That's my prediction.

Obama's pushback forces Perino into yet another lie

In an outrageous appearance at the Knesset this morning, Bush said:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along...

/snip/

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

What's interesting is that in reporting these quotes, CNN also included (at the /snip/) this tidbit: "said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Link:http://tinyurl.com/4cdy37

Obama wasted no time in responding to this ridiculous charge. In an AP story just released, he said:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

But Dana Perino could not resist piling on, and added a lie that is directly contradicted by Ed Henry's report on CNN that Bush aides confirmed that Bush's statement was aimed at Obama:

The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.

"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

Link: http://tinyurl.com/6927hv

The time has come for Bush and Perino to just STFU.

Glenn, do YOU email your stuff to [in this case] Harry Reid, et al, sinc eHR has vowed to "investigate"? or should we?

And to whom else?

Great set of articles, hope the MSM will pick it up some day on TV. However I believe there's a slight typo that makes a big difference in the meaning of this sentence:

"There are several other developments in the "military analyst" story worth nothing." I'm assuming nothing should be noting.

Keep up the good work.

steve

Marine Gen. Paul Van Riper had walked out of an Iran scenario war game where he was commander of the opposing forces when he outfoxed the U.S. Navy & Marine attacking forces, sunk over a dozen major American ships and killed over 10,000 U.S. sailors and marines. The headquarters response was to re-start the war game with new rules forbidding Van Riper to employ any of his successful tactics -- using small speedboats and small aircraft packed with explosives in a mass kamikazi attack on the fleet; defeating U.S. eavesdropping by dispatching his orders by messengers; etc.

I have a bit of sympathy for the human impulse to cover your tracks and sweep your shortcomings under the rug. In the context of Di Rita's denials, it can be amusing but troubling. But he is, was and always had been a mouthpiece. When the denials and cover-ups reach into the heart of operations, then instead of troubling, the results can only be descibed as deadly.

I'm sorry, but my brain doesn't seem to be working like it used to.

If the Pentagon had sent the generals in question out as official Pentagon spokesmen, and had the news outlets in the 4500-plus appearances then identified the generals as official spokesmen, would the Pentagon then be open to charges of illegally disseminating propaganda?

I realize this question is in a sense an academic one, in that it didn't happen that way, and neither the Pentagon nor the news outlets could identify the generals as official spokesmen without calling into serious question the worth of their "analysis."

I'd like to hear more about Marine Gen. Paul Van Riper.

He figured out how to win, and win big in these wargames. His strategies sound to me exactly do-able, probable and not too surprising for Iran to carry out if we invade. Iran doesn't have much of a military really (compared to ours), and it seems to me he had the right tactics to win against us. And all the Pentagon did was to change the rules of the game?!?! Too bad we can't do this in the real world. If this is how we're planning for the invasion of Iran, we'e going to be more frelled than I thought we'd be.

Would he correspond with you Glenn?

When the denials and cover-ups reach into the heart of operations, then instead of troubling, the results can only be descibed as deadly.

The fact we've got roughly 150,000 hostages to fortune deployed all over Iraq (which really only exists now as a geographical reference and nowhere else), and the leadership in the Pentagon appears increasingly more interested in The Rapture than effective strategies or actual facts on the ground, I'd say we can kiss our once-proud military might good-bye.

How many more flag-drapped conffin will we not see come home between now and next January? How many more next year? And the year after that?

I wonder when, precisely, this generation's senior brass stop caring about the men and women it supposedly led?

I can't entirely grasp what the MSM and the current admin. would do if we lost that many lives and ships due to tactics already made aware of. Did the war games include the likely havoc to occur in Iraq as well? Are you and the Marine Gen. now traitors for informing Iran on effective strategies to counter our superior firepower? As we know, they are mindless terrorist thugs, incapable of understanding our strengths and weaknesses.