You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (110)

PLAYS: (197)

From the Cafferty File:

It’s been almost four months since former President Bush left office, and many would like to leave his administration in the past. But that may not be possible since there’s a constant dripping of information about what really went on during those eight years.

The latest comes by way of GQ Magazine, which has released a series of cover sheets for intelligence reports written for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon brass during the early days of the Iraq war.

They featured “triumphant, color images” like soldiers praying or in action or a tank at sunset along with Biblical passages. For example: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.”

Besides the obvious question of appropriateness, what if these covers had leaked out at the time? The Muslim world could have interpreted the war as a religiously-driven battle against Islam. You think they were upset about Abu Ghraib?

But the general who thought up the covers told anyone that complained about them that his seniors, including Rumsfeld and President Bush, appreciated them. In fact, GQ says Rumsfeld hand-delivered many of these reports to President Bush.

The magazine suggests the mixing of Crusades-like messages with war imagery might not have been Rumsfeld’s style — but he likely saw it as a way to connect with the deeply religious President Bush.

This is just another in a growing list of questions, and just like torture and the reasons for invading Iraq, they don’t seem to be going away.

Here’s my question to you: Is a complete investigation of the Bush administration and the Iraq war becoming inevitable?

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (34)

PLAY (88)

David Gregory launched a pillow soft environment for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to perpetuate her public relations revisionism on the Bush Legacy™. The 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 the 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 and 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. And gosh, why is it that the rest of the world seems so reticent to assist the US? Could it be that you blew all good will by entering an unnecessary war and demonizing any country who questioned the wisdom of such action? But the best part is Rice's rationalization for why the 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. Perhaps then you would not have the genocide you did cause while you wring your hands impotently over Darfur.

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

MR. GREGORY: Isn't it amazing, the last 16 years of American leadership, two presidents, two big regrets stand out: Rwanda and Darfur.

SEC'Y RICE: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: The failure to prevent and protect innocent people from genocide.

Um, David, I don't know if you bother to look past the White House talking points faxed to you prior to the show, but they've failed to prevent and protect innocent people in far more areas than Darfur. Heard about New Orleans? Iraq? Afghanistan? Hell, look at the memorial for unnecessary deaths erected near my home. Of course, part of the talking points for the Bush Legacy Upgrade is that they 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 weapons of mass destruction. Look at what the Taliban did to populations in Afghanistan. And so, in those circumstances, where the marriage of our values and 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 bother to read the 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 the go-to guy when you need to "catapult the propaganda."

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

Although Scott McClellan's memoir is chock full of juicy bits about George Bush, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and the myriad pre-war lies the White House force-fed America, perhaps the most important (and most overlooked) critique McClellan levels is aimed squarely at the "liberal media" and how they acted as "deferential, complicit enablers" of the administration's "propaganda" leading up to the war. On the TODAY show this morning, Matt Lauer asked "the big three" -- Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams and Katie Couric -- whether they thought McClellan was accurate in his criticism of the press. Their answers are revealing to say the least:

Gibson: "I'm not sure we would have asked anything differently [if given an opportunity to do it again.]"

Download | play Download | play

To her credit, Couric admits that mistakes were made and that she could have done a better job vetting the administration's claims; although she also admitted that the White House threatened to cut off her access after she filed critical reports. But Gibson and Williams (along with, one would assume, the majority of the elite press) simply lack the ability to recognize that they were duped, and that they thus duped their viewers. Indeed, as Glenn documents in a lengthy post today:

"This is why most establishment journalists will never be convinced that they failed to do their job, no matter how much evidence is presented: because of the understanding they have of what 'their job' actually is."

For a comprehensive breakdown of just how laughable the Gibson/Williams defense is, be sure to read Glenn's post in its entirety.