Bush: Attacken gegen Antiterror-Krieg "haltlos"

--- Bush versucht sich in der Vorwärtsverteidigung angesichts der wachsenden Kritik am Irak-Krieg und dem Krieg gegen den Terror allgemein. Am Veterans Day hat er daher vor seinem Lieblingspublikum, den treuen Soldaten, einen rhetorischen Befreiungsschlag mit einer Rede in Angriff genommen. Eine Zusammenfassung gibts bei der LA Times:
President Bush, on the defensive over allegations that he manipulated intelligence in order to build support for invading Iraq, launched an unusually sharp attack on Democratic lawmakers and other critics Friday for trying to "rewrite the history" of how and why the war began. Bush also said his critics were undermining U.S. troops with their claims that the administration had misled the public on whether Saddam Hussein had obtained weapons of mass destruction as Iraq's leader. "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges," the president said in a Veterans Day address at the Tobyhanna Army Depot. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Bush's aggressive rhetoric, which coincided with a similar attack on Democrats by the Republican National Committee chairman, reflected growing White House concern over signs that the public's confidence in the president was slipping and that misgivings about Iraq were a principal cause of his problems. The administration has already acknowledged that some prewar intelligence suggesting Hussein held or sought banned weapons was faulty. But Democrats in recent weeks have returned to the question of whether White House and other federal officials misrepresented the intelligence to the public before the war.
Doch nicht die Attacken von links sind haltlos, sondern Bushs gedokterte Erwiderung, entgegnet die Washington Post:
The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements. But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions. ... Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote. ... Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support." The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.
Der Schuss aus dem Weißen Haus ging mal wieder nach hinten los.

Und sonst: Die LA Times hat einen linken Kolumnisten gefeuert, der nun ins Bloggerlager wechselt: On Friday I was fired as a columnist by the publisher of the Los Angeles Times, where I have worked for thirty years. The publisher, Jeff Johnson, who has offered not a word of explanation to me, has privately told people that he hated every word that I wrote. I assume that mostly refers to my exposing the lies used by President Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. Fortunately sixty percent of Americans now get the point, but only after tens of thousand of Americans and Iraqis have been killed and maimed as the carnage spirals out of control. My only regret is that my pen was not sharper and my words tougher. Starting Wednesday morning, my column will be appearing here on the Huffington Post.

Der schwarz-rote Koalitionsvertrag ist online zu bewundern, die vielen tausend Zeilen befriedigen aber niemand wirklich, die Opposition spricht von "Betrug" am Wähler. Inhalte + Zusammenfassung hier, Reaktionen da.

Die Randale-Blogs in Frankreich werden mal wieder unter die Lupe genommen: Riots in France: Are Blog Comments to Blame?

Deutsche Staatsanwaltschaft hat die CIA im Visier: Deutsche Justiz ermittelt gegen US-Geheimdienst. Wegen der Entführung des terrorverdächtigen Imams Abu Omar aus Mailand durch CIA-Agenten Anfang 2003 ermittelt nun auch die deutsche Justiz.