everything old is new again

Major Shrub Lie revealed

June 3, 2004
Major Shrub Lie revealed

Atrios has the details (and pictures) that prove the Shrub lied yesterday in the Rose Garden when he said this, pertaining to Chalabi:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that’s fallen out of favor within your administration. I’m wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly —

THE PRESIDENT: Chalabi?

Q Yes, with Chalabi.

THE PRESIDENT: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven’t had any extensive conversations with him.

Q I guess I’m asking, do you feel like he misled your administration, in terms of what the expectations were going to be going into Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t remember anybody walking into my office saying, Chalabi says this is the way it’s going to be in Iraq.

Check out Atrios’s entire post.

7 Responses to Major Shrub Lie revealed

  • bush didn’t lie. bush never lies!

    must… stay… course…

  • Let’s see. Lacking links to most of the quoted stuff, we’ll take it on face value.

    Bush met with three prominent Iraqis, as a group, including Chalabi, in the Oval Office, from which he drew the assumption that an extremist government was not what they were looking for. (How long did the meeting last? Was it substantive, or just photo op/flesh-press/soothing noises kind of discussion? Who did the talking?)

    Bush met with four prominant Iraqis, as a group, including Chalabi, for about 30 minutes, during the quick trip to Baghdad at Thanksgiving. It was a “good talk”. (Does that mean it was substantive? Cordial? Friendly? After intros and thanks and bonhomme and at least one posed picture, how much of any import was actully discussed, and by whom?)

    Comparing that to (emphasis mine):

    “My meetings with him were *very brief*. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and *he might have come with a group of leaders*. But I haven’t had any *extensive* conversations *with him*.”

    Now, for all I know, they also spent eight hours in a darkened room in Crawford drinking whiskey and plotting top secret schemes against the Free World and the Innocent People of Iraq. But that’s not what’s documented. And certainly, given how Chalabi seems to have turned out (pick your conspiracy theory of the week), one could assume that Bush doesn’t want to be associated too closely with him.

    But the *documented* occasions when Bush did meet him, it was in a group, and at least one of the episodes was pretty brief. Certainly it’s at least as plausible that any conversations that took place between Bush and Chalabi (if the two did more than shake hands) was, indeed, not “extensive.”

    (Heck, if Dubya is the dolt he’s portrayed to be three quarters of the time, one can’t even imagine him having, let alone wanting, an “extensive” conversation.)

    So, “major lie revealed”? Based on the Atrios article, I really don’t think so. If he’d said, “I never met the man,” or if the article noted a three hour strategy session and one-on-one briefing with him, that would be a far different story. One courtesy photo op and another group get-together of unspecified length? Hardly a smoking gun.

  • Alas, Dave, Bush very well knows who Chalabi is — it’s a bald-faced lie he’s telling. He knows damned well that Chalabi was the annointed one, who was handpicked by the neocons to run Iraq.

    Bush is lying, plain and simple.

  • Everyone knows that being snarky and overbearing helps get your point across.

  • Oh, and condescending. Yeah, you can’t expect to be able to make a point without condescention.

  • Apologies if you think I’m being snarky, overbearing, or condescending. Certainly not my intent.