« Stirring the pot | Main | "Not without my Mr. Whiskers!" »

The Lie of the Iraq Lies

David Limbaugh presents a textbook case of media bias and manipulation in his new Townhall column. He uses the example of Tim Russert's recent Meet The Press interview of Condoleeza Rice, going through point by point to show how Russert used his questioning of Rice, not so much to elicit answers, as to deliver Democrat talking points.

In addition, Russert most conspicuously did not share the fact that scores of Democratic leaders, beginning with Bill Clinton, spoke very clearly and often about the unambiguous existence of Saddam's WMD and that they supported a policy to seek a change of his regime.

Russert did not mention that these Democrats, having access to the very same intelligence as President Bush, voted to authorize him to militarily attack Iraq. Russert also failed to note that this congressional war resolution contained multiple reasons for going to war against Iraq -- not just WMD -- and that despite John Kerry's later lies to the contrary, was not conditional on President Bush further exhausting diplomatic avenues or even more weapons inspections.

I watched some of the footage of the Condi Rice protesters at Boston College on television last night. The most often repeated chants were that Rice had lied about WMD. With so many Democrats on record "lying" the same "lies" that Condi Rice cited in the runup to the war in Iraq, it would seem an easy thing to quickly dispel the lie that the Bush administration "lied us into war." Tim Russert's questioning of Condi Rice helps to explain how it is that lie is still being repeated as conventional wisdom.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Lie of the Iraq Lies:

» UrbanRepublican linked with Why we invaded - Democrat Views

» All Things Beautiful linked with Manipulated Intelligence By Any Other Name

Comments (75)

I can't believe after three... (Below threshold)
Larry Lind:

I can't believe after three years that we still have to combat the lie that Bush lied. John Kerry himself said that if you don't think Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons don't vote for him. And then they try to rewrite history, like all those Dems didn't beat the drum about Saddam's WMD. The fact is, that if Bush did nothing on Iraq after 9/11 not only would that have been irresponsible, but those same lying libs would be now be saying that Bush has done nothing about Saddam's WMD.

The dem's before the altern... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

The dem's before the alternate media immergance would have got away with it,as it is a large number still believe this lieing platter.

Expose the Left had a stunn... (Below threshold)
Larry Lind:

Expose the Left had a stunning bit of media bias on full display:

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) appeared on CBS' The Early Show this morning, along with several others, to discuss winning the JFK "Profiles in Courage" award.

During the interview, Murtha went on an anti-War rant, to which The Early Show's co-anchor Julie Chen said nodded in agreement and said "absolutely"

--------------


90% of these "reporters" in the mainstream media vote Democrat. There is just no way a Republican is going to get a fair shake. Take for example the lying liberal media's coverage of the booming economy. They spin everything negative to the point that Bush has a negative approval rating on an economy that has one of the lowest unemployment rates in history.

But don't you dare question... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

But don't you dare question their competence (or their patriotism).

It doesn't matter what any ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

It doesn't matter what any of the Dems said about Iraq & Hussein or how distorted the intelligence was to which they had access. That is past history for one thing. They were not the ones actively engaged in presenting a justification for an invasion that they already had planned. Clinton & Gore were not in office when the invasion decision was taken, and had they been, no can say that they would have bought the idea that WMD was a "slam dunk" & rushed into a pre-emptive attack.

We know from CIA analyst Tyler Drumheller that the intelligence on Iraq was not a "slam dunk." We know that, on 9/11, Rumsfeld was already giving orders to Gen. Myers & his own aides to uncover Iraq's hands in this attack. See: DOD Staffer notes from 9/11

We also know, from former Sec. of Def. Cohen, that on the day that the Supreme Court appointed Bush as president-elect, Cheney called Cohen requesting a DOD briefing for Bush and stated that the only subject matter they were interested in was Iraq.

We also know from the Downing Street memos that Bush suggested to Blair that they could paint a U-2 in UN colors so that, if the Iraqis shot it down, the US & the UK would have a case to take to the UN.

And we know further from those memos that Bush told Blair that they would fix the intelligence around events w/ Iraq.

We know further how preposterous & fraudulent (intended or not) Powell's UN presentation was.

Most importantly, we know now that Iraq had no nuclear program and that there were no chemical or biological weapon stockpiles.

We further know that there was no credible linkage between Iraq & al-Qaeda even tho Rummy & Heinrich Cheney continue to make that claim.

So, all in all, while the Dems may have made numerous statements about Iraq, later shown to be baseless, they were not the current office-holders actively engaged in a scheme to sell an already planned Iraq war to the American public.

O'Neill, Clarke and Drumheller, among many others, have publicly stated that Bush/Cheney were determined to invade Iraq from nearly the day they were sworn to office, months prior to 9/11.

Re; DOD Staffer's notes 9/1... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Re; DOD Staffer's notes 9/11

bad link: here is the link: www.outragedmoderates.org/2006/02/dod-staffers-notes-from-911-obtained.html

mak44, The bottom l... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

mak44,
The bottom line is that the Dems are dishonest and not serious as your post indicated. So no matter what you think about Bush and the Reps, I hope you would vote against the Dems and the left to make sure that they don't have the levers of power. If you truly care about the country, you wouldn't support such a dishonest and unserious party like the Dem.

Sheesh mak44...a listing of... (Below threshold)
Hermie:

Sheesh mak44...a listing of Code Pink talking points, which have been debunked countless times.

Forget to elaborate for mk4... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Forget to elaborate for mk44. mk44 implied that Buhs shouldn't have treated the Dems as honest and serious about defending America. Bush should discount whatever Clinton administration and Dem senators/congresspeople said about Iraq. Basically, mk44 said that the Dems were dishonest and unserious. So the operating assumption for Bush is to treat the Dems as liars. Bush didn't do that, so he incurred mk44's wrath.

HermieYour respons... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Hermie

Your response is typical "Code Fascist" if labels sum it all up.

Just name & illustrate one point from above that has been debunked!!!!!!

mak, check back here after ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

mak, check back here after 2:00. By an odd coincidence, I covered similar ground this morning, and scheduled it to publish then. Now, though, I wish I had switched it and my Mr. Whiskers piece on the schedule.

J.

It doesn't matter what a... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

It doesn't matter what any of the Dems said about Iraq & Hussein or how distorted the intelligence was to which they had access. That is past history for one thing. They were not the ones actively engaged in presenting a justification for an invasion that they already had planned. Clinton & Gore were not in office when the invasion decision was taken, and had they been, no can say that they would have bought the idea that WMD was a "slam dunk" & rushed into a pre-emptive attack.

No, Clinton just lobbed missiles at them, apparently for no reason whatsoever. And since Tenet said it was a "slam dunk", yes, Clinton would have said it was a "slam dunk".

Then again, using Clinton's history, he wouldn't have even gone to the UN at all. That was Bush's biggest mistake.

We know from CIA analyst Tyler Drumheller that the intelligence on Iraq was not a "slam dunk." We know that, on 9/11, Rumsfeld was already giving orders to Gen. Myers & his own aides to uncover Iraq's hands in this attack. See: DOD Staffer notes from 9/11

Rumsfeld dared to ask if there was any info tying Saddam into the attack? That bastard!!

And Drumheller? You mean the guy who cited the Iraqi official who was still with Saddam? THAT Drumheller?

We also know, from former Sec. of Def. Cohen, that on the day that the Supreme Court appointed Bush as president-elect, Cheney called Cohen requesting a DOD briefing for Bush and stated that the only subject matter they were interested in was Iraq.

Seeing as how Iraq was a hot issue --- it makes sense. What were they supposed to ask about?

We also know from the Downing Street memos that Bush suggested to Blair that they could paint a U-2 in UN colors so that, if the Iraqis shot it down, the US & the UK would have a case to take to the UN.

Wow, buying into that psychotic drivel, eh? Well, whatever it takes, I suppose.

And we know further from those memos that Bush told Blair that they would fix the intelligence around events w/ Iraq.

Except nobody can point to any evidence of Bush doing so...

We know further how preposterous & fraudulent (intended or not) Powell's UN presentation was.

Thanks to Clinton appointee Tenet. Bush's 2nd biggest mistake: Not turfing EVERYBODY Clinton appointed. He was an utter disaster in foreign policy. The worst President since Carter.

Most importantly, we know now that Iraq had no nuclear program and that there were no chemical or biological weapon stockpiles.

No, we know they had chemical weapons as they had used them. We have NO idea where they were --- which Iraq was required to reveal and did not do so.

We further know that there was no credible linkage between Iraq & al-Qaeda even tho Rummy & Heinrich Cheney continue to make that claim.

There are actually were ties. Zarqawi went to Iraq --- not the most friendly country when it came to immigration --- for a reason.

So, all in all, while the Dems may have made numerous statements about Iraq, later shown to be baseless, they were not the current office-holders actively engaged in a scheme to sell an already planned Iraq war to the American public.

No, they just looked at the identical intel and came to the same belief. In fact, they DEMANDED Bush let them vote to approve the war.

O'Neill, Clarke and Drumheller, among many others, have publicly stated that Bush/Cheney were determined to invade Iraq from nearly the day they were sworn to office, months prior to 9/11.

Gee, no axes to grind there.
-=Mike

LoveAmerica Immigrant ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

LoveAmerica Immigrant

For gawd's sake-learn to write the English language. That post was so illiterate, that for a moment, I thought it was from Virgo.

If the House Repubs had their way, you wouldn't qualify for citizenship because you don't "spaeka da language."

"It doesn't matter what any... (Below threshold)
larry lind:

"It doesn't matter what any of the Dems said about Iraq & Hussein"

What a fricken' joke, man! Dems voted for the war. Hillary said Iraq had connections to al qaeda and had WMD and voted to support the war. These things do not matter only in your upside down universe.

I'm sure you also think that the fact that Democrats like McKinney, Jefferson, Kennedy, Conyers, and Mollohan are corrupt doesn't matter either. As long as they are Democrats and you are so wanting your power back, you will excuse or rationalize any behavior of a Democrat.

Wrong. None of the "talking... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Wrong. None of the "talking points", aka facts, have been debunked. They have been dismissed, brushed away as insignificant, or attempts have been made to discredit those involved. The neocon plan was to invade Iraq, no matter what. WMDs, Saddam, 9/11 were craftily woven together to create sufficient mass fear to justify a pre-emptive war against a country that was nowhere near a credible threat to US. IS there really any doubt about that at this point? Time will only continue to prove this to be true.

Uhhh '44 how about ALl of t... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Uhhh '44 how about ALl of them. LMAO at another poor old sore loser.

So now that it blows up in ... (Below threshold)
Sharpshooter:

So now that it blows up in the Dem's faces, it's old history! How convenient!

"Wrong. None of the 'talkin... (Below threshold)
larry lind:

"Wrong. None of the 'talking points', aka facts, have been debunked."

Bzzz, wrong. The lie that Bush lied has been debunked.

But of course when Clinton says Saddam has WMD, or if Gore, Kerry, or any other Democrat says it, it is not a lie though, right?

What I really like about MA... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf:

What I really like about MAK44 is that his really stupid posts bring out some really good responses. Too bad he would rather believe lies than listen to the truth. Liberalism is a permanent vegitative state.

mk44For gawd's sake-... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

mk44
For gawd's sake-learn to write the English language. That post was so illiterate, that for a moment, I thought it was from Virgo.

If the House Repubs had their way, you wouldn't qualify for citizenship because you don't "spaeka da language."
--------------------------------------------------
Thank you for admitting that you can not follow even your own logic. That 's why you have to resort to personal insults.

It is universally agreed th... (Below threshold)
Lee:

It is universally agreed that Bush and the other Republican liars "cherry-picked" the intelligence coming out of the CIA, selecting those tidbits that supported their position, and conveniently ignoring the intelligence that didn't. The attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson, who we all now know was telling the truth about the uranium "deal", is rock-solid proof of the administration's desire to further the lies Bush told to the American public to justify the occupation of Iraq.

A further demonstration that the Republicans are willing to lie to the American public is evidenced by recent revelations of domestic spying. Bush had in the past assured the American public that there wasn't domestic spying.

www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20060522d

After the New York Times disclosed the existence of a domestic spy program in December, President Bush assured Americans that their privacy was not being violated and claimed the program concentrated on U.S. contacts with terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda.

He said, "In other words, one end of the communication must be outside of the United States."

We now know that the domestic spy program included spying on as many Americans as the Republicans could manage, and that it was not a case where one end of the communication must be outside of the United States. The Republicans had lied again.

Yes, initially members of Congress from both sides of the aisle repeated the lies they'd been told by Bush and members of the Republican elite regarding the threat presented by Iraq.

Does that make them liars? or are they just unfortunate Americans who mistakenly believed that the highest office holder in the land wouldn't lie to the them and the public?

The anger experienced by Americans, including members of the media, is totally understandable. Any true American would be outraged at the lies told us by the Republican powers in Washington. Reporters are people too, and their own outrage is only a reflection of what is being felt across the country. It should be no suprise that the anger boils over at times... but if the current drumbeats has you conservatives worried hold onto your tin-foil hats, kids, you ain't seen anything yet.

"It is universally agreed t... (Below threshold)
larry lind:

"It is universally agreed that Bush and the other Republican liars 'cherry-picked' the intelligence coming out of the CIA"

Did Kerry cherry pick it when he said that if you don't believe Saddam has Nukes, don't vote for him?

Did Hillary cherry pick when she warned about Saddam's ties to al qaeda and his possession of WMD?

How about John Edwards? Did he cherry pick when he called Saddam an imminent threat?

Lee, I am surprised... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
I am surprised you cited the known liars: Wilson and the NYT (a paper caught red-handed lying). Why do you need to believe in known and proven liars? Why do you need to rename the "terrorist surveillance program" as "domestic spying"? Is that the only thing the left has today?

Yes, initially members of C... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Yes, initially members of Congress from both sides of the aisle repeated the lies they'd been told by Bush and members of the Republican elite regarding the threat presented by Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------
Lee,
Clinton's statements about Iraq were more definite and stronger than Bush. Even Rockeffeller was more emphatic. Again, you and mk44 's logic implied that Bush should have treated Dems as liars and discount their previous statements about Iraq. Can we be intellectually honest enough to agree on that?

It is universally ... (Below threshold)
It is universally agreed that Bush and the other Republican liars "cherry-picked" the intelligence coming out of the CIA

"Universally"..?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

It is universally agreed... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

It is universally agreed that Bush and the other Republican liars "cherry-picked" the intelligence coming out of the CIA, selecting those tidbits that supported their position, and conveniently ignoring the intelligence that didn't.

Ironically enough, no, it is not universally agreed.

The attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson, who we all now know was telling the truth about the uranium "deal", is rock-solid proof of the administration's desire to further the lies Bush told to the American public to justify the occupation of Iraq.

Saying that his wife got him a job and that Cheney didn't specifically request his services is "discrediting" him? Got it. No mention that Wilson's report to the CIA and his later comments didn't really have much in common I notice.

A further demonstration that the Republicans are willing to lie to the American public is evidenced by recent revelations of domestic spying. Bush had in the past assured the American public that there wasn't domestic spying.

Except the "domestic phone program" isn't, you know, even remotely proven to actually exist.

We now know that the domestic spy program included spying on as many Americans as the Republicans could manage, and that it was not a case where one end of the communication must be outside of the United States. The Republicans had lied again.

Until you can prove it, you're lying.

Yes, initially members of Congress from both sides of the aisle repeated the lies they'd been told by Bush and members of the Republican elite regarding the threat presented by Iraq.

Yes, the Congress doesn't get intel reports. They only go with what Bush said. Sure. Hold on to that one.

Using that logic --- why the hell should the Congress even be involved in war decisions, since all they have is the President's word anwyway?

But, we can't trust the Dems since Rockefeller wrote, in 2002, that he'd politicize the Intel Committee.

The anger experienced by Americans, including members of the media, is totally understandable.

Except that the media has a job to do and they've decided to stop doing so.

Any true American would be outraged at the lies told us by the Republican powers in Washington. Reporters are people too, and their own outrage is only a reflection of what is being felt across the country. It should be no suprise that the anger boils over at times... but if the current drumbeats has you conservatives worried hold onto your tin-foil hats, kids, you ain't seen anything yet.

Yes, the guy who bought into the Rove being indicted story is accusing others of buying into conspiracy theories. Lovely.

@ mak44 Your re... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

@ mak44

Your response is typical "Code Fascist" if labels sum it all up.

So... disagree with a moonbat, and you are a fascist.

MikeSCYou wrote: ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

MikeSC

You wrote: "Rumsfeld dared to ask if there was any info tying Saddam into the attack? That bastard!!"

Sorry, but you're wrong. He did not make an enquiry..HE ORDERED MYERS & HIS AIDES TO FIND THE LINKS.

That does not reflect an open enquiry, it reflects the mind of one who already knows for what he is looking.

Again you wrote: "No, we know they had chemical weapons as they had used them. We have NO idea where they were --- which Iraq was required to reveal and did not do so."

Yeah because they were nowhere. Bush was demanding essentially that Iraq prove a negative.

What we knew was that they had used them, but the claims to the amounts stockpiled were pulled out of their ass. Moreover, Rummy might well have imagined the BioChem weapons as he & Reagan had given many of the chemical precursors to Iraq back in the '80's when genious Republican foreign policy was enlightened enough to want to help Saddam stick it in the eye of Iran.

The reality is: there were & are no BioChem weapons to be found. As to the so-called Saddam nuke program, the most Bush/Cheney could produce was the equivalent of a few pieces of some teenager's chemistry set buried in an Iraqi scientist's backyard for some 8 or 10 years.

Again you wrote: "Except nobody can point to any evidence of Bush doing so..."

That in reference to the "fixing of intelligence." The evidence is that there was no WMD, no mobile labs etc. in spite of the fact that Cheney stated unequivoclly that WMD , and a nuclear program, were a certainty, What do you need, a signed confession? Then you'd probably claim that that was a Dan Rather forgery.

As to Zarqawi: most of his tiime in Iran was spent at an al-Qaeda training camp in the NE of Iraq in a no-fly zone where he & Saddam had no access to one another. To cite this as a basis for linkage between Saddam & UBL is beyond the absurd.

"It is universally agreed t... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

"It is universally agreed that Bush and the other Republican liars "cherry-picked" the intelligence coming out of the CIA, selecting those tidbits that supported their position, and conveniently ignoring the intelligence that didn't."

Hell, it's not even "universally agreed" that the Earth isn't flat.

Simply saying "I'm right and everybody knows I'm right" doesn't make you right, Lee. No matter how many times you say it. And "universally" means "everyone" -- if a single person dissents, there goes your universality.

To quote another commenter, Lee, "For gawd's sake-learn to write the English language."

J.

How many times do we have t... (Below threshold)

How many times do we have to say it?

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

JaySo Lee ought to... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Jay

So Lee ought to have said that the preponderance of opinion is that the intelligence was cherry-picked.

I suspect that Lee is well aware that the extremist right & the neo-cons do not agree as there are still 29% who approve of Bush's job. A nitpick over a word used in a statement hardly debunks the gist of what is being propounded.

BTW I eagerly await your post at 2.

From 1998 to 1999 Clinton a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

From 1998 to 1999 Clinton and members of his administration are on record saying that Saddam had or was developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. At that time Bush had no direct knowledge of the situation and obviously belived what the Clintion administration was saying.

When Bush won the election, which it turns out he did in fact do, he felt Iraq was the biggest and most immediate threat facing this nation. He could have hardly thought otherwise after hearing the reports from the Clinton administration. Bush would have been derelict in his duty to protect this nation had he not asked for a briefing on Iraq. What Bush learned in that briefing only added to the urgency, either that or the Clinton administration had been lying about Iraq for years.

The Clinton administration failed to resolve the Iraq issue with eight years of negotiations, sanctions, inspections, and limited bombings. Bush was wise to start planning for the only viable option left which was invasion. We saw how Saddam changed his ways and started allowing inspections once the threat of invasion was real. We now know the French were telling Saddam that they would block any UN approval to invade Iraq, which is exactly what they did. We now know Saddam had been bribing French officials with money from a corrupt UN oil for food program. Had the UN lived up to it's charter, Saddam likely would have finally allowed full and unhindered inspections and the issue could have been resolved peacefully.

Given a corrupted UN and French government, Bush did the only thing he could given the information that was available at the time, which was the Saddam had WMD and was working on long range missiles and nuclear weapons. It's irrelevant that some intelligence agents descanted in their view of Iraq's WMD capability as it's rare to get a unanimous opinion is such things. Look at the Supreme Court as an example where nine individuals with similar backgrounds in U.S. law review the same exact record and hear the same exact arguments, yet often give a split decision. Should we go with the minority vote rather than the majority?

9/11 was just the trigger for action. The event that made it politically possible for Bush to resolve the Iraq issue with the only means available because the UN had been corrupted by Saddam's oil money.

EpadorYou croaked:... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Epador

You croaked: "How many times do we have to say it?

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!"

What a grand idea-just shut down these Pavlovian Puppy & Poll-Parrot blog sites & the food chain will be cutoff.

So will the rote propaganda and sel=stroking smear attacks on anyone who happens to use thought & reason.

Shame that you can't have a blogsite limited to the postings of the infantile.


Talk is cheap, especially c... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Talk is cheap, especially coming from politicians. BushCo invaded Iraq, casualties are appraching 20,000 killed and wounded. I don't care who SAID what or when they said it, Bush DID it. HIS watch, HIS decision, HIS responsibility.Why did he do it? Just ask him, he's got a different answer every few months: WMDs, terrism, freedom for Iraq, security. Sounds like just another flip-flopping political hack to me.

Clinton. Wasn't he the guy that acctually tracked down the terrorists responsible for the '93 attack, convict them and put them in jail? And he did it all without torture, illegally wiretapping US citizens OR actually invading another country.

What? A site limited to tho... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

What? A site limited to those perpetuating the "Bush Lied" mythos? It certainly doesn't get more infantile than that.

Mak44, When you decide to u... (Below threshold)
Hermie:

Mak44, When you decide to use thought and reason, let us know.

Mac LorryYou wrote... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Mac Lorry

You wrote: "At that time Bush had no direct knowledge of the situation and obviously belived what the Clintion administration was saying."

You're right: at that time('98 & '99); Bush had no knowledge. He was getting foreign policy cram lessons from Rice & others to prop him up as a plausible world leader because, back in those years, he thought "foreign affairs" had something to do w/ Monica accompanying Bill to a summit.

As to what the Clinton Admin was saying in those days, I do not recollect that any of the statements that were made were being pounded out day after day as a lead up to an attack. And what's more, had the Chimp had a shred of insight, he would have known,as all you posters slaver over & over again, that all Dems are liars. Pity that Poor George lacked the ability of Wizbang posters to discriminate when it comes to lies.

As to the input that Bush got, it came from the PNAC cabal that Cheney made sure that Bush was surrounded by, most of whom subsequently received various State & DOD appointments so that they could consistently hype their invasion swill.

Poor George! (to paraphrase) Most of his foreign policy experience back in '99 & 2000 was eating tacos. How could he have possibly understood the complexity World Stage?

Hell, it's not even "uni... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Hell, it's not even "universally agreed" that the Earth isn't flat.

I'll side with Webster's on this.

Universal
(snip)
3 a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of mankind) b : comprehensively broad and versatile

"Universally" does not imply everyone - but I'll take the 71% of American's who distrust the Republican liars in Wasington as "universal enough". Anyone have world-wide poll results handy? I bet they show a similar skew.

Tsk Tsk. Ad hominem attacks so early in the day - I guess being exposed as the party of lies has you guys upset. Well attack me all you want - the public is onto you knuckleheads anyway...

It is universally agreed that the earth isn't flat, Jay. Is it too late for you to enroll in summer school?

Lies, lies, everywhere.....

Mac LorryAn after-... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Mac Lorry

An after-thought re another quote from your post: "From 1998 to 1999 Clinton and members of his administration are on record saying that Saddam had or was developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

Yet Clinton, Albright et al were not huffing & foaming at the mouth to send other peoples' loved ones off to be ground up & die for a cause based on half-assed &/or cherry-picked intelligence at best.

Just for the show of good faith, why weren't the Iraqi invasion forces led in on tanks by Generals Barb & Jenna?

The reason the Administrati... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

The reason the Administration is down in the polls has a great deal more to do with the success the Press and their friends in the Democrat Party have had in pressing forward the narrative that until the Bush Administration, no one had ever observed, thought, said, much less written anything that would have led anyone to believe;

* That Saddam Hussein possessed and maintained stockpiles of WMD.
* That Saddam Hussein sponsored, sheltered and provided training to terrorists.
* That Saddam Hussein's terrorist connections included Al Qaeda and a collaborational relationship was possible.
* That Saddam Hussein had a record of lying to and deceiving UN Weapons inspectors.
* That Saddam Hussein's hatred of the United States, taken together with the above, made him a significant threat to America's national security.

Apparently, all these obviously ridiculous notions sprang, fully formed, like Athena out of the top of Zeus' head, from the diabolically creative imaginations of the Bush Administration's voluminous cast of nefarious characters, who then proceeded to sell this hitherto unheard of idea that Saddam posed a threat to the United States to a gullible American public through a pliant American Press.

So today, we're treated to the thoroughly absurd spectacle of journalists publicly castigating themselves, slapping their foreheads and shedding hot tears, for "not doing our jobs" and "agressively questioning" the Administration's supposedly clearly false assertions about Iraq, Saddam, WMD, terrorism and everything else under the sun while they're at it.

But the fact is; even if given a thousand years, not a single one of the mendacious hacks wailing and gnashing their teeth about being "misled" by the White House on WMD and Iraq would ever have thought to question the Bush Administration's assertions about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorists, his WMD programs and his willingness to attack American interests.

And that will be because most of them spent the 1990s writing and reporting things like this;

LINKS
* From CNN - February 13, 1999
* From ABC - January 14, 1999
* From The Guardian (UK) - February 6, 1999
* The Herald (UK) - December 28, 1999

HEADLINES
* US Government - Bin Laden and Iraq Agreed to Cooperate on Weapons Development - New York Times (November 1998)
* Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say - New York Times (November 1998)
* U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan - New York Times (August 1998)
* Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort - New York Times (February 2000)
* Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration - New York Times (February 2000)
* Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program - New York Times (July 2000)
* Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported - Washington Post (September 1998)

Note the dates. President Bush was not elected until November 2nd 2000 (not counting the recount episode) and he did not take the oath of office until January 21st 2001. So the Admnistration officials quoted in these pieces (both on or off the record) all happen to be officials of the Administration of one William Jefferson Clinton. All the American intelligence officials cited happened to be serving the Administration of William Jefferson Clinton.

Anyone with an ounce of honesty must therefore wonder; how come it is only the Bush Administration that is accused of "misleading" the American people on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the United States when we have Clinton Administration's CENTCOM Commander, General Anthony Zinni saying that "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region ... Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months." before a Congressional Committee in 2000? How come it is only the Bush Administration that is being accused of "misleading" the American people when it was the Clinton Administration's Justice Department that filed the indictment against Osama bin Laden that stated "... al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq ..." in 1998?

The answer is simple. By meticulously embargoing any mention of anything ever said about, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, terrorism and WMDs prior to the start of the War in Iraq, and then purposefully ignoring anything afterward that would undermine the new narrative that Saddam Hussein was never considered a threat by anyone before President Bush came to office and "manipulated intelligence" to make it so. This would include any new articles, news programs, speeches and other public statements and documents.

The reason the Administrati... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

The reason the Administration is down in the polls has a great deal more to do with the success the Press and their friends in the Democrat Party have had in pressing forward the narrative that until the Bush Administration, no one had ever observed, thought, said, much less written anything that would have led anyone to believe;

* That Saddam Hussein possessed and maintained stockpiles of WMD.
* That Saddam Hussein sponsored, sheltered and provided training to terrorists.
* That Saddam Hussein's terrorist connections included Al Qaeda and a collaborational relationship was possible.
* That Saddam Hussein had a record of lying to and deceiving UN Weapons inspectors.
* That Saddam Hussein's hatred of the United States, taken together with the above, made him a significant threat to America's national security.

Apparently, all these obviously ridiculous notions sprang, fully formed, like Athena out of the top of Zeus' head, from the diabolically creative imaginations of the Bush Administration's voluminous cast of nefarious characters, who then proceeded to sell this hitherto unheard of idea that Saddam posed a threat to the United States to a gullible American public through a pliant American Press.

So today, we're treated to the thoroughly absurd spectacle of journalists publicly castigating themselves, slapping their foreheads and shedding hot tears, for "not doing our jobs" and "agressively questioning" the Administration's supposedly clearly false assertions about Iraq, Saddam, WMD, terrorism and everything else under the sun while they're at it.

But the fact is; even if given a thousand years, not a single one of the mendacious hacks wailing and gnashing their teeth about being "misled" by the White House on WMD and Iraq would ever have thought to question the Bush Administration's assertions about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorists, his WMD programs and his willingness to attack American interests.

And that will be because most of them spent the 1990s writing and reporting things like this;

LINKS
* From CNN - February 13, 1999
* From The Guardian (UK) - February 6, 1999

HEADLINES
* US Government - Bin Laden and Iraq Agreed to Cooperate on Weapons Development - New York Times (November 1998)
* Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say - New York Times (November 1998)
* U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan - New York Times (August 1998)
* Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort - New York Times (February 2000)
* Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration - New York Times (February 2000)
* Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program - New York Times (July 2000)
* Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported - Washington Post (September 1998)

Note the dates. President Bush was not elected until November 2nd 2000 (not counting the recount episode) and he did not take the oath of office until January 21st 2001. So the Admnistration officials quoted in these pieces (both on or off the record) all happen to be officials of the Administration of one William Jefferson Clinton. All the American intelligence officials cited happened to be serving the Administration of William Jefferson Clinton.

Anyone with an ounce of honesty must therefore wonder; how come it is only the Bush Administration that is accused of "misleading" the American people on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the United States when we have Clinton Administration's CENTCOM Commander, General Anthony Zinni saying that "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region ... Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months." before a Congressional Committee in 2000? How come it is only the Bush Administration that is being accused of "misleading" the American people when it was the Clinton Administration's Justice Department that filed the indictment against Osama bin Laden that stated "... al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq ..." in 1998?

The answer is simple. By meticulously embargoing any mention of anything ever said about, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, terrorism and WMDs prior to the start of the War in Iraq, and then purposefully ignoring anything afterward that would undermine the new narrative that Saddam Hussein was never considered a threat by anyone before President Bush came to office and "manipulated intelligence" to make it so. This would include any new articles, news programs, speeches and other public statements and documents.

Leesorry to go on ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Lee

sorry to go on the attack against a brother, but there isn't universal agreement about the Earth: most of the residual flat-earthers are offering one another support at this, the Neandrathal blog site. Hell most of them are still not walking completely upright, tho the ones who are managing this feat are carrying clubs and dragging their women around by the hair.

mak44sorry to go on ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

mak44
sorry to go on the attack against a brother, but there isn't universal agreement about the Earth: most of the residual flat-earthers are offering one another support at this, the Neandrathal blog site. Hell most of them are still not walking completely upright, tho the ones who are managing this feat are carrying clubs and dragging their women around by the hair.
--------------------------------------------------
Thanks again for demonstrating the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the left. It means that you have nothing to back up your arg. You are not willing to even follow your own logic. So you have to resort to insults again.

You simply trot out the talking points (i.e. the known proven lies) or cliches to insult people.

Mak44 - I just think it's f... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Mak44 - I just think it's funny then when they are losing an argument they are so quick to label their "opponents" as trolls, and attack them personally as being less intelligent and "stoopid". Jay's ad hominem attack is a pitiful example of the way these blogs attempt to manufacture "group think" - namely "if you can't defeat the message, shoot the messenger."

A quick check revealed that Martin A. Knight's lengthy diatribe above was a cut and paste job from the comments section on this blog site. I wonder if Martin has any original thoughts?

LoveAmerica Immigrant ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

LoveAmerica Immigrant

Sorry, I hadn't realized that I was being "immoral."

mak44Sorry, I hadn't... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

mak44
Sorry, I hadn't realized that I was being "immoral."
------------------------------------------------
Let me try to explain it a little further for you.

Here is an example of the moral bankruptcy of the left: they are willing to turn a blind eyes towards the UN oil-for-food corruption that allowed Saddam Hussein to siphon money for his WMD ambition and real torture/rape chambers. All I heard from the left is railing against Bush. I heard no condemnation of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies.

Is the left so morally corrupt that they couldn't muster an ounce of decency on behalf of 50 million people freed from the yoke of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein? Or their hatred so strong that they can only wish for the terrorists to succeed so that they score some political cheap points agsint Bush.

I hope you can enlighten me more about the moral condition of the left. The picture so far is not pretty.

LeeA quick check rev... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee
A quick check revealed that Martin A. Knight's lengthy diatribe above was a cut and paste job from the comments section on this blog site. I wonder if Martin has any original thoughts?
---------------------------------------------------
Thank you again for providing another example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the left. Facts do not fit into the view of the liberal VIRTUAL-reality community. Actually Martin 's post is a good summary of the things the Dems have to ignore to sustain their fantasy.

In the end, all you can do is name calling.

Thanks to Martin for the ef... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Thanks to Martin for the effort to provide the facts. Here is another write-up about the effort to revise (or twist) the facts (just today)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008415

Revisionist History
Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked.

LeeIt's amazing wh... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Lee

It's amazing what one can find.

Most of these Pavlovian Puppies are quite adept at salivating on cue w/ the ring of a bell.

Some have yet to emerge from the 50's w/ all their "pinko" and "commie" whines while others have yet to get beyond grunting for debate.

Everybody take note ...... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Everybody take note ...

The Left as represented by groucho, mak44 and Lee have regressed to the classic MO of Leftits when they come face to face with people who challenge the BushLied™ article of faith.

Lee cites the polls as his trump card as supposedly irrefutable proof that Bush lied on Saddam Hussein while mak44 reprises the old chestnut; chickenhawk idiocy.

Neither of them meet head-on the simple fact that there was nothing the Bush Administration said about Saddam Hussein, Iraq, terrorism and Al Qaeda that had not already been said by the previous Administration. It's just a desperate attempt to shift our focus.

Here's a nice Bill Clinton quote; "... it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." - [Larry King Live (CNN) - July 22, 2003]

grouch does the same thing except that groucho uses the most interesting defense of the BushLied™ myth which is remarkable in that it completely skips trying to prove that BushLied™ on poor defenseless, innocent Saddam Hussein and instead tries to make it all about Bush's decision to take out the Wacky Iraqi.

This is a different argument altogether; it's now an argument as to whether or not Bush should have taken Saddam Hussein's word that he had no WMDs and that contrary to his past record, he would never consider having anything to do with terrorists.

mak44, Lee and groucho proudly admit that their ideal President (a Democrat) would have taken Saddam Hussein's word for it.

Note that this would be a decision made after the events of 9/11, without the benefit of hindsight on the state of Saddam's WMD programs/arsenal, and with every single credible intelligence agency and government around the world certain that Saddam Hussein still retained a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons (see Clinton quote above).

Even more interesting, this would be despite the incontrovertible knowledge that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda (let's not mention the many other terrorist groups Saddam gave support to) saw enough in common with each other that they had reached out to each other multiple times, as even the 9/11 Commission agreed (see Chapter 2 (Page 66 - i.e. 83 on PDF) of the 9/11 Commission Report).

Personally, I believe that after 9/11, if I were President, any history of any form of friendly contact between Al Qaeda and a monstrous democidal regime like that of Saddam Hussein would have terrified me. Especially if I believed (as Clinton did), that there were unaccounted for WMDs still left in Iraq.

Anything other than an immediate meek, total and utter submission to a rigorous inspections process would not have sufficed. I doubt even mak44, Lee and groucho can make the case that Saddam fully complied with 1441 and left even a milquetoast like Hans Blix without serious complaints about Saddam's lack of compliance.

But then I'm a Republican. We tend not to take chances with America's national security. Even if it would piss off the UN.

Democrats ... well, y'all apparently believe America has to pass some sort of "global test" ...

mak44,You... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

mak44,

You're right: at that time('98 & '99); Bush had no knowledge. He was getting foreign policy cram lessons from Rice & others to prop him up as a plausible world leader because, back in those years, he thought "foreign affairs" had something to do w/ Monica accompanying Bill to a summit.

I was hoping you wanted to have a serious discussion. How foolish of me.

The fact remains that the Clinton administration was on record about Saddam's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Are you saying that Clinton was lying or cherry picking the intelligence?

As to the input that Bush got, it came from the PNAC cabal that Cheney made sure that Bush was surrounded by, most of whom subsequently received various State & DOD appointments so that they could consistently hype their invasion swill.

And who was president Clinton getting his information from? If it was the same group then it was assembled by Clinton not Cheney or Bush. If it was a different group, then how did they come to the same conclusion as those who were briefing Clinton?

How could he have possibly understood the complexity World Stage?

Yes, how foolish of Bush to believe the Clinton administration's reports on Iraq. How naive he was to believe the UN was an honest agency for world peace. It's not that the world stage is complex, it's that it's corrupt. In that environment, Bush was wise to solve the Iraq problem the only way it could be solved.

Yet Clinton, Albright et al were not huffing & foaming at the mouth to send other peoples' loved ones off to be ground up & die for a cause based on half-assed &/or cherry-picked intelligence at best.

Bush wasn't huffing and foaming at the mouth. He was planing to invade Iraq. Something Clinton didn't have the courage and fortitude to do. The intelligence was no more cherry-picked by Bush than it was by Clinton. There are always dissention and the only cherry picking is being done now to select the few dissenters and claim that was the consensus before the invasion. War always involves putting people in harms way. If we are not willing to do that as a nation, then we should disband our military and surrender to whatever country wants our sorry asses.

Just for the show of good faith, why weren't the Iraqi invasion forces led in on tanks by Generals Barb & Jenna?

U.S. Law doesn't allow women in combat units. Is that the fault of Bush? U.S. Law doesn't allow women to be drafted even when there's and active draft. Are you saying Bush should have taken his daughters against their will and put them into combat just to make a political point? You would be the first one howling about violation of the law and calling for his impeachment. You certainly don't let hypocrisy get in your way when it comes to disdain for Bush.

Well Lee & mak44,O... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Well Lee & mak44,

Once any of y'all on the Left actually meet my arguments head-on and actually attempt to debunk as opposed to posturing, then I'd bother to construct new ones.

Heck, you're regurgitating the same BushLied™ idiocy from 2004.

C'mon ... take me on. Make an honest attempt to counter my supposedly "unoriginal" arguments. Should be easy, shouldn't it? Do so and I'm certain I can muster up enough originality to keep y'all busy ...

PS: I wrote the post on Gat... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

PS: I wrote the post on GatewayPundit.
i.e. I plagiarized my own damn self.

Since it is "universally" a... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Since it is "universally" accepted that Bush lied and Iraq didn't have WMDs, and this was known prior to OIF, could someone please give me some quotes from any western leaders, heads of intelligence services, UN delegates, or anyone else who doesn't troll for dates at Burger King, that state Hussein didn't have WMDs?

It seems to me that Chirac, Shroeder and Annan had ample reason to call that issue into question by categorically stating that Saddam didn't have them. After all, the invasion cost all of them millions of dollars in kickbacks. Why didn't they say what you are telling us everyone knew?

Yeah Martin A Knight... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Yeah Martin A Knight

I'll take your challenge..

You liked to use the 9/11 Commission Report above to make the point that: "despite the incontrovertible knowledge that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda (let's not mention the many other terrorist groups Saddam gave support to) saw enough in common with each other that they had reached out to each other multiple times, as even the 9/11 Commission agreed"


Square that w/ this from the 6/17/04 WaPo story on the Commission Report,

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

You seized on the reports of some limited contacts in the mid '90's to imply that the Commission found incontrevertible evidence of Saddam/al-Qaeda duplicity & yet the basic conclusion of the Commission is quite the opposite.

What will you manufacture to unburden your argument of that fact?

Cherry-pickin' anyone? You remind me of the old RCA logo as in Puppy w/ Pavlov.

PS I beg your pardon for quoting from a "pinko" rag.

mak44, are you referring sp... (Below threshold)
TomB:

mak44, are you referring specifically to Iraq/Al Qaeda connections concerning 9-11 or in general?

And perhaps you could answer my question immediately above?

The sound of the drumbeat &... (Below threshold)
mak44:

The sound of the drumbeat & marching off to war w/ all sorts of jingoism can be magnetic. Looking at the pictures of the Nuremburg rallies can be mesmerizing- even tho one hated the Nazis.

What cannot be denied here, even tho after the fact is:

Many Democrats made all sorts of seemingly "Iraq must be stopped" statements; they were wrong.

Foreign states made all sorts of "Iraq is a threat" statements; they were wrong.

The Bush Regime made all sorts of "evil empire" statements; they were wrong.

The reality is that Bush Co was in charge of the intelligence; if they don't like the charges of major screw-up & liars, they shouldn't have worked so hard to get SCOTUS to appoint them.

No matter who is quoted, they all were wrong.

BUT of all these players, only Bush/Cheney made the decision to go to war.

AND it was The Chimp & Der führer,Cheney who made that fateful decision, regardless of the fact that events proved that everyone was wrong.

Now, the American death toll approaches the magnitude of the evil that the Iraqi war was supposed to avenge and set right, not to mention the death toll of Iraqis and the maimed and ground-up survivors of any nationality.

AND the reality of Afghanistan, where all this evil began, looks shaky at best because of Bush's half-assed job of setting that nation on a solid course.

And the Evil-doer incarnate remains at large, because The Chimp-in-chief got diverted w/ Iraq.

An extremely high price for The Chimp's learnng curve!

All you arm-chair generls who are so ready to have war might well take a look at the wages of war in the link below and answer, if any of you can. whether you would would put yourselves or your loved ones in this milieu before using every diplomatic maneuver conceivable to avoid it. Consider that your pious posturing & kneejerk jingoism never lsft you to imagine this....

Scroll down to: Wednesday, May 17, 2006
A Citizen's Responsibility

http://www.bcftu.blogspot.com/ and see if you can stand reality.


No matter who is quoted,... (Below threshold)
TomB:

No matter who is quoted, they all were wrong.

And, of course, you knew they were wrong at the time, right?

Do you realize how assnine this sounds. "Everybody was wrong when they said Saddam had WMDs, but BUSH LIED when he said it!"?

There wasn't anybody at the time, even those who had access to OTHER country's intelligence, who said Saddam didn't have WMDs, but they were wrong. BUT BUSH LIED!

You people are becoming parodies of yourselves.

And then we have this shred... (Below threshold)
TomB:

And then we have this shred of idiocy:

AND it was The Chimp & Der führer,Cheney who made that fateful decision, regardless of the fact that events proved that everyone was wrong.

They made a decision that "events proved that everyone was wrong". Now you are condemning them for not telling the future. So what you are saying is that people should make decisions that may, in the future, be proven wrong.

Right.

For God's sake at least think your ramblings through before you hit "post".

TomBJust who the h... (Below threshold)
mak44:

TomB

Just who the hell cares what Schroeder et al may have said about Iraq & WMD's. Are we supposed to think that, whatever intelligence other governments may have had, that theirs was as good as, if not superior, ours?

I don't know where these allegations came from, but the idea that some national leaders may have sustained Bush/Cheney propaganda begs the question. Apart from Mossad, who the hell thinks that any nation has intelligence equal to or superior to that of the US w/ our technological capabilities? That alone should give you pause for quoting these sources as some sort of a buttress for validating the cherry-picked Bish/Cheney intelligence.

Who, among you Wizbang parrots, would leave intelligence to Germany or Russia or anyone else for that matter?

So, no, I don't have an answer for all the foreign national support of the Bush mythological intelligence apart from doubting their capacity independent of US dominance in this field.

I sure as hell wouldn't send others' loved ones off to die in a bloody war because I could claim that Schroeder or Putin said I was right particularly, after my Secretary of State advised me, " If you break it, you own it."

A Chimp who, under the sway of others, never experienced Foreign Affairs, apart from eating a taco, might just well do that, especially if he thought that God talked to him.

mak44, the point that seems... (Below threshold)
TomB:

mak44, the point that seems to keep eluding you is that NOBODY believed Saddam didn't have WMDs. That includes the previous President and members of Congress who had access to the same intelligence the administration did.

Now, all of the sudden, you are screaming BUSH LIED (er, but everybody else was "wrong")!!!

And, considering the Russians had special forces on the ground IN IRAQ before the war, I'd say their intelligence was bound to be at least as good, if not better than, ours. In addition, German companies handled much of the construction for the Iraqi government in the past decade. So they were also in a good position for intelligence.

So tell me again why "BUSH LIED" and everybody else, including Clinton, were just "wrong"?

You wrote: "Rumsfeld dar... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You wrote: "Rumsfeld dared to ask if there was any info tying Saddam into the attack? That bastard!!"

Sorry, but you're wrong. He did not make an enquiry..HE ORDERED MYERS & HIS AIDES TO FIND THE LINKS

See, they had this whole big 9/11 Commission to investigate stories just like this.

They disproved it.

The left has not only become unelectable --- they're paranoid, too.

Yeah because they were nowhere. Bush was demanding essentially that Iraq prove a negative.

See, to quote a saying: "Anthrax ain't marmalade." If you have it, you know where it is. If you destroyed it, you know where and when you destroyed it.

Nobody has found the tiniest sliver of info as to where, when, or how it was disposed of --- and Iraq ADMITTED to having gallons of the stuff back in 2002. It's not like this is "invented" by Bush.

In fact, to paraphrase Coulter, the only strong evidence that there was no WMD whatsoever was that Bill Clinton said that there were WMD there.

What we knew was that they had used them, but the claims to the amounts stockpiled were pulled out of their ass.

"Out of their ass" being Iraq's admission to the UN.

Again you wrote: "Except nobody can point to any evidence of Bush doing so..."

That in reference to the "fixing of intelligence." The evidence is that there was no WMD, no mobile labs etc. in spite of the fact that Cheney stated unequivoclly that WMD , and a nuclear program, were a certainty, What do you need, a signed confession? Then you'd probably claim that that was a Dan Rather forgery.

Again, incorrect intel is not the same thing as "fixing of intel".

I could say "Well, the Yankees will beat the Devil Rays".

I could provide statistics as to why I believe that.

If the D'Rays beat the Yankees, I was wrong. I did not "fix the evidence".

As to Zarqawi: most of his tiime in Iran was spent at an al-Qaeda training camp in the NE of Iraq in a no-fly zone where he & Saddam had no access to one another. To cite this as a basis for linkage between Saddam & UBL is beyond the absurd.

Except documents from Iraq explicitly dispute that. But Saddam and his peeps were probably lying to themselves on behalf of Rove.

So Lee ought to have said that the preponderance of opinion is that the intelligence was cherry-picked.

No, the preponderance of cherry-picked evidence indicates the intel was cherry-picked.

Shame that you can't have a blogsite limited to the postings of the infantile.

Dailykos is down?
Democratic Underground is down?

Dang.

As to what the Clinton Admin was saying in those days, I do not recollect that any of the statements that were made were being pounded out day after day as a lead up to an attack.

Go back to the justification for the attacks on the days when Monica and Bill testified before the grand jury. Clinton laid out the reasons why he did it there.

Yet Clinton, Albright et al were not huffing & foaming at the mouth to send other peoples' loved ones off to be ground up & die for a cause based on half-assed &/or cherry-picked intelligence at best.

No, just to lob missilies randomly to pump up their poll numbers.

Democratic humanitarianism is magnificent.

Square that w/ this from the 6/17/04 WaPo story on the Commission Report,

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

The same WaPo story that the Commission came out publicly and denied? That story?
-=Mike

TomBIt's not that ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

TomB

It's not that every one else was wrong, but Bush lied. It's that he took the decision and it doesn't matter much what others may have said or their reasons for saying so.

When Bush and Der Cheney repeatedly stated, no doubt about it, that Iraq had WMD & a nuke program, are they excused for believing what others may have said? I don't recall any of the others, Democrats or foreign leaders, stating that it was unequivocal or beyond doubt, apart from a Clinton quote posted earlier.

And none claimed that they couldn't wait for "the smoking gun in the form of a musheoom cloud."

Morever, if all these various leaders were so certain of the imminent Iraqi threat, why were so many nations opposed to Bush's pre-emption? Is their genetic program for survival that incapacitated?

TomBIt's not that ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

TomB

It's not that every one else was wrong, but Bush lied. It's that he took the decision and it doesn't matter much what others may have said or their reasons for saying so.

When Bush and Der Cheney repeatedly stated, no doubt about it, that Iraq had WMD & a nuke program, are they excused for believing what others may have said? I don't recall any of the others, Democrats or foreign leaders, stating that it was unequivocal or beyond doubt, apart from a Clinton quote posted earlier.

And none claimed that they couldn't wait for "the smoking gun in the form of a musheoom cloud."

Morever, if all these various leaders were so certain of the imminent Iraqi threat, why were so many nations opposed to Bush's pre-emption? Is their genetic program for survival that incapacitated?

When Bush and Der Cheney... (Below threshold)
TomB:

When Bush and Der Cheney repeatedly stated, no doubt about it, that Iraq had WMD & a nuke program, are they excused for believing what others may have said? I don't recall any of the others, Democrats or foreign leaders, stating that it was unequivocal or beyond doubt, apart from a Clinton quote posted earlier.

Uh, yeah.

Sandy Berger: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."

Madeline Albright: "Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."


Sen. Carl Levin: "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Robert Byrd: "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Sen. Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

I've got many more, shall I go on?

I missed this, although it ... (Below threshold)
TomB:

I missed this, although it was already answered:

Morever, if all these various leaders were so certain of the imminent Iraqi threat, why were so many nations opposed to Bush's pre-emption? Is their genetic program for survival that incapacitated?

Did you ever hear of "Oil for Food" scandal? Hussein was buying Shroeder, Putin, Chriac, Annan and other off. Their greed preempted their fear of Saddam. Anyway, they believed Hussein's beef was with the US, not Europe.

Try to keep up.

When Bush and Der Cheney... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

When Bush and Der Cheney repeatedly stated, no doubt about it, that Iraq had WMD & a nuke program, are they excused for believing what others may have said? I don't recall any of the others, Democrats or foreign leaders, stating that it was unequivocal or beyond doubt, apart from a Clinton quote posted earlier.

Seeing as how Bush is unable to tour Iraq whenever he wants, as long as he wants, with open invitations to anywhere he wants --- then, yes, he will have to go with what others in positions of knowledge in this area state.

As for not recalling that Dems said it was undeniable, it just means that you are either willfully ignorant or weren't born until 2003.

Morever, if all these various leaders were so certain of the imminent Iraqi threat, why were so many nations opposed to Bush's pre-emption? Is their genetic program for survival that incapacitated?

Because money is a powerful deterrant to action for many and Saddam spent billions to get what he wanted?
-=Mike

mak44France,German... (Below threshold)
virgo:

mak44

France,Germany,Russia were all Saddams little pavlovian puppies for a price. Im only wondering why did He give up the billions and palaces?

Interesting to watch Democr... (Below threshold)
section9:

Interesting to watch Democrats revert to what they really and truly are, the party of Deladier, Chamberlain, Munich, and Vichy.
Conservatives make an error when they get into the Origins of the Iraq War debate with liberals for the following reason. The object of the debate is not to prove, for instance, that "Bush Lied". The object of the debate is to prevent Americans from realizing what Democrats have become.

The debate is a smokescreen. It's a complete and dishonest lie from beginning to end, but it has a purpose.

Democrats and the Partisan Media invented this debate to hide the pacifism and defeatisme of the Democrats from the American People. If the Americans actually understood that most Democratic activists think like Lee and mak44, they would never elect anyone to high office again. So people like Lee and mak are kept in the closet like the Crazy Aunt, trotted out by the Democrats in election years when they need money from their Base voters.

Remember this salient fact: when Democrats had power, they refused to invade Afghanistan to attack bin Laden. They attacked empty tents with million dollar cruise missiles. They threw supboeanas and indictments at him, not troops.

"BushLied" is an attempt to hide that fact from the American People.

The last thing Democrats want the American people to believe is that Bush could be right- that Islamic Fascism is a threat to our people. This could take away from the domestic spending that Democrats want to concentrate on. And so, they invented "BushLied" to bring into question the entire rationale for the war.

Bush didn't lie. It's just that Democrats care more about power than they do about the troops and about winning the war. The LAST thing Democrats want the American people to do is to perceive that they are the Girl Scout Party, interested more in Midnight Basketball than in midnight raids on bin Laden. But that's the awful truth, and there you have it.

The entire BushLied meme is a lie to hide the truth about the Democratic Party's pacifism.

Oh mak44 ... ... y... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Oh mak44 ...

... you monstrously stupid idiot.

You're citing the Washington Post's report on the Commission report. A report that both Chairmen (Kean (R - NJ) and Hamilton (D - IN)) went on national television to pronounce as misleading. Honestly, if you want to level an accusation of "cherry-picking" at somebody, first of all, make certain the person actually is cherry-picking and even more importantly, make sure you are not cherry-picking yourself.

I'm citing the Commission Report itself ... because, yes, I can read and comprehend stuff for myself. And I actually took the time to cite the Chapter and page for you as well. Which just goes to show that you can lead a horse (or idiot) to water (or knowledge) but you can't make him drink (or think).

    There is also evidence that in 1997, bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of bin Laden.

    In mid-1998, the situation reversed, with Iraq reportedly taking the initiative. In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

    [...]

    Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicated some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.

Once again, here are (just two - I've got the URLs to a GREAT deal more) the articles from before President Bush's inauguration ... Obviously, you can only take so much cognitive dissonance which is why you clearly have not read them.
CNN - 02/13/1999
The Guardian - 02/06/1999

And may I point out again that prior to the 9/11 Commission (and prior to the beginning of the Iraq War), the Clinton Administration cited intelligence in the 1998 indictment it prepared against Osama bin Laden that; "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

    You seized on the reports of some limited contacts in the mid '90's to imply that the Commission found incontrevertible evidence of Saddam/al-Qaeda duplicity & yet the basic conclusion of the Commission is quite the opposite.

Comprehension must have been a truly difficult thing for you growing up. 1998 and 1999 are in the "mid '90s"?

I stated that the 9/11 Commission found incontrovertible proof that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda saw enough in common with each other that they had reached out to each other multiple times. And the best you can do is respond with the non-sequitur that they did not have a "collaborative relationship"? How exactly does that counter my statement of the fact that they were sending delegations back and forth between each other (it is right there in the 9/11 report)?

And, by the way, the 9/11 Commission's (tentative) conclusion was that while the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda had had friendly contacts, they had not yet established a "collaborative relationship". Why else were they sending delegations back and forth? For the sight-seeing? Or to establish something of a closer relationship? Use your brain ... what would be the most likely reason for two organizations with hardly anything in common but a common foe to meet?

All this just goes on to show why Democrats are utterly useless at national security. According to you, Lee and groucho, even after 9/11, the fact that there have "friendly contacts" (the 9/11 Commission's words - not mine) between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq would not have raised an eyebrow in your ideal (Democrat) Administration.

This would be a regime that has had a history of harboring, training and sheltering terrorists and had even used chemical weapons on its own territory, on its own people, and more than once.

This would be a regime that was in violation of 17 Article VII (i.e. mandatory) UN resolutions regarding its refusal to fully comply with demands that it openly gets rid of its WMDs and WMD programs.

This would be a regime that admitted to having "among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs ... And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." - Bill Clinton [Pentagon - 02/17/1998]. Let's not forget that Bill Clinton also said, more recently, "... it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." - [Larry King Live (CNN) - July 22, 2003]

Like I said, being a Republican, especially after 9/11, absolutely any form of "friendly contact" (the 9/11 Commission's words - not mine) between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have terrified the living daylights out of me. Unlike a Democrat, I would not wait for the ink to go dry on a formal document between Al Qaeda and Iraq agreeing to a "collaborative relationship" before moving to make sure those "friendly contacts" (the 9/11 Commission's words - not mine) don't bear any fruit.

Republicans don't take chances with national security. We would NEVER take someone like Saddam Hussein's word on anything whatsoever, and neither would we worry ourselves about passing some stupid "global test" before acting to protect the United States.

Try harder next time, mak44. This was too damn easy.

section9,Conse... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

section9,

    Conservatives make an error when they get into the Origins of the Iraq War debate with liberals for the following reason.

On every other thing except the above, I agree with you. We simply cannot allow the Press and their Leftist brethren rewrite history.

Your child would grow up actually believing Fahrenheit 9/11 is an actual documentary.

We have to beat down this BushLied™ before the NEA get to demand this nonsense gets taught as actual history and not the mass Left-wing delusion it actually is.

Martin,You're righ... (Below threshold)
section9:

Martin,

You're right, of course. The Left is after Power, and has no interest in national security, nor in prevailing in a war in which it does not believe. So I guess we must remain engaged, if only to counter the mass propaganda apparatus that is the mainstream media.

However, do NOT underestimate the intelligence of the American people. They have this unerring ability to get things right in the long run, despite the enormous efforts of Democrats to convince them otherwise.

The left not only dont beli... (Below threshold)
virgo:

The left not only dont believe in this war effort, they also are absent the spine or brainpower to win it! and therefore must do everything in their meeger abilitys to sabotage us..

Has anyone ever noticed tha... (Below threshold)
Mike J. Cole:

Has anyone ever noticed that the liberals are the second biggest pussies (no one can beat the french - not capitalized for a very good reason) in the world. They make all these claims/lies and yet less than 1% of them (I'm being ridiculously kind with this estimate) could, or worse, would ever stand up to someone who is threatening them. They would leave that "messy" business for someone else.

How do I know, because I get in their face and challenge them every time I encounter one in person or online. The verdict: They would have to be heavily drugged to even be considered a chicken-s**t. Yet they love to spout off online (see mak44 - notice how these liberals NEVER give any part of their names? Trust me, It's not an accident). When attacking these liberal losers I use a simple rabid-pit-bull approach. If they could find a despicable sewage tunnel, they would eagerly and quickly claim this as their official point of retreat. Which brings me back to my most important point. Freedom ain't free; never has been and never will be. But liberals will never understand or accept this. Martin and section9 are right on the money with their posts. Power is far more important that defeating the millions of enemies that want to destroy everything American.

What really upsets me is the disgusting reality that our brave and patriotic (words totally foreign to liberals) troops have to fight this war for the benefit of these WORTHLESS BASTARDS. WORTHLESS BASTARDS who would best be used for al Qaeda target practice. They may say they support our troops but it is THE BIGGEST LIE EVER TO BE TOLD. What they really want is to see every one of our troops (or at least the white ones) murdered so that they can scream, "We told you so, now vote us into power so that we can't bring peace to the world!" Yeah, like that will happen.

God, we need a Hunting Season for liberals...a long one.

Mike J. Cole - Dallas [email protected]


33% approval ratings for Bu... (Below threshold)
Rafael:

33% approval ratings for Bush doesnt mean he wouldnt be re-elected in a heart beat tomorow.

consider this:
are neo conservatives pissed bush isnt doing enough? probably, considering many more ppl consider themselves conservatives than ppl who consider themselves liberals, probably making up a large portion of the unsatisfied count no doubt.

are run of the mill conservatives somewhat dissatisfied aswell. certainly. they would like to see this war over more quickly & likely apply the pressure. add moderate republicans to this group for a few more pts.

of course everyone left of center is upset no doubt but its quite probable lol that they only represent a small remaining faction of the unsatisfied. so dont get ur hopes up too much fellas come election day because none of the above groups right of center will side with u.
remember the "silent majority" of R. Nixon really did exsist inspite of slash & burn campaign by the liberal press back in the early 70's. remember the shock u all felt with the first w. bush election. u fellas were left dumbfounded. remember? the problem is u never try to understand ur opponents strengths & rational. instead u call them stupid! if i didnt know any better id say "now theres the real stupidity!" but i know better.

conservatives consider ur points & try to look for merit, thats why they understand u all & know where u are comin from as i do.

ur problem is that u all believe the first talkin point u get because ur "cause" is so rightous that it doenst quit matter how ur get there, just as long as u get there.

marxists carried this trait to an extreme as history tells us which probably played a large part in there fall from grace. u should probably take a lesson from the euro libs. they saw this first hand & arent going down ur road. probably why they have lasted this long.

so my advice stop talking just the points. break some new ground as i have done here. dont just read ur talking points. go read a few books. iv read 8 in the last year on the arab world alone & my positions have been altered somewhat I promise i will try to keep making an effort to understand u. but for now u really sound stupid!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy