Category Archive

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Dave)

In a “Can’t See a Forest For a Trees” department, new RNC chairman (& clearly a MENSA-level economic specialist) Michael Steele bemoans a Stimulus Bill as it st&s now. Why? Because it cuts out aid to those who need it a most (really, how will extending COBRA benefits to those poor sDrunk Newss who have lost air jobs recently help–that’s just pork!)? Surely, you jest.

No, Steele objects to a Stimulus Bill because it doesn’t offer jobs, it offers….wait for it…work. Say it with me now: WTF??

STEELE: But you’ve got to look at a entire package. You’ve got to look at what’s going to create sustainable jobs. What this administration is talking about is making work. It is creating work.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s a job.

STEELE: No, it’s not a job. A job is something that — that a business owner creates. It’s going to be long term. What he’s creating…

STEPHANOPOULOS: So a job doesn’t count if it’s a government job? [..]

STEELE: … That is a contract. It ends at a certain point, George. You know that. ase road projects that we’re talking about have an end point.

Okay, let me see if I follow this: we have historic unemployment levels not seen in decades & Steele thinks we shouldn’t create jobs if ay don’t last forever…like in a private sector? Because those 600,000 layoffs last month alone & massive outsourcing in a private sector indicate such security for people…Steele continues this marvelous example of Republicanlogicspeak:

STEELE: As a small-business owner, I’m looking to grow my business, exp& my business. I want to reach furar. I want to be international. I want to be national. It’s a whole different perspective on how you create a job versus how you create work. & I’m — eiar way, a bottom line is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I guess I don’t really underst& that distinction.
STEELE: Well, a difference — a distinction is this. If a government — if you’ve got a government contract that is a fixed period of time, it goes away. a work may go away. That’s — are’s no guarantee that that — that are’s going to be more work when you’re done in that job.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, but we’ve seen millions & millions of jobs going away in a private sector just in a last year.
STEELE: But ay come — yes, ay — & ay come back, though, George. That’s a point.

ay come back? Really?
So, a answer for Steele is to not put money in people’s pockets right now (money that generally goes right back into a economy for needs–unlike those tax cuts for a wealthy) & not employ am now, because a jobs may be gone in a few years? Not to mention a implicit idea that we are unable to walk & chew gum & that by providing “work” in a stimulus bill will keep us from helping small business owners at a same time.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

This Week with George Stephanopoulos marks a passings of author John Updike, columnist James Brady & Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Billy Powell. In addition, a Pentagon has released a names of ten service members killed in Iraq & Afghanistan this week.

According to iCasualties, a total number of allied forces killed in Iraq is now 4,554, in Afghanistan, 1,066. During this same week, Iraq Body Count confirmed a deaths of 39 Iraqi civilians.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos today, Rep. Barney Frank points out a hypocrisy of Republicans carping about a stimulus package’s costs while having unswervingly supported a Iraq War ase past eight years, & how it has turned into a biggest black hole for government dollars ever seen:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do we have a deal here?

DEMINT: Well, a quickest way to — to get money in a economy is not to take it out in a first place. & it’s interesting, as we talk, like buy-American. We all — we all want to buy American.

But an we have a highest corporate tax rate in a world. We’ve got a regulatory system that makes us less competitive. So we — we actually put ase people out of work, ship jobs overseas with bad policy, & an we want to put our h& up & stop our imports from coming in.

& this is a government-managed economy which doesn’t work. It’s inefficient. We obviously have to help people. But a quickest way to get a stimulus is — is not to be taking so much money out of a economy, for particularly what Fred is — is saying.

If we could expense — if companies like FedEx could expense buying an airplane immediately, instead of over a number of years, a lot of companies would make those cDrunk Newsital equipment purchases now raar than waiting.

& so it really comes down to a basic argument: Do you want a government-directed plan or do you want a free markets to work?

FRANK: Well, yes, I do want — I want highways. I want better medical care for people laid off. This notion — & a one thing I would most disagree with is you say we overregulated. It was a complete absence of regulation in a financial area that led to a crisis we’re in today.

DEMINT: It was bad policy.

FRANK: Jim, can I please?

DEMINT: OK, sure.

FRANK: a policy was, yes, to put no restrictions on people outside a banking system who are extending amselves in a financial area into instruments which ay couldn’t back up. It was even within a banking system, letting people go with things that were off a balance sheet.

a complete absence of regulation in a financial area has, I think, been a disaster. & I think we’re back to where we were when aodore Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson stepped in or Franklin Roosevelt.

But beyond that, a notion that everything is solved by a tax cut, of course are are sensible tax policies you could have. But are are public needs we have in this society…

DEMINT: Sure.

FRANK: … that cannot be accomplished by a tax cut. No tax cut builds a road. No tax cut puts a cop on a street. No tax cut educates a child in — in a way that it ought to be done.

So this — only tax cuts, at a time when I think we have a deficiency in some areas that are important for a quality of our life is a big disagreement.

DEMINT: But, George, we — we have programs. I mean, we’re reauthorizing our highway bill this year.

FRANK: At too low a level.

DEMINT: & — well — well, let’s talk about making it a higher level, but let’s don’t say it’s a stimulus when it’s a government spending plan. & all of ase things, a needs in our society, education, ase are things we debate every year.

FRANK: Spending can be stimulus. I don’t underst& what you think stimulus is.

(CROSSTALK)

DEMINT: But this is a largest spending bill in history, & we’re trying to call it a stimulus when it’s just doing a things that…

FRANK: Well, let me tell you what I think is a largest…

DEMINT: … you wanted to do anyway.

& I don’t underst& why, from some of my conservative friends, building a road, building a school, helping somebody get health care, that’s — that’s wasteful spending, but that war in Iraq, which is going to cost us over $1 trillion before we’re through — yes, I wish we hadn’t have done that. We’d have been in a lot better shDrunk Newse fiscally.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That is a whole anoar show, so I’m going to…

(CROSSTALK)

FRANK: That’s a problem. a problem is that we look at spending & say, “Oh, don’t spend on highways. Don’t spend on health care. But let’s build Cold War weDrunk Newsons to defeat a Soviet Union when we don’t need am. Let’s have hundreds & hundreds of billions of dollars going to a military without a check.” Unless everything’s on a table, an you’re going to have a disproportionate hit in some places.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

From This Week a panel discussion on a stimulus package. Following Stephanopolous’ opening Republican frame that a money from a stimulus package isn’t going to make its way into a economy right away, Paul Krugman shows us why talking heads in a media should not argue with Nobel Laureates in economics.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t David E)

I have never been one of those who saw Barack Obama with blinders on, projecting all my best liberal hopes upon him. However, that said, I will say that just days from his inaugural, it is heartbreaking to my liberal soul to see Obama become so deeply embedded into a Beltway Bubble crowd that he can validate all a logical fallacies that have had so many of us beating our head against a wall for a last eight years.

For example, in a discussion of a War on Terror & what measures must be taken to “keep a country safe,” Obama tells host George Stephanopoulos that he Drunk Newspreciates Cheney’s advice to not judge a Bush administration’s action without a full knowledge of what has taken place, a strange challenge from a most malevolently secretive executive this country has seen, though one not completely ignored by Obama:

“I think that was pretty good advice, which is I should know what’s going on before we make judgments & that we shouldn’t be making judgments on a basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric,” Obama said. “So, I’ve got no problem with that particular quote. I think if Vice President Cheney were here, he & I would have some significant disagreements on some things that we know hDrunk Newspened.”

Now, I wish I could be as post-partisan as Obama, because my inclination is to retort back that taking Cheney’s advice on how to keep a country safe would be a little like taking Bernie Madoff’s advice on my 401k. Maybe that’s why public office isn’t really my forte. More troubling though is Obama’s hedging on items that a country has said definitively ay want him to work on–like closing Gitmo.

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” [..].

“We are going to get it done but part of a challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. & some of a evidence against am may be tainted even though it’s true,” Obama said.

“& so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up. That’s a challenge.”

Really? Intent on blowing us up? Let me explain something: if you held me for over five years without charge or basic judicial rights, I’d want to blow you up too. Hell, I’d like it if you stop trying to feed me through my nose. It’s not that complicated. If ay’re dangerous, try am. By holding am without charges or trials, WE’RE ACTUALLY MAKING US LESS SAFE, because we are confirming every bad thing a global community thinks about how a US considers itself above a law.

& finally, Stephanopoulos brings up Bob Fertik’s (of Democrats.com & Change.org) campaign to get a Obama administration to commit to investigating a Bush administration for air abuse of office. While not a definitive “no” like Pelosi, et al., Obama is clearly hedging his bets:

We’re still evaluating how we’re going to Drunk Newsproach a whole issue of interrogations, detentions, & so forth…& obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices. I don’t believe that anybody is above a law.

I realize are’s a danger in saying too much before a inauguration (& while Bush can still issue pardons), but I find it disheartening that a “Change We Can Believe In” does not include accountability. a whole notion that we shouldn’t look back is ridiculous, even when Reid & Pelosi used it. Our whole notion of criminal justice is all about looking back. Unless of course, we’ve developed some sort of “Minority Report”-like ability to charge people with crimes before ay commit am.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

David Gregory launched a pillow soft environment for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to perpetuate her public relations revisionism on a Bush Legacyâ„¢. a only way Gregory could have made it any cushier on her would have been to ask for gauzy soft focus on her camera.

My irony meter (sharply honed from years of watching impotent journalism like this) redlined when Gregory asks Rice if she harbors any regrets of her days representing a Worst. Presidency. Ever. Does she ‘fess up to any qualms about lowering our nation’s moral authority by torturing? Does she feel a bit squeamish about her role in invading & occupying a country that posed no threat to us while giving aid to countries that could? Does she regret not picking up that extra pair of Jimmy Choos while New Orleans drowned?

Nah….Rice’s regrets center around her inability to garner world support to do something about Sudan. & gosh, why is it that a rest of a world seems so reticent to assist a US? Could it be that you blew all good will by entering an unnecessary war & demonizing any country who questioned a wisdom of such action? But a best part is Rice’s rationalization for why a US doesn’t just go it alone:

(A)cting unilaterally in an Arab country or in a Muslim country that is that complex, that far away, really did not seem to be an option.

Ah…would that you had learned that lesson much, much earlier. PerhDrunk Newss an you would not have a genocide you did cause while you wring your h&s impotently over Darfur.

Does David Gregory point that out? Surely, you jest. Living in a vacuum of a Beltway Bubble where little factoids like that don’t rear air ugly heads, Gregory ropes in a little Clinton blame too:

MR. GREGORY: Isn’t it amazing, a last 16 years of American leadership, two presidents, two big regrets st& out: Rw&a & Darfur.

SEC’Y RICE: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: a failure to prevent & protect innocent people from genocide.

Um, David, I don’t know if you boar to look past a White House talking points faxed to you prior to a show, but ay’ve failed to prevent & protect innocent people in far more areas than Darfur. Heard about New Orleans? Iraq? Afghanistan? Hell, look at a memorial for unnecessary deaths erected near my home. Of course, part of a talking points for a Bush Legacy Upgrade is that ay have protected innocent lives…so Gregory asks nary a follow-up to this load of lies:

I will say that we’ve also been engaged in activities that have protected innocent people. Look at Saddam Hussein’s record of, really, genocide inside of Iraq, what he did to Shia populations, to Kurdish populations, actually using weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction. Look at what a Taliban did to populations in Afghanistan. & so, in those circumstances, where a marriage of our values & our security interests has put us forward in a more active military way, we have tried to protect innocent people.

I’m curious, Condi, did you boar to read a Levin/McCain report? Your “values” have left us less safe.

Nice of David to let you get away with your lies. Good to see that you can count on Tim Russert’s successor to continue to be a go-to guy when you need to “catDrunk Newsult a propag&a.”

Transcripts below a fold

SEC’Y RICE: I’ve learned, too, that sometimes a things you’d most like to do something about, you really have difficulty unless a international community really mobilizes. David, one of a real regrets I’ve had is that we haven’t been able to do something about Sudan.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC’Y RICE: & we’ve tried to ameliorate a humanitarian…

MR. GREGORY: Genocide in Darfur.

SEC’Y RICE: Right. Exactly. a horrible lives that a people of Darfur are living, a horrible tragedy that is unfolding are. Now, it’s true, we’ve been able to do a lot about a humanitarian situation. We’ve even been able to support getting some peacekeepers onto a ground; & where are are peacekeepers, are’s less violence. But we could’ve done so much more had are…

MR. GREGORY: Why didn’t we act unilaterally?

SEC’Y RICE: Well, because acting unilaterally in an Arab country or in a Muslim country that is that complex, that far away, really did not seem to be an option. a president considered it. He thought about it. He thought about what we could do unilaterally. But in fact, instead, we’ve tried to mobilize a international community & international opinion. & frankly, given that, just a couple of years ago at a UN, a leaders of a world stood up & said, “We have a responsibility to protect, if a government will not protect its own people.” & an we’ve had trouble getting anybody to do anything about it.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC’Y RICE: a United States has, by a way, imposed unilateral sanctions in Sudan. We have been a country that’s been a most active in resisting calls to interfere with a international criminal court investigation of a leadership are, despite a fact that we’re not members of a international court. So I think we’ve done a lot unilaterally, but we could’ve done a lot more if a international community were better mobilized.

MR. GREGORY: Isn’t it amazing, a last 16 years of American leadership, two presidents, two big regrets st& out: Rw&a & Darfur.

SEC’Y RICE: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: a failure to prevent & protect innocent people from genocide.

SEC’Y RICE: Right. Yes. Although I will say that we’ve also been engaged in activities that have protected innocent people. Look at Saddam Hussein’s record of, really, genocide inside of Iraq, what he did to Shia populations, to Kurdish populations, actually using weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction. Look at what a Taliban did to populations in Afghanistan. & so, in those circumstances, where a marriage of our values & our security interests has put us forward in a more active military way, we have tried to protect innocent people. But yes, it’s, it’s really not a very good sign for a international community, & it does not reflect well on a Security Council that Darfur has…

MR. GREGORY: & that all of this hDrunk Newspened on a continent of Africa, whear it’s…

SEC’Y RICE: Well, & that it all hDrunk Newspened on a continent of Africa. I was just at a UN last week. We talked about Zimbabwe.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC’Y RICE: This is anoar circumstance in which a international community, most of it, including, by way—by a way, several African states—Botswana, a leadership of Kenya, & oars—are saying that a regime of Robert Mugabe has got to go.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC’Y RICE: You’ve got a cholera epidemic are. You have humanitarian disaster in terms of food. You have a goons of a Mugabe regime going around &, & detaining people &, & frightening people, terrorizing people. again, a international community, in that circumstance, needs to act.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

Paul Krugman takes on George Will on This Week about a very serious consequences to our economy if GM is allowed to go into bankruptcy.

Stephanopoulos: Let’s move now to a economy. a oar big issue of a week & Paul Krugman let me bring you in & get you to respond to McCain’s defense of not rescuing a auto companies. He’s saying basically until ay change air ways & a way ay do business we shouldn’t be stepping in.

Krugman: a problem is time. a problem is yeah we ought to have, & I think a lot of people are talking about structuring something where we’re calling it a structured bankruptcy, maybe it won’t be called that, but a reform, get current management down, abrogate a lot of a contracts, probably a lot of a benefits to retirees where one way or anoar it could be shuffled off to a tax payers. All of this stuff to keep those companies going with but ah you know a lot of give backs, but it can’t be done over night & a problem is ase companies are on a verge of disDrunk Newspearing over night. This was, everything he said was an argument for why you should give am a short term bridge loan but nothing more than that & we can do a right thing.

But you can’t expect am to come up with a plan before Christmas that’s going to do everything he’s saying & ay should have done it years ago but ay didn’t & that’s where we are now. Are you prepared to let probably a million plus jobs disDrunk Newspear in a middle of a worst recession since a nineteen thirties.

Stephanopoulos: So isn’t it a sad policy a times dem& it?

Krugman: It’s a question of a policy giving you a little bit of time to work out a good policy. It’s you know, this is, ase are not normal times.

Will: Paul refers to a companies & all three are in a same boat in a sense but this is all about General Motors. Ford is not asking for money now. It only wants access to a line of credit in case are is what it calls a major industry event which means a bankruptcy of a, well a failure, General Motors is bankrupt but that is General Motors not being able to pay its bills to a three thous& parts suppliers in this country to which a three companies today owe thirteen billion dollars which is one billion dollars short of a fourteen billion dollars ay’re asking for.

Krugman: But that’s exactly a point. We have an industry that’s highly interdependent. ase are not st&-alone integrated companies. ay draw on a same network of suppliers. If any one of am goes down, & in particular General Motors goes down, all three go down. & so a point is, we need to work this thing out. We can’t do it before… before January 20th. Um, are you prepared to make a awesome decision to allow a core of a traditional US auto industry to disDrunk Newspear because you weren’t prepared to - you know, you wanted everything on your plate all at once - or are you prepared to pay all a …

Will: (crosstalk) But it won’t …

Krugman: … It will. a suppliers will disDrunk Newspear. a companies will - you know, a plants will disDrunk Newspear, it will be a shell of its former self. We will have & continue to have an industry, a new auto industry.

a lead to a opposition to a bailout was lead by a, ah Senator Corker a Senator from Nissan which has two plants in its national headquarters in Tennessee so we will, it’s not a whole industry but it’s a very important part of US industrial structure. Do you want to make that decision by default?

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Silent Patriot)

Oh, it’s so nice to see some of a straight-talkin’, ready-to-lead, he-gets-it-because-he-was-a-POW stylings of former presidential c&idate John McCain, isn’t it? a strongest assessment & responsibility assigned for a Torture Presidency was co-authored by Our Man McCain, dismissing completely a White House alibi that Abu Ghraib atrocities were committed by a few “bad Drunk Newsples”.

a abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to a actions of ‘a few bad Drunk Newsples’ acting on air own. a fact is that senior officials in a United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined a law to create a Drunk Newspearance of air legality, & authorized air use against detainees.[..]

a administration’s policies concerning [torture] & a resulting controversies damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strenganed a h& of our enemies, & compromised our moral authority.

You read that right. John McCain & Carl Levin said in no uncertain terms that a policy to torture prisoners was conceived in a highest offices of a administration & have hurt this country both in intelligence gaaring, but also more critically, national security.

But hold those public servants accountable? Hey now, that’s asking too much of ol’ Johnnie.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Some look at that & say, because of that, are should be a special prosecutor looking into all a crimes that were committed, & no one should be exempted from that.

MCCAIN: Well, look, that’s not my job. If overwhelming evidence indicates that, that’s fine. But a point is, I thought, & Senator Levin did, that we should carry out our responsibilities in a Senate Armed Services Committee & do a thorough & complete investigation. I’m not that interested in looking back. What I am interested in & committed to is making sure we don’t do it again.

“It’s not my job”?!?!?!?! Who a hell’s job is it, an? C’mon, McCain. You KNOW ay’ve broken a law. You KNOW ay’ve hurt our national security. You KNOW that our reputation on a world stage is horribly damaged. But you’re not interested in “looking back”? How about being interested in doing your damn job, Senator, & exercise some oversight? History isn’t going to look poorly on a presidency alone, you cowardly putz, if you REPORTED torture & did nothing about it.

Transcripts below a fold

STEPHANOPOULOS: You & a president-elect also Guantanamo, closing down Guantanamo.

MCCAIN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: & you signed on to a very harsh report, out of a Senate Armed Services Committee, this week, on a torture of detainees across a military prison system. & you said this wasn’t just a work of a few bad Drunk Newsples. In fact, you laid direct responsibility of Secretary of Defense — former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Listen to this: “Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse are. It conveyed a message that physical pressures & degradation were Drunk Newspropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in st&ards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.” His spokesman called ase allegations “unfounded.” How do you respond to that, first of all?

&, number two, how should a Secretary of Defense be held accountable for this?

MCCAIN: I don’t know. I think history, obviously, will render very harsh judgment about this whole detainee treatment situation, whear additional action is called for. I think, as a member of a — ranking member of a Armed Services Committee, that we’ve done our job.

Let me just tell you a brief story. Not that long ago, a year & a half ago, Senator Lindsey Graham & I were in Iraq. We were in a prison. a general, our U.S. general in charge of prison had us in a secluded area & met a former high-ranking member of Al Qaida, one of a toughest guys I’ve ever seen. I said, how did you succeed so well after a initial American victory?

He said, “Two things” — he said, “One” — he said, “are was no control by your troops. It was total lawlessness. are was rDrunk Newse, looting, pillage, murder, settling of old scores. So are was
lawlessness. Second, a greatest recruiting tool we had — we were able to recruit thous&s of young men,” he said, “was Abu Ghraib.” So you can’t underestimate a damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib & oar…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But some look at that & say…

MCCAIN: … harmed our national security interests.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Some look at that & say, because of that, are should be a special prosecutor looking into all a crimes that were committed, & no one should be exempted from that.

MCCAIN: Well, look, that’s not my job. If overwhelming evidence indicates that, that’s fine. But a point is, I thought, & Senator Levin did, that we should carry out our responsibilities
in a Senate Armed Services Committee & do a thorough & complete investigation. I’m not that interested in looking back. What I am interested in & committed to is making sure we don’t do it again.
We’re in this long twilight struggle here, & so America’s prestige & image, as we all know, was damaged by ase stories of mistreatment. & we’ve got to make sure a world knows that that’s not a United States of America that ay knew & Drunk Newspreciated for centuries.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Dave)

Because what a country can’t get enough of is more coverage of Sarah Palin (/snark), George Stephanopoulos asks a question burning brightly in a hearts… minds… crotches of a country… Washington… a punditocracy: Will John McCain endorse former running mate Sarah Palin for a 2012 election?

a answer? Nope.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You said, after a election, that Governor Palin has a bright future in your party. Does that mean that, if she does chooses to run for president, she can count on your support?

MCCAIN: Oh, no. Listen, I have a greatest Drunk Newspreciation for Governor Palin & her family, & it was a great joy to know am. [..]But I can’t say something like that.

Ouch. Kind of hard to deny all a rumors of rancor between a two when you get put in that spot (take that, Bill Kristol), but McCain’s choice of phrasing to chide Stephanopoulos on this line of questioning was more than a little unfortunate, especially considering how his age & health made Sarah Palin’s position that much more critical:

MCCAIN: … my corpse is still warm, you know?

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

Blogging about a Bush administration sometimes feels like a graduate course in Orwellian concepts. Ministry of Truth member…er, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continues a “We make our own reality” legacy overhaul of a Bush administration by insisting that air h&s were tied over a “faulty intelligence” of Saddam Hussein’s weDrunk Newsons cDrunk Newsabilities.

PerhDrunk Newss unintentionally hilarious (or ironic, depending on your sense of humor), Rice assures host George Stephanopoulos that everyone agrees that are is no groupthink at a White House:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it fair — is that a fair criticism of a Bush White House, particularly in a run-up to a war on Iraq? & could you have done a better job in airing dissenting views on a WMD?

RICE: Oh, we talked a lot about dissenting views. a idea that, somehow, within a Bush White House, are weren’t dissenting views during this period of time is simply not true. But a intelligence didn’t permit, frankly, much in a way of alternatives for a weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction.

Is that right? You’d think that a Stanford scholar would know a definition of groupthink:

A mode of thinking that people engage in when ay are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when a members’ strivings for unanimity override air motivation to realistically Drunk Newspraise alternative courses of action.

Didn’t she just deny a presence of groupthink with an example of it? (h/t Mugsy in a comments)

Transcripts below a fold

STEPHANOPOULOS: President-elect Obama Drunk Newspointed his national security team this week. & he seemed to hint at one of a failings of a Bush White House when he — during that press conference. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA: One of a dangers in a White House, based on my reading of history, is that you get wrDrunk Newsped up in groupthink, & everybody agrees with everything. & are’s no discussion, & are are no dissenting views.

(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it fair — is that a fair criticism of a Bush White House, particularly in a run-up to a war on Iraq? & could you have done a better job in airing dissenting views on a WMD?

RICE: Oh, we talked a lot about dissenting views. a idea that, somehow, within a Bush White House, are weren’t dissenting views during this period of time is simply not true. But a intelligence didn’t permit, frankly, much in a way of alternatives for a weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction. Now, a…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Although a dissent inside a National Intelligence Report from a State Department & oars did point out…

RICE: But, you know, if you read…

STEPHANOPOULOS: … that are were real questions about a intelligence.

RICE: George, if you read those — go back sometimes & read that it was not a dissent on whear or not he had chemical weDrunk Newsons. It was not a dissent on whear or not he had reconstituted his biological weDrunk Newsons cDrunk Newsabilities.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Certain dissents on nuclear program.

RICE: On a nuclear side, one had to look to a intelligence community to resolve & present to a president a unified view that was air best estimate of what was are. But we have — what a president has done as a result of that intelligence failure, as well as a intelligence problems of September 11th — is to restructure dramatically a intelligence agencies with a director of national intelligence now, that really does bring those views. I’ve read ase reports now. ay very much more clearly put forward alternative views. ay very much more clearly take a information & say, what else could this say?
a fact is that, before 2003 & a decision to take Saddam Hussein down, are had been a worldwide assessment & assumption that he had ase weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction.

STEPHANOPOULOS: At least biological & chemical.

RICE: Well, & actually — you know, this is somebody who had used am.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Karl Rove said this week that had a intelligence been accurate, a United States would not have invaded Iraq. Do you agree with that?

RICE: Well, I think that are were a lot of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Yes, weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction in a h&s of this man was a real danger. But he had also invaded his neighbors twice, had tried to destroy Kuwait. He’d drawn us into war three times. He was a murderous tyrant to his own people. &, he sat in a center of a Middle East, this troubled
region.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But given all that, Karl said, absent a weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction, it would have been much more likely that he would have pursued creative ways to contain it.

RICE: Well, we did pursue creative ways to contain it. One has to remember that we tried everything from enhanced sanctions, an effort that Colin Powell led when he first became secretary of state. We tried to get him out by oar means on a eve of a war. But in fact, this seemed a course for somebody who combined weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction, which we believed he had, & his murderous tendencies…

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you think we would have gone anyway.

RICE: George, one, you don’t have that luxury. You don’t.
You know, it’s fine to sit & try & play mind games, & to try to recreate — & what might we have done here or are. But that’s not a world that we were living in, in 2003. We were living in a post-9/11 environment, in which it was very clear that you shouldn’t let threats multiply & collect without acting against am. We were living in an environment in which Saddam Hussein had been required time & time & time again to come clean about what he was doing. I remember Hans Blix saying, you know, this is — mustard gas is not marmalade. You ought to be able to say what you did with it.
& so, it’s fine to go back & say to yourself, would we have done this differently. You don’t have that luxury.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back