. Kay still claims that this was a pure intelligence failure. I
don't buy it: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has issued a
damning report on how the threat from Iraq was hyped, and former officials
warned of politicized intelligence during the war buildup.

Which is of course a lie.

(Yes, the Hutton
report gave Tony Blair a clean bill of health, but many people - including
a
majority of the British public, according to polls - regard that report as
a
whitewash.)

So, the people with the least information are the ones we should believe?

In any case, the point is that a grave mistake was made, and America's
credibility has been badly damaged - and nobody is being held accountable.

The Iraqi people and the American people all ok with it.

But that's standard operating procedure. As far as I can tell, nobody in
the
Bush administration has ever paid a price for being wrong.

Because any mistakes were made by every major intelligence gathering group
in the world.

Instead, people
are severely punished for telling inconvenient truths. And administration
officials have consistently sought to freeze out, undermine or intimidate
anyone who might try to check up on their performance.

Let's look at three examples. First is the Valerie Plame affair. When
someone in the administration revealed that Ms. Plame was an undercover
C.I.A. operative, one probable purpose was to intimidate intelligence
professionals.

Proof that anyone in the administration did this? No.

And whatever becomes of the Justice Department investigation,
the White House has been notably uninterested in finding the culprit. ("We
have let the earthmovers roll in over this one," a senior White House
official told The Financial Times.)

Then there's the stonewalling about 9/11. First the administration tried,
in
defiance of all historical precedents, to prevent any independent inquiry.
Then it tried to appoint Henry Kissinger, of all people, to head the
investigative panel. Then it obstructed the commission, denying it access
to
crucial documents and testimony. Now, thanks to all the delays and
impediments, the panel's head says it can't deliver its report by the
original May 11 deadline - and the administration is trying to prevent a
time extension.

Ever hear of national security? Might there be sources that might be
revealed that shouldn't.

Finally, an important story that has largely evaded public attention: the
effort to prevent oversight of Iraq spending. Government agencies normally
have independent, strictly nonpartisan inspectors general, with broad
powers
to investigate questionable spending. But the new inspector general's
office
in Iraq operates under unique rules that greatly limit both its powers and
its independence.

And the independence of the Pentagon's own inspector general's office is
also in question. Last September, in a move that should have caused shock
waves, the administration appointed L. Jean Lewis as the office's chief of
staff. Ms. Lewis played a central role in the Whitewater witch hunt (seven
years, $70 million, no evidence of Clinton wrongdoing);

Depends on your definition of wrongdoing.

nobody could call
her nonpartisan.

Like you are?

So when Mr. Bush's defenders demand hard proof of
profiteering in Iraq - as opposed to extensive circumstantial evidence -
bear in mind that the administration has systematically undermined the
power
and independence of institutions that might have provided that proof.

What does it matter, you guys just make it up anyway.

And there are many more examples. These people politicize everything, from
military planning to scientific assessments.

Like you don't.

If you're with them, you pay no
penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear,
you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse.

Sounds just like the last administration.

Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to
America.

Economy booming, stock market up, how awful.

Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall
investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight.

Clinton again?

They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our
country
that allows this president to get away with such things?


What happened when the last one got away with so much ****?

Where's the fuc*ing apology for posting completely out of topic in this
newsgroup?

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30KRUG.html

Where's the Apology?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 30, 2004

George Bush promised to bring honor and integrity back to the White House.
Instead, he got rid of accountability.

Surely even supporters of the Iraq war must be dismayed by the
administration's reaction to David Kay's recent statements. Iraq, he now
admits, didn't have W.M.D., or even active programs to produce such
weapons.
Those much-ridiculed U.N. inspectors were right. (But Hans Blix appears to
have gone down the memory hole. On Tuesday Mr. Bush declared that the war
was justified - under U.N. Resolution 1441, no less - because Saddam "did
not let us in.")

So where are the apologies? Where are the resignations? Where is the
investigation of this intelligence debacle? All we have is bluster from
Dick
Cheney, evasive W.M.D.-related-program-activity language from Mr. Bush -
and
a determined effort to prevent an independent inquiry.

True, Mr. Kay still claims that this was a pure intelligence failure. I
don't buy it: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has issued a
damning report on how the threat from Iraq was hyped, and former officials
warned of politicized intelligence during the war buildup. (Yes, the
Hutton
report gave Tony Blair a clean bill of health, but many people - including
a
majority of the British public, according to polls - regard that report as
a
whitewash.)

In any case, the point is that a grave mistake was made, and America's
credibility has been badly damaged - and nobody is being held accountable.
But that's standard operating procedure. As far as I can tell, nobody in
the
Bush administration has ever paid a price for being wrong. Instead, people
are severely punished for telling inconvenient truths. And administration
officials have consistently sought to freeze out, undermine or intimidate
anyone who might try to check up on their performance.

Let's look at three examples. First is the Valerie Plame affair. When
someone in the administration revealed that Ms. Plame was an undercover
C.I.A. operative, one probable purpose was to intimidate intelligence
professionals. And whatever becomes of the Justice Department
investigation,
the White House has been notably uninterested in finding the culprit. ("We
have let the earthmovers roll in over this one," a senior White House
official told The Financial Times.)

Then there's the stonewalling about 9/11. First the administration tried,
in
defiance of all historical precedents, to prevent any independent inquiry.
Then it tried to appoint Henry Kissinger, of all people, to head the
investigative panel. Then it obstructed the commission, denying it access
to
crucial documents and testimony. Now, thanks to all the delays and
impediments, the panel's head says it can't deliver its report by the
original May 11 deadline - and the administration is trying to prevent a
time extension.

Finally, an important story that has largely evaded public attention: the
effort to prevent oversight of Iraq spending. Government agencies normally
have independent, strictly nonpartisan inspectors general, with broad
powers
to investigate questionable spending. But the new inspector general's
office
in Iraq operates under unique rules that greatly limit both its powers and
its independence.

And the independence of the Pentagon's own inspector general's office is
also in question. Last September, in a move that should have caused shock
waves, the administration appointed L. Jean Lewis as the office's chief of
staff. Ms. Lewis played a central role in the Whitewater witch hunt (seven
years, $70 million, no evidence of Clinton wrongdoing); nobody could call
her nonpartisan. So when Mr. Bush's defenders demand hard proof of
profiteering in Iraq - as opposed to extensive circumstantial evidence -
bear in mind that the administration has systematically undermined the
power
and independence of institutions that might have provided that proof.

And there are many more examples. These people politicize everything, from
military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay
no
penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear,
you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse.

Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to
America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall
investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight.
They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our
country
that allows this president to get away with such things?

Westy Shelleyed:

Where's the fuc*ing

...... said the top-poster mincingly.

Grrrrrrrr!
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Westy Shelleyed:

Where's the fuc*ing

..... said the top-poster mincingly.