Not That They'll Listen . . .
For a long time, most Democratic war cries have been based on lies: "Republicans hate minorities." "Republicans hate poor people." "Republicans hate women." "It was just about sex." And the list goes on.
As pernicious as those charges are, they're nothing to the newest lie: That somehow, the Bush administration manipulated and manufactured intelligence to justify going to war with Iraq. This lie, in particular, is as scary as it's misguided -- because its ultimate aim is to drive support for the war on terror so low that we lose it. Just like Vietnam.
Some opponents of the war have gone so far 'round the bend that they aren't capable of listening to reason. But just in case there are a few who will, here is a must read piece from The Wall Street Journal.
And here are some of its most important points:
• In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).
• The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.
• The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."
• Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."
This won't matter to those who are far gone into the fever swamps of paranoia. But for the rest of us -- and for the press, which keeps reporting even the most outlandish charges as if they had a shred of credibility -- the facts should matter.
As pernicious as those charges are, they're nothing to the newest lie: That somehow, the Bush administration manipulated and manufactured intelligence to justify going to war with Iraq. This lie, in particular, is as scary as it's misguided -- because its ultimate aim is to drive support for the war on terror so low that we lose it. Just like Vietnam.
Some opponents of the war have gone so far 'round the bend that they aren't capable of listening to reason. But just in case there are a few who will, here is a must read piece from The Wall Street Journal.
And here are some of its most important points:
• In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).
• The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.
• The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."
• Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."
This won't matter to those who are far gone into the fever swamps of paranoia. But for the rest of us -- and for the press, which keeps reporting even the most outlandish charges as if they had a shred of credibility -- the facts should matter.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:43 AM
51 Comments:
One word: Tripe.
Do you get paid to write this?
You can't really expect anyone to possibly believe the bullshit you just wrote, do you?
The ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.
-- Albert Einstein --
you are seriously deluded,yeah Vietnam would have been great if only...
The Bush administration is sinking like an anvil falling off a cliff, and you're Wile E. Coyote:
http://members.fortunecity.com/colorbook/colouring6/looneytunes9.gif
It's becoming more and more clear that the Democrats do not have anything worth while to bring to light for the American Public. They simply use the media to bang pots and pans when they want attention.
This issue has been discussed - asked and answered. Did some of these Democrats forget their quotes for War and their votes to use force?
Of course, the leftist media will ignore this fact.
Ever read a paper? Not only are republicans incompetent, they're ignorant, as well.
All the reports and articles cited in that article have long since been refuted. They are great examples of the predominately right-wing conservative media. Also, please explain how the war on terror was linked to the war in Iraq.
So two of the three things you cite come from sources controlled by the people being accused of lying. Eceryone can agree they are not evidence. The Fitzgerald quote is not even about whether the administration lied, he is saying that his investigation is not into that matter, so I cannot in the least understand why you think it supports your position.
There are the following questions for the only source that is not obviously worthless.
Did Rice know that the tubes that she said could only be used for uranium enrichment could be used for making conventional missiles, and not for uranium enrichment? If she did know that then she lied to Congress and is guilt of a crime (since I think she was under oath). If she did not know then why not? She has the US government which has on its payroll more scientists than any other entity in the world. Why didn't she ask them? Why would someone who has a degree in the social sciences not think to ask people who had degrees in physics about whether certain objects could be used for certain purposes in the uranium enrichment process? How could she be that stupid? I think the reasonable thing to suppose is that Rice is not that stupid, she didn't get her Phd by being stupid, and that she didn't ask because she didn't care what the truth was.
A second question involves the Al Qaeda connection. Chalabi was the source for the Prague story. But here is the problem. Anyone remotely familiar with the politics of the Middle East knew that AQ had it in for secular arab leaders, like Qaddafi and Hussein. Hussein represented Arab nationalism, while AQ represented extreme Islam. The two dont mix, never have, and have been in open conflict for years (Qaddafi was the first head of state to issue an arrest warrant for Osama Bin Laden). Why wouldn't the White House think to themselves, 'HMMM, Chalabi has vested monetary and political interests in the fall of Saddam, he is telling us a story we cannot back up at all, and it goes against everything we know about the political situation. Perhaps he is not to be trusted.' Again to assume that the White House did trust him is to assume that the White House is full of idiots. But they aren't idiots. While I think the neo-cons are morally repugnant, there is no denying they are intelligent. The only rational assumption is that they knew Chalabi's story was unreliable, and probably false, and sold it to us anyway.
Look if you are going to blog, why don't you do something useful and actually make arguments. Deal with the facts of the case, don't just recycle the things you have heard on CNN, Fox, Limbaugh, etc. Your post on this subject is just silly. You offer nothing but the fact that the administration says it didn't do it as a reason to suppose that the administration didn't do it.
Carol you're over the target and taking lots of flack.
Bombs away. Good Post
Dear Ms. Liebau,
I disagree with your assertions and conclusions. My instincts and the evidence leads me to believe the citizens of this country has been misled. However, that is just my opinion.
Thanks for being so brave as to share your thoughts with us liberals by cross posting on Huffington Post. I hope no one is rude or disrespectful to you.
I, like most liberals, enjoy hearing and considering other points of view. I am sure you feel the same way.
Look if you are going to blog, why don't you do something useful and actually make arguments. Deal with the facts of the case, don't just recycle the things you have heard on CNN, Fox, Limbaugh, etc. Your post on this subject is just silly. You offer nothing but the fact that the administration says it didn't do it as a reason to suppose that the administration didn't do it.
Thank you Progressive Democrat for the usual liberal talking points which say nothing.
Tripe and the usual leftist crap when facts enter into the discussion of which you and your ilk are incapable of having in the first place.
What evidence do you have other than juvenile rantings that Bush lied? You have none.And Clinton believed the same as Bush..so I guess it's Bush that believed Clinton's lies.
"This lie, in particular, is as scary as it's misguided -- because its ultimate aim is to drive support for the war on terror so low that we lose it. Just like Vietnam."
Can you truly believe that anyone, much less an entire political party WANTS and is working to, lose in Iraq?
Please think about this-we the people who think we invaded a soverign nation, based on maipulations and lies, are your family, your neighbors, the folks you see and interact with every day.
How could you POSSIBLY think that we want us to fail?
Really, try to think this through.
Please
cross-posted from Huffington Post
First, I'd like to focus on the QUALITY of the commentary. As an authentic progressive socialist, I do like to see what a range of rightwingers are saying, which is why I keep RealClearPolitics as a favorite site, and review it regularly, even reading columns sometimes by the likes of Dennis Prager. But there is rightwing commentary that can help sharpen and focus debate, and rightwing presumptive sloganeering and insult hurling. It is admittedly difficult to find intelligent, fair and reasoned rightwing discourse, but it is not impossible. It is true that the Coulters and the Pragers (and the Liebaus) outnumber the contemporary William Buckleys, or Thomas Sowells and some others, but if we are going to have broader discussion at this site, it would be best to find the BEST rightwing arguments rather than this sort of stuff. Hopefully, those who manage the site and who look for columnists to put on the blog will take note of this concern, especially if a number of people express it.
I disagree with those posters who suggest that responding to this collection of provocations is somehow falling into the writer's trap -- into what, wasting our time?
One of the key weaknesses of this column was its pure presumptiveness, along with its casting out allegations and characterizations without any specificity of target. On the first, we have her characterization of those who maintain that Bush and his Administration were actually lying -- lying to the country and the world when they claimed to have solid proof that Saddam Hussein posed a near-imminent threat to world stability from his WMD program -- as being in the "fever swamps of paranoia" and "so far round the bend that they aren't capable of listening to reason" presumes a lot. It presumes not only that her view that all these reports, every one of them coming out of the very elites of the very countries that were pushing the war in the first place, are somehow the only and last word on the subject. It presumes that anyone who disagrees is, essentially, crazy.
She also is presumptive in her conclusive claims about the Vietnam War and its military failure, or that opposition to the Iraq War is part of liberals supposed opposition to the War on Terror. And of course there are the presumptive opening claims about the Democrats' supposed "lies".
Incidentally, her other column, which attracted little attention, about Trent Lott calling for Rove to be fired, was similarly presumptive. She merely condemns Lott, making it look like this is a personal issue to him, and says nothing about why any of the many charges about Rove are even supposed to be considered false, or why the President should hang on to someone about whom there is so much legitimate doubt (or from her, no doubt why such doubts are NOT legitimate, if I may be so presumptive).
This kind of reasoning -- assuming what you are trying to prove in an argument to be right -- is something that we should avoid in columns whether from a radical or a liberal or a conservative point of view. And while we are at the subject of diversity, how about some columns by Noam Chomsky, to broaden the dialogue in that direction too. I am all for diversity, but of course I would be embarassed to see someone from a Chomsky perspective post something of the quality of Liebau as a guest blogger. Again, it is a matter of quality of reasoning and not just point of view.
There is also the issue of the vagueness of charges, closely linked to the presumptiveness problem. You can, without even putting in a single extra word, have each charge, eg "Republicans hate minorities", highlighted with a URL reference to some Democrat who said that. What you would end up doing is gathering a handful of the most extreme sounding statements made by generally extremely marginal figures in the Democratic Party, which you are trying to palm off as characteristic of the Party as a whole.
But let me fill in an example. During the Trent Lott flap -- and let's remember that he had made those statements repeatedly over more than 20 years, including in Congress while Senate Majority leader, but not at a time when you had a Repuglican President AND Congress in both Houses. OK, Clinton noted at the time (and I paraphrase) that the Republicans were playing holy and meek about this issue, considering that this is what they have been saying 'on the highways and biways' in the South (and elsewhere) for the past generation. Was Clinton -- not exactly the world's most honest person -- lying about or exaggerating on this point? Well, let's look into it, from Willie Horton to the one-sidedness of media "debate" (outside the black community itself) about W Bush's ongoing plan to 'bleach the Big Easy' (as I put it) in the wake of Katrina. Republicans haven't been pushing racism indirectly ("hate" or calculation, is another matter)? Hmmm? I would stand by the general characterization of the Repuglican Party as a racist party -- wildly bolstered by the systematic promotion of black rightwingers in the media --
and I don't think this view on my part or Clinton's or probably the majority of blacks in the US is a "lie"; in fact, it's a 'truth-Liebau-and-her-ilk-find-distasteful'. And to some, that's the equivalent of a lie. WORSE! Similarly, as for the "Republicans hate women", maybe a citation would help. Who said that? What was the context? Those of Ms Liebau's ilk did fight the ERA tooth and nail, preventing it from being adopted as an amendment despite overwhelming majority national support.
Again, the caricature and epithet hurling precludes any need for facts.
Let us consider another point -- the statement that the "lie" that "the Bush Administration manipulated and manufactured intelligence to justify going to war with Iraq" (something I would describe as not "lie" but "proven fact", but hey, let's not be TOO picky), has as its "ultimate aim" to "drive support for the war on terror so low that we lose it". Not even the war in Iraq, mind you. Now THAT is a slur, and a lie. Since, of course, like attributing "hate" to someone, it is in essence an unprovable assertion, you have the same safety. But by the same standards of "lie" that attributing "hate" for women to "Republicans" is supposed to be a lie, then that surely is -- except that she said it right on this scroll and the other statement is, well, just one of those things that 'everybody knows' is what "Democrats say".
I won't go into the evidence that Bush was lying (other than to point out the paucity of the 'evidence' she provided) or about the Vietnam War, as others have.
I would simply add that I would underscore that progressives as well as reactionaries at the Huffington Post should adhere to these standards, and by and large, they have. Where progressives are as presumptive, and as filled with unjust slurs, etc. as this
wilfully ignorant Repuglican (regardless of gender) then they should be called on it too. I haven't noticed it much though.
Carol,
I see that you have attracted the very people who you list as being beyond hope. Facts mean nothing to these people and I doubt they ever will.
But here are just some of the KNOWN facts:
-Saddam had WMDs
-Saddam, even under intense UN pressure would not divulge the whereabouts of his WMDs
We found massive stocks of uranium in Iraq after toppling the SH government
-Saddam either destroyed, buried or secreted the WMDs out of the country before a painfully tardy President Bush finally went in to do what Clinton did not have the gravitas to do (ok, the Clinton comment is not a fact, it is simply a widely held belief).
-All major intelligence agencies from around the world believed that Saddam was a global menace and the countries for which those agencies worked were intensely worried that SH would go nuke if he wasn't stopped.
-Milosevic was a magnitude less of a global threat than Saddam but Clinton waged an arguably illegal war (i.e. no UN approval) against him with the full cooperation of the left.
-Nearly every democrat leader in the Senate and House, all of whom had access to the same intelligence that Bush had access to, said that SH had a plan to build a nuke.
-The anti-war left claimed before the liberation of the Iraqi people from SH that we should not go in for fear of tens of thousands of dead soldiers from chemical attack
-SH had killed thousands of his own people with WMDs
And the list could go on and on.
Of course, none of these were the primary reason for going after SH even though regime change was our national policy before Bush came into office. The big reason was that Iraq was one of the primary countries supporting international terrorism. The time was right to do what Clinton failed to do: Take out Saddam and free his people. Not only would we be doing the world a favor but we would be making a point that terrorist supporting countries are on notice.
I challenge any moonbat posting on this thread to refute any of these points. Feel free to use either evidence refuting them or simple rational argument if you have not actual facts to back up your assertion.
Please, read something other than Republican talking points and/or expansions of them. Aren't you capable of connecting the dots? Have you read "Project for the new American Century"'s reports and publications and compared them to the sequence of events leading up to the invasion of Iraq? You are aware of Dick Cheney's "we know where they are" and "there is no doubt" statements referring to Iraqi WMDS? Where are they now? The State and Energy departments both gave detailed explanations why the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for WMD production, and the UN inspectors who got back into Iraq in late 2002 confirmed that they were being used in conventional weapons production, which the UN inspectors promptly destroyed. Why did Sec. Rice still bring them up long after that as supporting a contention a nuclear WMD program was in place? Was Paul O'Neill lying about Bush's fixation with Iraq starting with the first NSC meeting? Was Richard Clark lying? Is Woodward's "Plan of Attack" nothing but fabrications? (If so, why isn't the WH claiming so?) Is Lawrence B. Wilkerson lying too? The Downing street memos are fiction? I don't have to see the process to know that baking was involved when presented with a cake. If your answer to criticism of GWB is to paint it all as the rantings of deluded lefties, you would have a little more credibility if you could come up with explanations for the issues raised above.
Brian,
As soon as you start pointing to the Downing Street memos, Richard Clark, and Bob Woodward as sources I question your discriminatory capabilities. Get over the talking points and look at what we KNOW.
Is what we know and everyone agreed to enough to take out the biggest Stalinist since Stalin himself?
Then ask yourself, if Saddam had finished his bomb and handed it off to a terrorist to use on New York, would you blame Bush for not doing something to prevent it. Of course you would. Just look at how you people blamed Bush for not preventing 9/11.
Then address my list of known facts in my post above. REmember, Cheney and Rice both believed the intelligence as did Kerry, Gore, Hillary, Bill, the French, the Russians, the British, etc. etc. etc.
Had Kerry taken the exact same steps as Bush has taken you would would be nominating him for position of world savior right about now.
One quick point aimed towards Carol and the "President didn't manipulate the evidence" crowd. The best evidence is contemporaneous primary eyewitness testimony. As such, here is a snippet from memo written prior to the invasion of Iraq by someone within Tony Blair's inner circle.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
The British (C was head of MI5) believed prior to the invasion that the Bush administration was fixing the intelligence. All the wishing by the WSJ doesn't dismiss the leaked Downing Street memos.
Dan Snodgrass wrote, "[a bunch of crap sharing not even a passing whiff of factuality--deleted mt]"
Saddam Hussein did not have nor did he possess the means of acquiring WMDs at the time of our invasion. Who says this? Is it merely Mr. Twister? No, it is the central finding of the Iraq Survey Group published as the Deulfer report.
Don Snodgrass's post if the stupidest thing ever written. We are all dumber for having read it.
Wow fever swamps are in the hizzle.
I love how all the moonbats flocking here keep claiming that the Senate Intelligence report -- you know, the one that actually cites intelligence officials saying they weren't pressured, etc. -- is now undated. But they provide no evidence of this.
The closest anyone comes is to cite the Downing St memo. "Fixed around" does not mean "fixed" in the sense of distorted. Sorry to burst the bubble. The media in the UK and the US tried to run with that ball and it didn't work.
WOW!! I notice that the left always goes berserk when confronted with facts. Look at Michelle Malkins newest book
Jim in Chicago wrote, The closest anyone comes is to cite the Downing St memo. "Fixed around" does not mean "fixed" in the sense of distorted. Sorry to burst the bubble.
Pray tell, Jim, tell me what the difference is. Start by telling us what meaning the statement "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" is supposed to convey. I cannot think of an honest straightforward way of parsing that phrase that does not mean that the intelligence was being distorted.
Democrats are just plain Disgusting and Gotesque. They no longer like to be called liberals and can no longer deal with the disgust in the very word when spoken so they simply change it. "Progressive". The only truth to this "new" caractature is their progressive desire to destroy all that does not conform to their sick and failing ideology.Those that have already been duped and brainwashed by their "Race Baiting" have doomed themselves. They are incapable of the most basic survival skills "LISTENING TO REASON". The FACTS and TRUTH are meaningless to such incoherant and irrational beings. They are those Deer in the Highway frozen unable to move away from the impending doom they themselves have created. They stand and fan the flames that burn underneath their feat.How anyone gives them an ounce of credibility must have their credibility checked as well.
Democrats have become the most foul , despicable and outright dishonest human beings to walk the Earth. Democrats are "PROVEN LIARS" "PROVEN TO HAVE COMMITED AND STILL COMMITING WIDESPREAD ELECTION FRAUD" "ACTIVELY DEFEND THE ACTIOINS OF TERROTISTS, COMMUNISTS, AND HAVE COMMITED ACTS OF TREASON" and most important of all "HAVE USED THEIR LIBERAL MEDIA TO DECEIVE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND SPREAD THEIR LIES"
This is clearly a battle of "GOOD vs. EVIL" And just like in Hollywoods many horror films the Demons are always the most violent and vocal as their are about to be banished , destroyed or rendered powerless. Is their anyone that is even remotely surprised by this?
Your analysis is as atrocious as your hair and make-up.
Drop the fuck dead.
I can't say I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war, but everything I heard from the administration sounded like they wanted me to believe something that they couldn't or wouldn't prove. No WMDs? No surprise! But, as Rumsfeld said " I know there are things I know that you don't know, but I'm not at liberty to discuss them." Ooops, sorry, I got my attributions wrong, that was Ted Bundy proving his innocence.
The climate of lies is sickening. One neocon told me "We will win because the truth is on our side." That, I suppose, justifies lying in the service of truth. Does it justify believing your own lies?
I agree with Carol's post and when I read the attack squad from the left I am reminded why I left the Democratic Party.
I remember the 90's. Perhaps our little friends were too stoned to take note of what was going on but I remember the Iraqi Liberation Act, the bombing of Iraq in December 1998 by none other than Bill Clinton {D}, not to mention eight years of experts claiming Saddam had weapons and weapons programs.
I also read the resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq and noted there were several reasons that had nthing to do with wmd.
And I read about the Deufler report and saw references to programs that were illegal and kept secret in spite of the mandatory UN resolution demanding they be dismantled.
I also read Resolution 1441 as well as several reports done by human rights activists concerning Saddam's treatment of his own people.
I read parts of the Butler Report as well as the Senate Intelligence Report.
If the lefties want to maintain there was some conspiracy here than they will have to put the Demcorats right in the middle of it because they were right there all along.
Nothing Bush said was not said before by someone with a D behind his name.
So if it is their desire to aid the enemy, undermine the war effort in Iraq why not just come out and be upfront about it?
After all Saddam is still alive.
The conspiracy theorists can start a restore Saddam to power movement.
I am sure the Iraqis would just love to have the Butcher of Baghdad back in power and if the left really believes their own propaganda then they should be upfront about it. After all if not for Bush, Al Gore would be in his second term and he and Saddam would be playing golf on the weekends...right?
You betcha.
Such Division in this country. Are we nothing but a bunch of raving, screaming arguing loons? You're all off base. The war isn't in Iraq - its here at home - and we are all losing. But like Iraq, Bush caused this war as well.
Bottom line. George Bush, via Karl Rove, thought sucking up to the bible thumpers and radical right while dressing in drag as a moderate every election would work. It was masterfully effective in getting him elected but the cost has been high. Its requires constant division, hatred, negativity and mudslinging. Its low-ball politics and like reality TV, Paris Hilton, and George Forman grills, it is a fad - a cheap trick. Lowest common denominator slime-ball politics at its worst.
The american people may be really stupid sometimes (well, ok most of the time) - but they get really pissed off when they finally realize they've been "had". That's where we are now. Hopefully the result is that we raise the level of leadership in this country. Because what we've got now is pathetic. I'm ashamed to be american.
The internal division that is destroying this country - THAT is ultimately what George Bush's legacy will be.
Carol Liebau is just another mean, vindictive, blathering conservative talking head who adds nothing to the debate. But she's not supposed to - Her jobs is simply to spout rehashed republican talking points. She is complicit in the scandal that is american politics today. But don't try to give her editorial suggestions. It is a waste of time. Like Gov-a-nator Ahnold they tell her what to do and say. That is why we call them Conservadroids.
Oh geesh...did God tell you to say this Carol..or was it Rove? Or Dr. Laura? Was this part of the usual Repug's talking points for the week of...?
Did you forget to take your medication again?
Skip the legalistic sideshow, and face the fact that George really screwed the in pooch in Iraq.
Wash Post/ABC Poll: 55% Believe Admin. Deliberately Mislead Country Over Iraq...... CBS Poll: Only 32% Think Bush Admin. Is Telling What They Knew About WMDs…...
Isn’t 53% a mandate, even if Republican rule has resulted a national majority of crazy lying liberals?
Nice traffic boost from the Huffington cross post. Funny how opposing extremist fanatics feed each other.
Why is it that everytime a conservative opens their mouth they reveal how ignorant they are about the things they pontificate about? We "lost" in Vietnam because we had no business being there in the first place.A failed theory called the Domino Theory insisted that if one country in Southeast Asia fell all of it would fall.That obviously didnt take place.It was a civil war not a Soviet inspired war and as Robert McNamara the Secretary of Defense who was the architect of the Vietnamese War said, it was a monumental mistake.Anything conservatives have to say beyond that is, as usual, besides the point.
Madam: You are an idiot, but a useful one. A grateful Administration thanks you!
Hey Qitall, its not "rudeness" its anger. It's what happens when leaders butt-f*ck the country their supposed to take care of.
As for company. We don't want yours. Go and play with Karl, Rummy and Dick. Just wear a clothespin cause they smell like shit.
Well, I returned to see if anyone was able to refute my list of undeniable truths about Saddam and the reasons for going to war but all I see from the Leftist children is denial.
I especially like the "Bush planned this in 1998" conspiracy theory.
Well, which is it? Either Bush did not plan ahead of time or he planned years ahead, even before he knew he was going to run for President!
Let me give you a window into our thinking, dear enemies on the Left. Droning on and on about conspiracy theories and what someone in Blair's inner circle said about why Bush went to war are meaningless drivel to us.
We look at the real world. We know you're not impressed or convinced by actual facts and we are not convinced by your hatred and claims of conspiracy theories.
So there is a divide. What is patently obvious is that you Lefties are hyper hypocrites.
You ignore that Clinton made much broader claims about Saddam than Bush ever did.
You ignore everything your precious friends with a D after their name said about Saddam before we went to war.
You ignore that the UN and the congress sanctioned the war.
You ignore that you were all super-happy taking out Milosevic without UN approval for "crimes" an order of magnitude LESS than Saddam was committing.
You ignore that Saddam was grinding up his enemies alive in plastic shredders and killing women and children by the thousands.
You ignore that every nation on the planet agreed that he was a global threat.
But you point to Condi Rice and some tubes that maybe or maybe not were part of a weapons program. Give us all a break. Get out of your freshman poli sci group think and grow up a little.
Hey Dan, no is refuting you because we're ignoring you. you're not right, you're just annoying.
Did the guards leave the door open to the left's loony bin last night, or did the DNC assign blog-monitoring jobs to its "foul-mouthed friends" section, or has the left been taking debating lessons from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Or "all the above?
Dan Snodgrass triumphantly writes, "Well, I returned to see if anyone was able to refute my list of undeniable truths about Saddam and the reasons for going to war but all I see from the Leftist children is denial."
Poor Dan, even though your initial post was amongst the most inane blather ever posted, I thought you could, at minimum, read. Your first three "undeniable truths" were that Saddam Hussein had WMD, Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD, and that Saddam Hussein secreted away his WMD.
In the second post immediately below your I pointed out that all three of these "undeniable facts" are not only deniable but demonstrably false. The CIA's Iraq Survey Group found that Saddam Hussein neither possessed WMD nor had the capability of acquiring WMD.
From the Deulfer report,
Chemical weapons:
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter...
Biological weapons:
In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.
Nuclear:
Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.
Mr. Snodgrass, it appears your nose is as long as a telephone wire.
Girls on the left? Morons?
Who was the idiot who stood on a battle ship 2 1/2 years ago saying "Mission Accomplished" about a war he is, almost 3 years later, LOSING!!
Now THAT is the definition of "arrogant" and "out of touch"
and pretty well describes all the "righties" on this blog.
Chumps.
This thread is a perfect illustration of the reasons why I abandoned liberalism and the Democratic Party once I became an adult.
Are *any* of the liberal posters that responded adults? I hope not. Embarrassing for them if they are.
This thread is also a perfect explanation for why Democrats are politically irrelevent in 21st century America. Why would *anyone* not blinded by ideological brainwashing want to elect people like these to office?
Liberalism will vanish in the next two decades. It's almost gone now. What's happening in France illustrates precisely why Americans - no matter how angry they may get at Bush - are finished with liberals.
How can you spot a liberal? Easy - look for hypocrisy and a complete lack of real-world knowledge. Want a hilarious example?
Look up two posts.
See the liberal talking about Bush landing on a *BATTLESHIP*?
(Snicker)
A battleship, huh? This is the sort of real-world knowledge liberals bring to the discussion. This is their level of factual knowledge on issues like the military.
They don't even know what a battleship is. Too funny.
It was Tommy Franks fault, huh?
HAHAHAHA.
It just gets better and better.
Twister,
You said twice that you thought my list of facts was stupid. Then you went on to make the most inane attempt to refute the obvious facts in my post I have witnessed to date.
Please try again if you want to be taken seriously:
-Saddam had WMDs
Even though you claimed to address this point you actually skipped it. Try again.
-Saddam, even under intense UN pressure, would not divulge the whereabouts of his WMDs
This is one of the main reasons that UN resolution 1441 was passed. The Security Council knew that Saddam had WMDs and wanted to know what he did with them. Did he destroy them? Use them up on the Kurds? What?
Again, your selective memory demonstrates the weakness of your argument, despite the bluster.
-Saddam either destroyed, buried or secreted the WMDs out of the country
Since we have only found a small amount of his WMD stockpiles (although we did find tons of uranium) the only conclusion one can arrive at is that his previously large stockpiles were destroyed, buried, or moved. This is simply undeniable physics.
-Milosevic was a magnitude less of a global threat than Saddam but Clinton waged an arguably illegal war (i.e. no UN approval) against him with the full cooperation of the left.
Also undeniable (and I note that Twister did not even try).
-Nearly every major Democrat leader in the Senate and House said that SH had WMDs and was planning on going nuclear.
Denying this reality is the most damning evidence we have that Twister and his fellow trolls are living in a delusional alternate reality inhabited only by the hyper-hypocritical.
-The anti-war left claimed before the liberation of the Iraqi people that we should not go in for fear of tens of thousands of dead soldiers from chemical attack
Do you, Twister, deny that this was the position of the anti-war left before we took down Saddam? Maybe you all knew he didn't have any chem weapons at that time and just lied to the American people about this risk to try to prevent us from taking down your friend Saddam? Either you were all lying then or are lying now.
-SH had killed thousands of his own people with WMDs
Also undeniable.
Ace, with all due respect, you need a lesson or two in reading comprehension.
Monsieur Snodgrass claimed that Saddam Hussein had WMD, that Saddam Hussein was actively trying to foil the UN from detecting his WMD, and that Saddam Hussein secreted his WMD away in response to the invasion. I responded by quoting directly from the Deulfer report which makes it clear that Saddam Hussein had no WMD nor did he have the means of producing WMD at the time we invaded. My post was in direct response to Mr. Snodgrass's false information.
And the sections of the Deulfer report you cite further destroy Dan Snodgrass's pathetic falsehoods. Your personal favorites (that I was trying to ignore) also agree that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD at the time of the invasion. It is pathetic that you would claim I am somehow manipulating the evidence when your own passages support my argument.
Which is it, Ace, is Dan Snodgrass telling the truth or is he putting forward false information? Did Saddam have WMD at the time of the invasion or not? Despite all of the evidence amassed to the contrary, Dan claims he did--are you supporting your fellow wingnut or not?
Dan Snodgrass keeps playing the "I'm going to prove how stupid I am" card...
Snodgrass originally wrote, Saddam either destroyed, buried or secreted the WMDs out of the country before a painfully tardy President Bush finally went in to do what Clinton did not have the gravitas to do...
Now he claims , Since we have only found a small amount of his WMD stockpiles (although we did find tons of uranium) the only conclusion one can arrive at is that his previously large stockpiles were destroyed, buried, or moved. This is simply undeniable physics.
Given that Saddam destroyed his stock piles of chemical weapons in 1994 (according to the Deulfer report), than what is all the crap about a "painfully tardy President Bush?" That's right you were trying to push early 1990's information as a reason for going to war.
You have a choice, you can claim that your first three statements about WMD were true close to the time of the invasion or merely that they were true sometime in the foggy past. If you are claiming they were true after Bush was elected in 2000 you are not telling the truth, as the Deulfer report makes clear--i.e., you are lying. If you are claiming that they were only true prior to Bill Clinton's re-election as President, then they would not justify our invasion of Iraq--i.e., you are foolish.
Pick the even, take the odd.
There's one thing that I don't understand. If the facts are so irrefutable that Wilson lied about official US Government mission, why there's no special investigation of this matter?
Reportedly, Wilson didn't sign
customary NDA form for CIA, also it seems that he didn't leave any paper trail, his debriefing was oral (am I wrong?) What was going on at CIA? Isn't that a much more serious matter for investigation? Were the spooks simply incompetent, or were they playing a regime change game with their own country? Mr. LeCarre, Bueller, Frey?
Great Post, Carol!
The libs are trying to shoot it down, and when they can't they resort to name calling and conspiracy theories.
Those were the facts folks. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're NOT entitled to your own facts.
Keep it up, Carol!
Twister,
You are sad condescending know-nothing. Try some independent thinking for once in your life.
If Saddam destroyed his weapons in 1994 then what could the UN security counsel possibly have been thinking in 2002?:
"Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security."
"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction..."
- Resolution 1441
I guess you are saying that in 2002 the UN security counsel was lying to world eh?
Please.
With your every passing post you demonstrate that you are a Saddam loving, terrorist-hugging sorry excuse for a human being. Once you graduate from your junior college, come back and provide us with more of your wisdom. We'll look forward to smiling quietly to ourselves over more of your nonsense.
By the way, for all lurkers to this thread, note that Twister and his fellow trolls have entirely failed to address any of the undeniable truths I provided earlier in this thread.
Dan,
My original post was not in response to your so-called “facts”. But I guess if you want to talk about what we do know...
If you have some reason to discount the Downing Street memos and the commentaries of Richard Clark, Bob Woodward, Joe Wilson, etc., I’d like to see some specifics. Instead of questioning my discriminatory capabilities, you should take a more critical look at some of those things you “KNOW”
Saddam did NOT have any WMD. He had grandiose plans and dreams, but no WMD. The most aggressive searching that the Bush admin could do found absolutely nothing. What they found out was that Saddam in Baghdad directing his secret programs was much like Hitler in 03/'45, commanding nonexistent and/or decimated armies. Oh, excuse me, they did find a few chemical weapons shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war, you know, the one that we secretly supported him in. Of course they didn't find any of the WMD research equipment (and let's not forget the big stockpiles of explosives) that the inspectors confirmed were still under seal in late 2002 and that the inspectors warned the Pentagon to secure ASAP. I guess they were to busy staging the fall of Saddam's statue to be troubled with minor stuff like that.
Saddam had 500T of yellowcake already, everybody knew about it. It's one of the little unanswered questions of the Niger affair. Why would Saddam try to get more of what he had enough of already? I have my own answer, but that's neither here nor there. The issue is what kind of threat is possession of yellowcake. The answer is not much, unless it can be combined with the infrastructure to process it into highly enriched U235. Something Saddam did not have.
The only thing Saddam buried was himself, in his little rat hole. There were/are massive rewards offered for any information leading to WMD caches. Success so far, zero. I suggest that you look into the saga of Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, head of Saddam's nuclear WMD program (google “In the garden of Armageddon”). It's one of those good news, bad news stories. It does show that Saddam was trying to be a naughty boy, but also shows that the threat was not critical, certainly less than that posed by North Korea or Iran. It also shows that little or no effort was put to finding Saddam’s WMD scientists and putting them under wraps. They weren’t ever worth their own deck of cards. Oh, by the way, the US was given a list of those too, along with a recommendation that they be rounded up. Oops.
Yes everyone in the world agreed that Saddam is a very bad guy. You don't need to tell me. My brother in law is a Kuwaiti who got to experience first hand Saddam's little visit in '90. He was living in his family’s house/compound on a major street corner where the Iraqi secret police liked to drop off bodies in the middle of the night. My sister was 12 days away from flying back to Kuwait to rejoin him when Iraq invaded.
There was NO cooperation between Saddam and al-qaeda, and he had no part in 9/11. Al-qaeda hated Saddam as much or more than they hated us, they saw him as a secular thug in the way of establishing an Islamic state. (Something we have helped the Shiia get started on in southern Iraq.) Iraq wasn't a hotbed of terrorism until we made it one.
Congress and the democrats believed what intelligence the admin chose to show them, after it had been filtered by the new Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon. All reservations and contrary indications removed.
Lets look at a few other things we know. We know that the Clinton transition team at State was warning the Bushies that the number one threat was terrorism. We know that the Clinton justice department had counterterrorism as one of the top domestic federal law enforcement priorities. We know that the Bush NSC didn't even discuss terrorism until August 2001. We know that Ashcroft's priorities as of May 2001 did not include counterterrorism in a 7 item list of top priorities, and that in August 2001 when the FBI requested an increase in it's counterterrorism budget, Ashcroft's proposed 2002 budget was going to cut it 23% instead. Ashcroft did put counterterrorism at the top of the priority list in November 2001 however. Good job. Clinton pulled his own kind of FUBAR, (see http://www.markriebling.com/archives/00000088.html), but it is clear that before 9/11, terrorism wasn't something the Bush administration cared about.
Let's also look at the situation in late 2002. Bush uses the war authorization vote of 10/11/02 to force Saddam to accept UN inspectors back into the country. They were just getting started and had already dismantled a conventional missile project because it exceeded range limitations. That was where the aluminum tubes were going. Then Bush pulled the plug. Granted, Saddam was dragging his feet, but the process was working. The cooperation stopped only after it was clear that Bush was going to invade anyway. On March 19 2003, the day before we invaded, the choice was not between Saddam the towering and continuing threat or Saddam removed, it was between a toothless Saddam or Saddam removed. The former might be worth 2000+ US casualties and the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqi collateral deaths on our hands (lets not forget the $300B and counting), the latter is not.
In January of 2002 Saddam was not then, and was not going to become, a threat to the US or anybody else for which invasion was the only or even the best option to remedy.
Where’s Osama?
Brian.
Get a grip Ace.
Do you remember Joseph Stalin? For a time, he was the enemy of our enemy, Nazi Germany. That didn't make him our friend. We talked and dealt with him. but there was no little trust and no friendship. There was lots more cooperation between the US/British and Stalin than anyone has shown between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. For a start, even the Bush admin doesn't see any thing credible enough to try and push the specifics. Do you really think that if Bush had any evidence that wouldn't get laughed that it wouldn't be on FOX news 24h/day?t I'm sure it was a high priority for the Iraq Intelegence service to stick it to Saudi Arabia in any way that couldn't be traced back. So what? I don't doubt that players on boths side weren't feeling each other out on matters of mutual interest, but that didn't make them friends and it is a far cry from an aliance that can produce tangible results. It was not in Saddam's self interest to trust these people on anything more than very limited scale, because he knew that they had plans for him too.
Bank robbery and the drug trafficing are and have been a top priority of the DOJ and FBI for decades. Do those things still happen? Why? What happens if those things are no longer a priority? Do they increase or decrease? Now apply that logic to counterterrorism.
Please provide a detailed refutation of the credibility of the Downing Street memos and the other sources. Perhaps then you can gain some credibility. You haven't got any to lose.
Brian.
I would guess that you still believe that Osama did 9/11 as well.
hmmm.
Unfortunately, Bush Cheney, et al, are more than traitors, they are also clearly war criminals.
You know, the kind that are found guilty just before they are shot or hung, at the Hague.
TREASON
WAR CRIMES
The nazi's had their supporters right up to the end too.
For Dan Snodgrass:
Dan, Dan, Dan. I guess it is true that you can't read. Do you get your Mom to type up your pathetic mewlings? That would probably be most convenient given that you live in your parent's basement.
Anyway, enough of the personal attacks, let's get down to brass tacks.
You asked, If Saddam destroyed his weapons in 1994 then what could the UN security counsel possibly have been thinking in 2002?
I don't know good buddy. But if Saddam still had chemical weapons in 2002, why does the Deulfer report conclude While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter...
Have your mom read the above section to you again very S-L-O-W-L-Y so it has time to sink in.
The Iraq Survey Group was the official voice of the United States Government with respect to Iraqi WMD. They had virtually unlimited funds and unfettered access within Iraq. The Deulfer report is the OFFICIAL position of the United States government.
Your claim that Iraq had WMD near the time of our invasion is false, and is officially admitted to be false by the US Government. Furthermore, I have already informed you of this twice within this thread, so you are knowingly making false statements. You are a liar.
Your lies cheapen the sacrifice of the brave men and women who have shed their blood in Iraq. By lying about what was found and enabling further dissembling on the part of those responsible you are spitting on the graves of our patriots.
Congratualtions, you American bashing, troop hating, lying sack of crap.
Ace wrote, Further, we are in a war on terrorism, are you suggesting Saddam didn't have ties to and support terrorists?
That's funny I always hear the wingnuts tell use we are in a global struggle with Islamofacists and even the President concurs. If that is true, why in the world did we attack Iraq, the sole secular state in the region?
By the by, I just want to point out that even Ace won't continue publically defending Dan "Almost too Stupid to Live" Snodgrass. Que cera, cera.
Post a Comment
<< Home