A "False" Belief?
A new poll has yielded stories like this -- about Americans who still believe that Iraq had or has WMD. Here's what the AP wants you to know:
The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900 million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.
But as this piece over at The American Thinker points out, the story is rife with misleading assertions, and conveniently omits evidence that's contrary to its central thesis, which amounts to little more equating those who believe that Saddam Hussein constituted a real threat with those who believe in Bigfoot and flying saucers. As Ray Robison points out, clearly the AP writer never read this -- "Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria" -- and other, less publicized truths.
The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900 million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.
But as this piece over at The American Thinker points out, the story is rife with misleading assertions, and conveniently omits evidence that's contrary to its central thesis, which amounts to little more equating those who believe that Saddam Hussein constituted a real threat with those who believe in Bigfoot and flying saucers. As Ray Robison points out, clearly the AP writer never read this -- "Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria" -- and other, less publicized truths.
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:49 AM
15 Comments:
Shorter editor: How dare you question our orthodoxy!
Editors see only one device that "might" be WMD, and that's nuclear, or nukular if you are from Crawford, TX.
Otherwise, their heads are buried deep. And they think it's great if everyone has 'em too. Especially if Hizbollah would launch one at Jeruselem, then you'd see a bunch of people in SF and NY wagging their tongues in delight like the Palestinians did when they heard about 9/11 distruction.
destruction...sheesh, I hate when that happens.
I don't think plain vanilla blogger.com allows for logging of IP addresses. I could be wrong, though, since I've been using HaloScan for comments. Also: SiteMeter gives you that info.
Given that "Dittohead" wasn't really anyone in particular, who's going to care if he has created a "Editor" as his/her/its new nom de troll?
"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,..."
The Official Report of the Iraq Survey Group.
My, my, my... It never ceases to amaze me the eLarson, Pete, CoPioneer, and Dodger don't get tired of ever gnawing on this same old plate of poo.
For anyone who hasn't enjoyed seeing the gang froth at the mouth in frenzied incoherence, try asking them the why the President, the Vice President, and the whole right wing cabal that runs this country have never disputed the conclusion quoted above.
eLarson writes, "How dare you question our orthodoxy!"
Are you questioning the veracity of the President of the United States? After all, George W. Bush was the man who commissioned the people who wrote...
"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,..."
eLarson are you really claiming that the Commander in Chief of this nation's armed forces understands less of this matter than you do?
Interesting.
Pete opines, "ANd there is more that the left refuses to acknowledge. And just because you deny they exist, editor, does not make it true."
And do you include the President of the United States in this so-called "left?" I'm really curious, because George W. Bush has never questioned the veracity of the Duelfer Report. The President never even questioned the part of their official report where they wrote,
"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,..."
Are you really claiming the President of the United States is in a state of denial about Iraqi WMD?
Interesting.
Insightful.
No, really, "Bush lied and soldiers die" is more the orthodoxy I felt "editor" was defending.
The ability to call a Republican president a liar after 8 years of hearing it about Billy Jeff Clinton has got to be a real turn on for y'all.
Enough calling of names! peopled are dying by the centuries in Iraq if you had not noticed. As an Editor, it is imperative now that solutions, not rhetoric and bickering rule the day. Otherwise you do nothing but dance on the graves of 2500+ soldiers who have perished and more than 100,000 Iraqis.
I have heard none of you, eLarson, COPioneer, dogder, or Carol come up with a rational solution to the problems facing Iraq. Their military is shite, the insurgency is growing, the al Maliki government is turning deifant by the day and all the Bush administration is interested in is the political cost of doing well anything.
Either standup more US forces, (another 100,000 might work) and send an overwhelming message to the insurgency, or give Mr al-Maliki his wish and give him the keys to his nation.
Even though finding those 100,000 may be difficult and arming them properly will be an issue I am certain the brains in the Pentagon, given the proper numbers could beat the tar out of this insurgency.
If this war is about democracy in Iraq surviving give it a chance. Bush should declare no pull out of US forces and ask that the Selective Service reinstitute the draft for the next 5 years. No college deferments, everyone 18-35 is eligible for service for two years with a gurantee their job will still be there.
Raise the troops finish the fight and fix what trying to fight a politcal war has broken.
C.E.
As an Editor, it is imperative now that solutions, not rhetoric and bickering rule the day.
Settle down. Your persona is a refugee from a Dungeons and Dragons session. If you are going to be a finger-wagging scold, why don't you do it with an actual name and location, rather than "Cavalor Epthith" of "Dis, Hell". Mighty clever, that... if this were some kind of online role playing game.
"another 100,000 might work"
How about this? That would surely do it.
I am sorry eLarson I cannot be human today or any other day so I must be myself a denizen of the city of Dis, Hell my home. Nor will I "settle down". Why should I be calm have I offended someone?
But enough about me I do feel that what I have offered is a viable solution. America is in this mess and needs to "secure democracy". Okay, if it is the paramount issue of the day then yes dodger, America should roll up its sleeves. And those arms should don desert camo and enlist or take the oath of ficce in a branch of service. America needs you! America needs the draft.
Ahhh I see this is what is offensive, --the draft. The ultimate put up or shut up. And how many sons of GOP supporters would dodge the meat grinder in this war? Alas, I love the smell of napalm in the morning but the sons and daughters of the elite do not. Except for that fine McCain fellow now that's an American!
Can any of you really address why the draft to ensure proper troop numbers to get the job done is not a viable solution to the problem of Iraq? There is no room for spin here gentlemen and I am certain Ms. Liebau is above allowing personal attacks in honest debate.
C.E.
I am sorry eLarson I cannot be human today or any other day so I must be myself a denizen of the city of Dis, Hell my home.
Hoooooookay, then. Have a pleasant millenium.
According to Dodger, there are two elements to the war -- the real soldiers who are doing the work, and people like him who say "Yay, Team!" and thus help in the battle.
Nope. Not the battle. The war effort. The homefront.
Yup, no need to actually enlist,
How many people did actually enlist following 9/11/2001, incidentally?
or pay higher taxes,
Always the answer... the answer... the answer...
Not to mention a drag on the economy. Receipts to the treasury go up when marginal rates go down. Happens every time.
or actually sacrifice in any way.
Given the tiny fraction of GDP that the war costs, would you feel more virtuous if there was food rationing? What if the sacrifice we asked the left to make is "pipe down until the troops come home"?
As long as you say you are supporting the president, you are actively fighting the terrorists -- and they know it, and quake in fear.
I doubt that they quake in fear, but they certainly wouldn't see room to be encouraged to wait just a little longer and the US will give up.
But if you disagree with Bush, then you are fighting on the other side!
Are you? Would you feel a little giddy if the troops came home? I know the "other side" would feel like they've won.
What great warriors you guys are!
Why, thank you. And may I compliment you on what a bold dissenter you are. I mean risking your very freedom behind that keyboard day in and day out, when you JUST KNOW that someone from Homeland Security could knock on your door and take you away to one of the Bush Centers for Patriotic Re-education!
and simply by disapproving of people who disagree with you, you are doing as much as the people who are being shot at.
I think you are reading way too much into it. I would NEVER suggest any such thing. Nor do I know anyone who would suggest that there is an equivalency between arguing and actually getting shot at.
Note that I'm stopping short of mentioning "strawman" here, in that it wouldn't be the first time you've read something and I've read something and come to different conclusions.
Dodger repeats the same onld tired cliche, "We won in Vietnam on the ground but lost the will to fight at home."
Dodger, Viet Nam gutted the military of the United States. It took over twenty years to recover from.
Post a Comment
<< Home