Attention ClusterFox: Is South Carolina a Muslim state?!

By GottaLaff

Earlier, Paddy posted a ClusterFox video in which there was much fretting and finger-pointing about our obviously Muslim president trying to sneak some ultra super duper secret brainwashing propaganda into the Nuclear Security Summit logo.

But oops, our pal Joeyess stumbled upon some extra special wholesome newsy goodness: the State Flag of South Carolina:



There goes the neighborhood....

VIDEO- Mid-level Fox executive: "Whatever will sell is what we have to say." CNN just as guilty.

By GottaLaff

Just. Watch:



Slightly paraphrased:

"A majority of people at the middle level at Fox News don't believe a word of what they are saying."

Why are you saying it? "Whatever will sell is what we have to say."

Many staffers are considered "left wing", but if they found a message that would sell, the opposite of what they believe, they would do so. That's the Rupert Murdoch way.

Glenn Beck is only as good as his sponsorship. His message doesn't play into Fox News, and he's losing national sponsors, leaving only local, low-paying sponsors. (Thank you, StopBeck).

So how useful is Beck to ClusterFox? He's not. They're selling propaganda to sell products.

From the middle level executive's point of view, there is no political objective at Fox News [sic]. People are stupid enough to believe what they say, and ClusterFox reaps the benefits.

"They'll tell you whatever they sell, and they're only as good as their sponsorship.... at the national expense."

"They're a little annoyed at Ann Coulter... and Glenn Beck."

"CNN is just as guilty as Fox News of being an engine of propaganda... generating fear..." (regarding terrorism)

"News agencies are dangerous to freedom and liberty."

From the horse's mouth.

H/t: t_spano

MythInformation Watch: Response to WaPo's "Condescending" liberals piece

By GottaLaff

You must read this op-ed by Robert Parry from OpEdNews.com. It gets into a lot of what I've been ranting about lately (media propaganda, Sarah Palin's speech, the death of accurate reporting), only with a twist: Psy-ops.

The trick, [CIA psy-war specialist Edward Lansdale] said, was to plant propaganda in a publication that was perceived to be open and honest because the readers' defenses would be down and thus they would be more susceptible to the message. In other words, they first had to be fooled about who controlled the outlet and what its biases were.

Several things came to mind as I read this: How do you unfool an entire country? Why can't we control the message?

And how do you educate low-information voters?

Pleaseohplease go read the whole thing:

A key strategy of the Right has been to convince as many Americans as possible that the U.S. news media has a "liberal bias," a canard that has stuck even though newspapers have been traditionally pro-Republican and most media outlets are owned by giant corporations reflecting the interests of wealthy individuals. [...]

Alexander's article in the Post is, in essence, a fancily written version of the Right's "populist" anti-intellectualism. Anyone who insists on checking out facts and applying reason must be an "elitist."

That this "condescending" attack line against the Left is being trumpeted by the supposedly "liberal" Washington Post makes it all the more powerful to many Americans.

Now, with the emergence of Sarah Palin as the latest heir to Ronald Reagan's legacy and as a potential next President of the United States it is clear that empiricism will be snowed under again by a blizzard of half-truths, emotional appeals, historical myths and nasty zingers.

Anyone who dares speak up for facts and reason will be portrayed as a pointy-headed intellectual out of touch with "real Americans." [...]

The American Right again has taken on the "populist" mantle of the plucky underdog facing down the "elitist" Obama and his arrogant entourage of House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, defenders of Big Government, not to mention the "liberal" news media.

In this narrative, Palin, the Fox News personalities and poor Rush Limbaugh are the real victims who must face the cruelty and condescension of an all-powerful, arrogant Left.

Go read. Now.

H/t: Gr8RDH

Pete King's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Memory

By GottaLaff

By saying that Peter King has a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad memory, I'm being kind in a euphemistic kind of way. What I really meant to say is that he outright lied. (Here's a video of his punditiocy that Paddy posted earlier.)

Just now on CNN, Petey said that the ObamAdministration banned the word "terrorism", which is, of course, why Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab managed to smuggle explosives on board a jetliner.

Lose a word, gain a terrorist. See the logic?

Me neither.

No, Obama never eliminated the word "terrorism" from the government lexicon. It was the phrase "war on terror", one of the stupidest phrases ever concocted by any administration ever. That's why this administration is using different words. President Obama, rightfully, wouldn't want any association whatsoever with BushCoSpeak.

See? Some there is some change we can believe in.

So hey, Bogus Petey, check this out. It may jog your "memory":

"War on Terror" is a phrase that President Barack Obama is removing from his lexicon, after seven years of war-on-terror declarations by George W. Bush. Less than two weeks into his administration, reporters and pundits are starting to notice that Obama employs other phrases, such as "enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." [...]

This doesn't mean Obama is going soft. He frequently refers to terrorists as "extremists," criminals whom the United States will "go after" in order to "win this fight."

Analysts are suggesting various reasons why "war on terror" is on the way out. One is that "terror" is not the name of a country or group. Another is that Obama wants to avoid labeling all Muslims or Arabs as terrorists.

Just keep flapping those distorting, cock-and-bull, deceptive, Rushpublic dirtbag lips, Representative King.

Representative. Right. Of what? Smears? Propaganda?

Yet CNN considers him to be a reliable source and valuable contributor. He and Fran Townsend have been their go-to commentators during this entire "bomber" story. And critics say blogs are inaccurate.

New York Times calls Wall St. Journal what it is: Murdoch propaganda outlet

By GottaLaff

Rumble! Everyone duck and cover!

The Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief, Robert Thomson, has today claimed the New York Times is "uncomfortable" about his paper's increasing success "while its own circulation and credibility are in retreat".

Oh now, that was just rude. Just because a Times column said that the Journal represents right wing talking points and that Rupert Murdoch "plays politics"?

"Principle is but a bystander at the New York Times," said Thomson, in response to a New York Times column by David Carr, which said Murdoch's conservative preferences were infecting news coverage at the paper he acquired two years ago.

Here's a link to Carr's piece. Here's a link to Thomson's statement. So, whatcha gonna do about that little digaroony, New York Times?

Keller later responded:

"While David's column clearly got under Mr Thomson's skin, I don't see anything in this response that casts doubt upon it. The column was scrupulously fair and, if anything, understated, and I have no inclination to help Mr Thomson change the subject," he said.

Take that, Robert Rupert Murdoch Thomson. Well, actually, that was pretty mild. Come on, let's take off the gloves.

Wait. What's that I hear? Sounds like strains from the West Side Story sound track.

Carr's New York Times piece was also critical of Gerard Baker, the Wall Street Journal's deputy managing editor and former Times US editor, whom it called "a neo-conservative columnist of acute political views ... especially active in managing coverage in Washington".

Where's Riff when you need him?

H/t: DCPlod

More corporate sponsored, right-wing anti-Semitism...

By GottaLaff

(click on image to enlarge)

I saw this earlier, but my friend Larisa Alexandrovna beat me to the punch on writing it up, so I'll post a few excerpts from her post, and suggest you go here to read the rest:

No matter the issue, be it tax cuts for the middle class or health care for all, the stupid (and/or paid for) are out protesting against their own best interests.

But stupidity has crossed the line into offensive propaganda.

The photo was taken at today's glue-sniffer rally by ThinkProgress' Lee Fang. The sign above reads “National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany – 1945."

Fox News has aggressively promoted this rally and its talking heads, like Glenn Beck, have aggressively tried to tie health care reform to Nazism. Americans for Prosperity, a corporate front-group sponsored this event.

Please read the whole thing, and thank you Larisa.

I'm sickened by this, and it's long past time to stop these ignorant, bigoted hate-mongers.

VIDEO: Obama suggests Fox like "talk radio", something he's "not losing sleep over"

By GottaLaff

By calling out ClusterFox, the Obama White House is finally calling out their lies, preventing their sleazy propaganda from gaining even more credibility, and stopping misinformation in its tracks. In short, someone with some clout is finally exposing them.

It's not about "getting down to their level", it's about rising above it, and finally informing/waking up Americans, letting them know who this bunch of thugs is, and even disseminating actual, you know, facts:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

VIDEO- Franken smacks down propagandist on medical bankruptcies

By GottaLaff

Al Franken has turned out to be a superb senator so far, as I knew he would be. He's scary smart, sharp as a tack, quick, knowledgeable, thorough, and few things get by him. Witness that here, via Firedoglake:

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) humbles Hudson Institute dilettante over health care bankruptcies This during a senate Judiciary sub-committee hearing on bankruptcies driven by catastrophic medical expenses...

H/t: Pigboy

"Socialized Medicine' Ad Runs On Cartoon Network

By GottaLaff

Hey kiddies! Know what time it is? Say it with me: It's Socialized Medicine time! Weeeee! Now go tell Mommy and Daddy that the president is black and wants to take over the whole wide world, starting with evil Death Panels, okay? Okay.

Can you spell Today's Word? That's right, boys and girls, it's i-n-d-o-c-t-r-i-n-a-t-i-o-n! Too big and scary? Then let's ask our friendly little hand puppet, Slimy McGlennBeck, to help you out. Okay? Okay.

INDOCTRINATION! See? Simple as G-O-P!

Yes, you heard right. The president of the United States should not share his wisdom and thoughts about kids staying in school, working hard, and striving for success. That's a no-no. This, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable:

I'm hanging out with my family at our hotel room this morning. My daughter Olivia is watching Ben 10 : Alien Force on the Cartoon Network. [...] Then I hear the phrase 'socialized medicine.' [...]

I look up and watch a minute pack of lies about health care reform on the Cartoon Network on World Cinema, a major supplier of satellite TV for hotels. The ad is from a group called U.S. Citizens Association.

So on the day before conservative crazies are about to pull their kids out of school so President Obama won't 'brainwash' them with her commie talk about personal responsibilty and getting an education, there's an ad about 'socialized medicine' running on The Cartoon Network.

The ad makes statements that have been debunked over and over such as "You will pay for free healthcare for over 20 million illegal aliens."

There now, don't you feel better knowing that the Party of No is finally saying yes-- to brainwashing your children? I knew that you would. Okay? Okay.

Health care ideas losing out to ideology

By GottaLaff

Michael Hiltzik has a few things to say about the wingnutty memes v. the substance of the actual, you know, merits of health care reform. In other words, the real, and vital, message is being drowned out by lies and propaganda.

We already knew that, but he spells it out clearly enough for even the dimmest bulbs to grasp the entire ugly picture:

The big mystery of the Democrats' loss of the commanding heights in the national healthcare debate is how they managed to let ideologies trump ideas.

The difference between these two terms is crucial. Ideas arise from recognizing reality for what it is; ideologies attempt to impose themselves on the real world, whether or not they fit.

In this case, the Republican ideologies of limited government, of the free market as the cherished American way and the answer to most problems, have taken over the discussion.

Meanwhile, the search for ideas to solve a real American crisis is left gasping for life like a gaffed fish.

When President Obama speaks Wednesday to a joint session of Congress on the subject of healthcare reform, his main task must be to retrieve the issue from the clutches of ideology and restore the search for ideas to the forefront. Nothing is as important for the economic recovery and the competitiveness of American business. [...]

Blacks and Hispanics account for nearly half the uninsured, and members of families living at or below the federal poverty line for more than a third. (These figures come from a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation.) [...]

Commercial insurers deploy armies of clerks to find excuses for rejecting claims and weed out less-profitable customers. [...]

Those are the facts, and there's nothing that ideology can do to change them.

Nevertheless, it's ideology that has dominated this summer's healthcare discussion, such as it is. Those people shrieking with fury at congressional town halls across the country aren't putting forth ideas; they're responding to a right-wing small-government ideology as though to a hallucination. They're being goaded into speaking out against their own best interests [...]

A common trope is that "obtaining healthcare will be like service from the DMV," as one e-mailer wrote.

These sound like the words of someone who isn't bothering to think through what he's saying. [...] In my experience, the California DMV manages my registration and license renewals with admirable efficiency [...]

By contrast, I've wasted days at a time trying to extract treatment approvals from anonymous bureaucrats at my insurance carrier. [...]

If their hypothetical DMV is emblematic of the inefficiency of government-managed healthcare, what's the proper analogy for the "efficient" private sector? Enron? General Motors? AIG? The health insurance industry itself? [...]

California has had one of the nation’s strictest malpractice tort limits for 34 years. But it still boasts among the highest per capita ratios of uninsured residents in the nation. And don't tell me that's because of our illegal immigrants; UCLA's figures show that if you factor out all uninsured residents lacking green cards (assuming they're all here illegally), California would still rank in the bottom half of all states in this measure.

What's surprising is that the White House and Democratic congressional leaders don't seem to have seen the ideological attack coming. Yet it's a familiar phenomenon. [...]

Ideologies aren't always virulent. Sometimes they can help structure a consistent approach to economic or social conditions -- from either side of the political divide. But not when their purpose is merely to body check rational debate out of the arena. On such occasions, aggressive treatment is necessary. Will Wednesday's operation on Capitol Hill set the patient on the path to recovery?

It's all about profit. Human lives are expendable. And our side needs to communicate clearly, forcefully, and in simple terms exactly what is taking place, and what is needed.

It's the same old story, but this is about our health, and we cannot afford to lose this one.

MSNBC: Corporate Spokesman can remain as "Political Analyst"

By GottaLaff

David Sirota has a follow-up to what I posted here, about MSNBC's using Richard Wolffe as a political analyst. This is just so not kosher:

As a follow up to my post this morning, note that MSNBC just announced that it will continue promoting paid corporate PR consultant Richard Wolffe as a disinterested nonpartisan "political analyst." The network says it will disclose his employment with Public Strategies, but that it will continue using him as its "political analyst."

This is pretty gross. Sure, it's better that they give the audience some shred of disclosure, but they're not going to tell the audience which corporate clients he works for. More importantly, even with disclosure, MSNBC is effectively endorsing the concept of a paid corporate PR consultant appearing on television as a disinterested "political analyst" - a concept that is so completely antithetical to the most basic respect for journalism ethics.

I mean, are we really to believe there is such a dearth of actual, independent political analysts out there that the network is all but compelled to use a paid corporate PR consultant? [...]

What would have been appropriate is for MSNBC to say they are not having on Richard Wolffe or any other paid corporate PR consultant in any capacity other than as a paid corporate PR consultant - and certainly not as a nonpartisan disinterested "political analyst." [...]

Make no mistake: I appreciate MSNBC providing something of an ideological counterweight to Fox News. [...] [T]his particular decision, regardless of it coming from a liberal network, is an insult to journalism.

Bottom line? The bottom line.

Please go read David's whole post.

GE's silencing of Olbermann and MSNBC's sleazy use of Richard Wolffe

By GottaLaff

UPDATE: BuzzFlash has more. Please check it out.

Yesterday I posted about GE and Fox exploiting the Olbermann/O'Reilly feud. Glenn Greenwald goes there, too, but then delves much deeper. This is a must-read:

On a very related note: this week, former Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe was a guest-host on MSNBC's Countdown while Keith Olbermann is on vacation. When Olbermann is there, Wolffe is a very frequent guest on Countdown, where he is called an "MSNBC political analyst" and comments on political news. All of this, despite the fact that Wolffe left Newsweek last March in order to join "Public Strategies, Inc.," the corporate communications firm run by former Bush White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, its President and CEO.

I posted about that when he made the move, here.

According to the Press Release they issued to announce Wolffe's joining the company:

Wolffe, most recently Newsweek's senior White House correspondent, officially assumes his new position as a senior strategist on April 13, 2009. He will be based in the firm's Washington office, where he will advise several of its top clients. . . .

Public Strategies, Inc. is a business advisory firm that serves a diverse clientele including some of the world's largest and best-known corporations, nonprofit organizations, associations and professional firms. Public Strategies helps forward-thinking organizations assess public opinion and risk, and develops strategies for managing corporate reputation and uncertainty. Much of its practice involves managing high-stakes campaigns for corporate clients, anticipating and responding to crises.

Having Richard Wolffe host an MSNBC program -- or serving as an almost daily "political analyst" -- is exactly tantamount to MSNBC's just turning over an hour every night to a corporate lobbyist. Wolffe's role in life is to advance the P.R. interests of the corporations that pay him, including corporations with substantial interests in virtually every political issue that MSNBC and Countdown cover. Yet MSNBC is putting him on as a guest-host and "political analyst" on one of its prime-time political shows. What makes that even more appalling is that, as Ana Marie Cox first noted, neither MSNBC nor Wolffe even disclose any of this.

[...] Wolffe himself -- when it was previously revealed that he was exploiting his position as a Newsweek reporter covering the Obama campaign to leverage access to Obama in order to write a glowing book about him -- said this:

And [Wolffe] suggested he’s not that different from other reporters in an era in which the business and the profession of journalism have gotten closer and closer.

"The idea that journalists are somehow not engaged in corporate activities is not really in touch with what's going on. Every conversation with journalists is about business models and advertisers," he said, recalling that, on the day after the 2008 election, Newsweek sent him to Detroit to deliver a speech to advertisers.

"You tell me where the line is between business and journalism," he said.

That's who MSNBC is presenting as a host and "political analyst" on one of its news commentary programs: someone who is paid by large corporations to propagandize the public and who explicitly says that "journalists are engaged in corporate activities." Then again, MSNBC itself is censored by its corporate executives to ensure that the parent company's corporate interests are advanced by its "news reporting," so in many ways, Wolffe's sleaze and corporate whoredom are the perfect face for this network.

These dual stories of GE/Olbermann and Wolffe reveal what NBC and MSNBC really are about as vividly as anything since the "military analyst" scandal.

Remember that scandal? Propaganda from the mouths of paid military analysts fed to us about the Iraq War? Greenwald has more:

UPDATE: On Richard Wolffe's bio page at Public Strategies, Inc., the role he plays on MSNBC and NBC News is actually touted to the firm's corporate clients and potential clients:

In addition, Wolffe is an NBC political analyst. He provides political commentary on several MSNBC programs, Meet The Press, and TODAY.

They're basically telling their clients and prospective clients: if you hire us to control and disseminate your political messaging, you'll have someone working for you -- Richard Wolffe -- who has a regular platform on MSNBC and NBC News, where he's presented as an independent "political analyst." [...] How much more blatantly sleazy could that be?

I gave you a few relevant excerpts, but please go read the whole thing here. Glenn Greenwald did some excellent reporting which, with any luck, should open a few eyes.

Not a pretty picture.

Hypocrisy Watch: The Use of Photographs as Propaganda

By GottaLaff

I originally posted about the video of the captured soldier here. Now this, via one of my faves, Emptywheel (Marcy Wheeler):

Go read JimWhite's diary about the military's complaints that the Taliban are using a video of a captured American soldier as propaganda.

They're exploiting the soldier for their own propaganda.

[snip]

The Taliban are using it as a propaganda tool.

Then read this passage from George Tenet's book, co-written with Bill Harlow:

By the next morning, Sunday, March 2, US media outlets were carrying news of the [KSM] capture as well. Some of the stories described the worldly KSM as an al-Qa’ida James Bond. To illustrate the point, they showed photos of him with a full beard wearing what were supposedly his traditional robes. It didn’t take long for Marty to phone me and relay his disgust at some of the coverage.

[snip]

“Boss,” he said, “this ain’t right. The media are making this bum look like a hero. That ain’t right. You should see the way this bird looked when we took him down. I want to show the world what terrorists look like!”

Turns out, our officers on the scene in Rawalpindi had snapped and sent back some digital photos of KSM just after his capture, so I suggested that Marty call the Agency spokesman, Bill Harlow, and work something out. Within an hour, Harlow was in CTC looking over a selection of photos that made KSM look nothing like James Bond. Together they picked out the most evocative photo. Then Harlow, armed with a digital copy, called up a reporter at the Associated Press and told him, “I’m about to make your day.” Asking only that the AP not reveal where they got the picture, he released the image of a stunned, disheveled, scroungy KSM wearing a ratty T-shirt. The photo became one of the iconic images of the war on terrorism. If we could have copyrighted it, we might have funded CTC for a year on the profits. Foreign intelligence services later told us that the single best thing we ever did was release that photo. It sent a message more eloquently than ten thousand words ever could that the life of a terrorist on the run is anything but glamorous.

[...] This is why we can't just look forward but must fully investigate the past.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Shallow Thoughts: "Abortion Doctor" edition

By GottaLaff

Today's Shallow Thought:

Despite the label that the corporate media insist upon pinning on the assassinated Dr. George Tiller, he was not an "abortion doctor". He was an OB-GYN.

Tee Vee News no longer exists. Biased reporting for the sake of corporate sponsorship and all its monetary rewards, at the expense of an informed public (read: democracy) is the exasperatingly poor substitute.

That was today's Shallow Thought. Thank you for wading in.

Voter witnesses electioneering, propaganda at South Carolina polling place

By GottaLaff

Commenter Ady received the following e-mail from a voter in South Carolina. Get ready:

I went to go vote absentee today in Greenville and I saw something that really concerned me. There was a lady in line in front of me and she said, "Would you like some reading material while you wait? It has the candidates' positions on the issues." I took the printout out of curiosity and it was an email about how Barack Obama was a muslim and McCain was right on the issues. I didn't read the whole thing but one line did say that he wanted the same level of health care as those in 3rd world countries. I was mad so I just gave it back to her and said I considered myself to be well informed. I should have taken it as proof but it all happened so fast I didn't think about it.

After we got inside I overheard her say to the lady in front of her that if Obama was president there would be no more national elections. This was right in front of the poll worker. She looked uncomfortable but she didn't say anything. I didn't know what to do but when I got back to the house I told my sister Angela. She said I should call the Obama office and send out this email immediately.

The lady I talked to on the phone at the Obama office called the supervisor at the polling location and told him about it. He talked to all the poll workers and no one admitted to hearing the conversation. They never had to put up a sign about how it was illegal but they may do it now.

Please let people know about this. Hopefully it wont happen again, but if it does we will be more prepared.

We're letting people know. Every time something like this happens, it's important to hang on to any proof you can, take photos (cell phones come in handy for this), and report it.

U.S. to Fund Pro-American Publicity in Iraqi Media

By GottaLaff

$$$$$:

The Defense Department will pay private U.S. contractors in Iraq up to $300 million over the next three years to produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media in an effort to "engage and inspire" the local population to support U.S. objectives and the Iraqi government.

The new contracts -- awarded last week to four companies -- will expand and consolidate what the U.S. military calls "information/psychological operations" in Iraq far into the future, even as violence appears to be abating and U.S. troops have begun drawing down. [...]

Some inside the military itself have questioned the effectiveness of the defense program. "I'm not a huge fan" of information operations, one military official said, adding that Iraqi opinions -- as for most people -- are formed more by what they experience than by what they read in a newspaper, hear on the radio or see on billboards.

"A lot of money is being thrown around," he said, "and I'm not sure it's all paying off as much as we think it is."

It's good to know we have all this cash to put into this. For a split second, I thought we were in dire straits.

Fed Up with Fox Feed

By GottaLaff

Fox is in charge of the camera feed at the Democratic convention. How fair and balanced.

Thom Hartmann pointed that out, along with his impressions of the coverage of Michelle Obama's speech, nearly verbatim:

The cutaway shots were of people who looked bored, who were talking to person next to them, were of more African Americans than not... The subtext: The white viewer in the midwest who might not vote for an African American would think that white Americans don't care what Michelle had to say, plus, they saw a lot of black faces.

Not unlike providing the wonderful Rush Limbaugh Radio Show to our troops overseas. Nothing like one-sided "news".

Bush's Iraq Report defense: The propaganda worked

By GottaLaff

As I watch the Dow drop to 326, I'm unnerved. Now I'm unnerved and disgusted:

Froomkin:

Yesterday's long-awaited Senate Intelligence Committee report further solidifies the argument that the Bush administration's most blatant appeals to fear in its campaign to sell the Iraq war were flatly unsupported. [...]

The White House response? That officials in Congress and elsewhere were saying the same things about Iraq. Or in other words, that other people bought the administration line. It takes a lot of chutzpah to defend yourself against charges that you've engaged in a propaganda campaign by noting that it worked.

This is the kind of convoluted BushCo logic that comes from the guy who also said:



And:



Bush did succeed at one thing during his presidency: Convincing enough people of his lies to send a prosperous nation into an emotional, economic, moral, and geopolitical spiral.