« Headline Of The Day - From The Earth To The Moon Edition | Main | The CAIR across my butt »

Setting The Record Straight

Anyone who has read my blogging and columns (here and here) knows that a topic I return to time and time again is the subject of "setting the record straight" on Iraq. There is much to argue, on both sides, about the mission in Iraq, and I am all for debate of the issue. There has yet to be much substantive debate, though, because there has been so much misinformation spread and so much vitriol injected into the discussion.

David Limbaugh addresses the subject, among others, in his new book, Bankrupt, which I highly recommend. In the first chapter, "Iraq: Democrats Lied and their Credibility Died," David takes a look, one by one, at the Democrats' claims that Bush lied us into war in Iraq.

The topic of the book is the "intellectual and moral bankruptcy of today's Democratic party", and David gives many more examples than just the debate over Iraq. To get an overview of the book, which he calls probably the most important he has written so far, read his most recent column by the same name.

Update: Sister Toldjah has more on the "Bush lied us into war" front.


Comments (52)

Slightly OT but the ABC 9/1... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Slightly OT but the ABC 9/11 special was pulled basically because it was BS.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/04/path-blog-yanked/


From the show blog

When Bill Clinton was in office for one month the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists. Shame on Bill Clinton for allowing a terrorist attack on HIS watch.

Nine months into the George W. Bush presidency there was the 9/11 attacks. Shame on Bill Clinton for allowing the attacks to be planned on HIS watch.

See how they do it!

muirgeoI must have... (Below threshold)

muirgeo

I must have missed something. What happened on October 20th 2001? That's 9 months into Bush's presidency.

Actually, the blog is still... (Below threshold)
MikeB:

Actually, the blog is still reachable for anyone with the slightest bit of tech savy. The blog was pulled due to the inflammitory comments posted by readers from what I can tell.

And muirgeo, what you posted wasn't from the show blog is was a post from a liberal commenter on the blog (thinkprogress) about the show blog.

Funny that no one's seen this yet their up in arms over it.

- MikeB

muirgeo: I have read a lot ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

muirgeo: I have read a lot of articles about the attack in 1993 and not one said the attack was Slick Willie's fault other than in answer to the blame Bush crowd about 9-11. If one is true the other has to be. The fact is that 9-11 planning started immediately after the semi-successful attack in 1993. You are a horse a** so listen to the other end of the horse, (Osama) he told the world when the planning for 9-11 started and how happy they were about it's success. This one could have been easily stopped if Hellary had not put Gorlick in a position to put the Gorlick wall up at Hellary's direction. The terrorists were completing flight training in preparation for the attack throughout Slick rein. The FBI knew it but were banned from telling the NSA/CIA. Slick was so busy with interns that Hellary was actually running the country into the ground. Now she wants a second chance to totally destroy it. The problem with Slick is that he did nothing (other than putting a blind man in jail) about it, nor anything about any of the attacks that occured on his watch. Get your facts streight before you post. You are probably one of the no 'WMD' screamers also but won't read the fact that over 20 of the democratic leaders made direct statements on the definate existance of WMD in Iraq. Were they just blowing smoke up the left wings butt to complete the brain washing. lying, or telling the truth?

Bush lied about Sadaam's WM... (Below threshold)
Pharcyde:

Bush lied about Sadaam's WMD's being an imminent threat to the safety of Americans. Period.

This was not a failure of our intelligence agencies because nowhere in the razor thin case built up against Sadaam is this even shown to be a possibility. The notion of an imminent threat was a position taken by the white house and them alone, and it was a lie from the beginning to stimulate the sentiment to go to war.

If the idea that Democrats manufactured the reasons to criticize the Bush administration on the run up to the war are the new Republican talking points, then they truly are in trouble in November.They would do much better to stay away from the argument all together.

Ugh! It's the stale, coutle... (Below threshold)
George:

Ugh! It's the stale, coutlessly disproven claim that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. Pharcyde is either a troll or he lives in a vacuum.

Don't feed the trolls.

David Limbaugh may or may n... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

David Limbaugh may or may not have valid points, but his cheap shots at Christians effectively silences his voice with much of the voting public.

Pharcyde,"Bush lied ... (Below threshold)
DoninFla:

Pharcyde,
"Bush lied about Sadaam's WMD's being an imminent threat to the safety of Americans" Bullshit!!!Give us the date and setting President Bush said "...imminent threat". Can't do it, can you? ...because he never said it...You Dumbass!!

Funny, Pharcyde, I recall B... (Below threshold)

Funny, Pharcyde, I recall Bush saying clearly that Saddam was NOT an imminent threat, but had to be handled before he was. In fact, I recall him saying so repeatedly, including in the State Of The Union address.

What color is the sky in your world, idiot?

J.

I'm unaware of any cheap sh... (Below threshold)
Diane:

I'm unaware of any cheap shots made by David Limbaugh at or to Christians, would you elaborate?

The choice of "Imminent thr... (Below threshold)
pharcyde:

The choice of "Imminent threa" was mine and true, Bush never uttered it. Here's what Bush actually said (9/29/02 radio address):

"We are united in our determination to confront this urgent threat to America."


Please take off the Bush goggles.

Pharcyde

So the president himself di... (Below threshold)
Hugh Grady:

So the president himself didn't use those exact words. You guys sound like Clinton parsing what he meaning of is is. But here are some quotes from him and some from his administration. The evidence is overwheling what theit intention was....remeber the mushroom cloud comment?

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Oh well, now it's clear. P... (Below threshold)
MikeB:

Oh well, now it's clear. Pharcyde's has trouble with the English language.

imminent - likely to occur at any moment
urgent - compelling or requiring immediate action or attention

Urgent does not imply imminent. I've got enough work to do between now and the end of the year that it's urgent that I get started. However, the end of the year is not imminent.

Of course, nevermind that Bush actually said the following:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
[emphasis added]

- MikeB

Diane You don’t ha... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Diane

You don’t have to read much from David Limbaugh before you run across cheap shots such as this “lying about war, at least by a Republican president, is so evil it pretty much drives them to the obnoxious Christian state of moral absolutism.” Such statements do nothing to further the main argument, but at that point his credibility with many fundamentalist Christians drops to near zero.

I’m not saying every Christian is put off by such comments, but the place for a comment of this nature is in a piece about moral absolutism and why he feels it’s obnoxious. Christian authors likely feel situational morals are worthless and those who expose them, obnoxious. Yet, unnecessarily dropping such comments into unrelated stories separates the author from a significant part of the audience they intended to reach. Not being able to resist inserting your favorite barbs into unrelated stories is a sign of immaturity common to inexperienced authors. However, as a professional writer, David Limbaugh should know better.

Pharcyde ...You ne... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Pharcyde ...

You need to go back to school and expand your vocabulary. That statement does not mean what you think it means.

In case this flew over your head,
urgent != imminent

Furthermore, would you like a few quotes by Bill Clinton (and other Democrats) from the 1990s describing the type of threat Saddam posed to the United States? Here's one;

    In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

Damn that Karl Rove and his damn time-travelling machines, eh? He went back and Jedi-mind-tricked Clinton before his speech to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon on the 17th of February, 1998, right?

How about this from the then CENTCOM Commander, General Anthony Zinni giving sworn testimony before Congress on the 15th of March, 2000?

    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.

And I believe, once again that Bill Clinton was President then on the 15th of March, 2000. Damn that Karl Rove and his damn time-travelling machines! And his damn Jedi-mind-tricks!

    Clinton Administration (2000): Iraq poses a threat to the United States.

    The Left: TRUE. WE NEED TO GET RID OF HIM!

    Bush Administration (2001): Iraq poses a threat to the United States.

    The Left: HALLIBURTON! WAR FOR OIL!! LEAVE POOR SADDAM HUSSEIN ALONE!!! AAARGH!!!!

What a bunch of odious lying idiots.

Hugh Grady and Pharcyde:</p... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

Hugh Grady and Pharcyde:

Perhaps you can explain the following "lies":

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e 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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Ah yes, the tried and true ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Ah yes, the tried and true ever available always ready...but what about Clinton card. It's 2006 gang......the evil-doer's been gone for 6 years. Sometime, somewhere, some place some wingnut will wake up and realize the boogie man isn't under his/her bed any more. Like the commies, there isn't a Clinton under there anymore. They're both long gone. Find a new boogie man for heaven's sake.

Kaffir:I don't nee... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Kaffir:

I don't need to explain anything. They all got it wrong...it's that simple. It was "political" for both sides.

They both had it right! The... (Below threshold)
914:

They both had it right! The left is obviously more concerned about politics over security.

What I've noticed, Hugh, is... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

What I've noticed, Hugh, is that your post, long winded though it is, still does not make true the Left's remarkable delusion that Bush said the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq was imminent i.e. could happen any second from now.

Grave threat? Yes. Gathering threat? Yes. Urgent threat? Yes. Serious threat? Yes. Real threat? Yes. Unique threat? Yes.

And every single Democrat agreed then when those words were said. Including Democrats who have been serving on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees since before Bush was elected, who, should have known, if Bush was lying.

But none of those words is the same thing as 'imminent'. The fact that the words 'imminent' and 'threat' appear in the same paragraph of a speech does not support the story you're desperately trying to sell here.

The closest thing you have to actually make what you say true are the answers given by White House aides. I don't know about you, but I believe the President's own words trump careless answers given by tired White House aides during a Press Conference where many other questions were being asked in quick succession.

Give it up. The President never said Iraq posed an imminent threat and there is no amount of selective and suggestive quoting by you that would make it true that he did. Clear?

How about some quotes from your side of the aisle?

Here we have these statements by many other Democrats and Clinton Administration officials ... Note that these are people who have or have had access to intelligence reports since the Gulf War. They include at least one General, two Presidents, a Secretary of Defense and Legislators who are or have been members of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees of the two Houses of Congress.

    Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.
    Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability.
    Robert Byrd, October 2002

    There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat ... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001
    Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.
    Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
    Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons ... I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.
    Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.
    Tom Daschle in 1998

    Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
    John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
    Bob Graham, December 2002

    The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
    John Kerry, October 9, 2002

    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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
    Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

    As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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.
    Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.
    John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Take off the partisan blinders, Hugh. Even as reliable a Left-leaning editorial page as the Washington Post's acknowledges that Joe Wilson was lying. The Intelligence Agencies messed up. They started messing up long before Bush took the oath of office and they continued to mess up for a while afterwards and they probably are still messing up now.

Ah yes, the tried and tr... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Ah yes, the tried and true ever available always ready...but what about Clinton card. It's 2006 gang......the evil-doer's been gone for 6 years.

You're the one claiming "Bush lied". It was simply pointed out to you that these "lies" were around and widely believed before he took office.

But Dems like to pretend that there is no history before 9/11. The left is fond of the concept of memory holes.

"Bush lied."
"Well, here was what was said before he took office."
"That was years ago. Live in the now, people!!"
-=Mike
...hard to argue history when mentioning history is verboten...

Theres only one side playin... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

Theres only one side playing politics here,and its not the President! If (G-D forbid) we are attacked again,the Demdonks would be responcible as sure as G-D made little green apples.Shame on you opportunist,for political expeadiance,and no other reason.You give aid and comfort as you always have.Viet Nam would have ended more pleasantly except for this same crowd.

Lets try to set the record ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Lets try to set the record straight . I posted quotes from Bush and other's in his administration, some of which use the word "imminent.' True, not Bush himself.

What I also said was that "Both" sides politicized the intelligence and interpreted it in way's favorable to their views. Repeat....both sides.

I posted the quotes ONLY in response to the asinine argument that ONLY democrats have politicized the run up to and the war itself. If you denty that republicans have you are out of touch with reality. This silly horse sh** about appeasers and Nazis says it all about playing politics.

Lastly, some of you take the blame Bill for everything game to absurd heights. So, in conclusion do I think Bush lied? I don't know whether he did or not. Neither do any of you. Do I think he took advantage of fear....absolutely.

George Bush would NEVER pla... (Below threshold)
Robert:

George Bush would NEVER play politics here.

He's probably never even heard the name "Karl Rove" either.

Rove, BTW, is the raeson we should trust THIS ADMINISTRATION to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant.

Hasn't GWB , Rove and the boys proven they're above petty politics?

SARCASM OFF...right now!

Mac -I think you'r... (Below threshold)
cmd:

Mac -

I think you're reading Limbaugh wrong. The way I took the "moral absolutism" line was that he was referring to how the left's BDS drives them to the position that - if you're a Republican - you can never take military action until there's a smoking crater outside the White House with a Hallmark card saying "luv ya! Kisses, Osama." (whereas a Democrat can wipe a fat intern's drool off his dick and bomb an aspirin factory for the hell of it, and the left doesn't care).

That position is "moral absolutism," a Christian position, and an evil place to be for a Christian-hating bunch like the Democrats. It was a slam at the Godless Party, not the GOP. That's how I read it.

Argue with a liberal, and o... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

Argue with a liberal, and once the liberal loses the argument, he/she will immediately change the topic.

This post is not about whether politicians play politics. Of course, they all do. This post is about whether the leftist "Bush lied" mantra has itself any basis in the truth. It doesn't.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the liberals keep repeating this assertion in a manner that would have made George Orwell blush.

Oh please, Hugh ... Not the... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Oh please, Hugh ... Not the tired old "Clinton is not the President anymore! Why are you blaming HIM?!!!!" routine.

    Ah yes, the tried and true ever available always ready...but what about Clinton card.

We should all applaud Hugh for his picture perfect demonstration of one of the many dishonest tactics of the Clinton Legacy Preservation Project.

He wants us to join him in pretending that no information gathered by the Intelligence Community during the Clinton years was used in evaluating the issue of Saddam Hussein's WMD prior to the War in Iraq.

But that's not how Intelligence works. It is not a science. It involves a huge amount of estimation, extrapolation, reconciliation and consensus-building, using information already known about the subject/target in question. In other words, the analysts who prepared the 2002 NIE, for example, didn't just use information gathered exclusively from 01/21/2001 but information going all the way back from the 1970s.

Here's the reality. The answers provided by the Intelligence Community to the Clinton Administration led that Administration to believe that Saddam had WMDs and posed a threat to the United States. The Bush Administration, from the exact same information, came to the exact same conclusion.

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

But the only way Hugh can continue the preposterous notion that Bush, and only Bush, lied is by demanding that we ignore the fact that Clinton Administration came to the same conclusion from the exact same information or join him in pretending it's irrelevant.

But it is not irrelevant. It is, in fact, extremely relevant. And it is profoundly dishonest to pretend it isn't so.

No dice Hugh. Try harder next time.

Scrapiron,C... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Scrapiron,


Can you name ONE thing the Bush administration did in its first 8 months to address terrorism...which the Clinton administration advisers told them in the hand off should be priority #1.

One thing lil fella.....

cmd,I'll accept th... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

cmd,

I'll accept that you're a competent reader, which suggests that Limbaugh is a poor writer, given that you and I come to such different conclusions about the meaning of what he wrote. Whether it's poor writing or a cheap shot at Christians, either way Limbaugh lost the ear of many staunch conservative voters.

Uh Mureigo, or whatever the... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Uh Mureigo, or whatever the hell your name is, they pulled the ABC Path to 9/11 blog not the movie itself.

And as to the Clinton team passing on info to the Bush admin, I'd just love to see that memo.

"Please do something about terrorism, since we didn't." Yep. Sounds about right.

Muriego, looks like not onl... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Muriego, looks like not only is the ABC Path to 9/11 special still going to air, but it's now going to be commercial free in some outlets, and people can download it on itunes for free. As Rush would say, "Yip Yip Yahoo."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117949477?categoryid=14&cs=1&s=h&p=0

Rove, BTW, is the raeso... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    Rove, BTW, is the raeson we should trust THIS ADMINISTRATION to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant.

And after, Rove, pure evil flashing in his eyes, is finished with his evil eavesdropping for the day, what does he do, next?

It's 2006 gang......the... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    It's 2006 gang......the evil-doer's been gone for 6 years. Sometime, somewhere, some place some wingnut will wake up and realize the boogie man isn't under his/her bed any more. Like the commies, there isn't a Clinton under there anymore. They're both long gone. Find a new boogie man for heaven's sake.

Here Hugh is pretending that the events in question did not happen in 2002, just a little over a year since Clinton left office, not 2006. Hugh obviously thinks that we're too stupid to know that the policies a President pursued while in office often continue to have some effect many years after he's no longer in office, talk less of a year and a few months later.

    What I also said was that "Both" sides politicized the intelligence and interpreted it in way's favorable to their views. Repeat....both sides.

Hugh here is excellently demonstrating another favorite tactic of dishonest political partisans when losing an argument. This is called the "Both Sides" defense and is supposed to demonstrate "Independence" or "Moderation". Hugh just finished accusing the Bush Administration of "politicizing" Intelligence, which is no different from the standard "BushLied™" storyline he's been trying to push. After realizing that his demands that we ignore history so his "BushLied™" nonsense can stand, were not going to be heeded, he's now shrieking "Both Sides!" in a bid to appease.

It's not gonna work, Hugh. Try harder.

    Lastly, some of you take the blame Bill for everything game to absurd heights.

Strawman. Everybody agrees that the Intelligence was wrong and the blame largely falls on the Intelligence Community. What we're complaining about is the dishonest attempts by people like you to push the story that even though both Clinton and Bush came to the same conclusion given the exact same information, Bush, and only Bush, lied.

How the hell is that possible? What's even more annoying is that when someone brings up the fact that it's not possible to say one lied but not the other, you start demanding that we pretend as if nothing existed prior to 01/21/2001. And when that fails, you now try to change the subject to tangential idiocies such as whether or not Bush "took advantage of fear ...".

It's 2006 gang......the... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    It's 2006 gang......the evil-doer's been gone for 6 years. Sometime, somewhere, some place some wingnut will wake up and realize the boogie man isn't under his/her bed any more. Like the commies, there isn't a Clinton under there anymore. They're both long gone. Find a new boogie man for heaven's sake.

Here Hugh is pretending that the events in question did not happen in 2002, just a little over a year since Clinton left office, not 2006. Hugh obviously thinks that we're too stupid to know that the policies a President pursued while in office often continue to have some effect many years after he's no longer in office, talk less of a year and a few months later.

    What I also said was that "Both" sides politicized the intelligence and interpreted it in way's favorable to their views. Repeat....both sides.

Hugh here is excellently demonstrating another favorite tactic of dishonest political partisans when losing an argument. This is called the "Both Sides" defense and is supposed to demonstrate "Independence" or "Moderation". Hugh just finished accusing the Bush Administration of "politicizing" Intelligence, which is no different from the standard "BushLied™" storyline he's been trying to push. After realizing that his demands that we ignore history so his "BushLied™" nonsense can stand, were not going to be heeded, he's now shrieking "Both Sides!" in a bid to appease.

It's not gonna work, Hugh. Try harder.

    Lastly, some of you take the blame Bill for everything game to absurd heights.

Strawman. Everybody agrees that the Intelligence was wrong and the blame largely falls on the Intelligence Community. What we're complaining about is the dishonest attempts by people like you to push the story that even though both Clinton and Bush came to the same conclusion given the exact same information, Bush, and only Bush, lied.

How the hell is that possible? What's even more annoying is that when someone brings up the fact that it's not possible to say one lied but not the other, you start demanding that we pretend as if nothing existed prior to 01/21/2001. And when that fails, you now try to change the subject to tangential idiocies such as whether or not Bush "took advantage of fear ...".

Yikes Martin.....you miss t... (Below threshold)
Hiugh:

Yikes Martin.....you miss the boat. It was a simple assertion I made. BOTH sides have politicized the run up to and the conduct of the war. This was in response to Limbaugh's absurdity . Read what i said again...." I don't know if Bush lied or not".....neither do you. I do know he took advantage of fear. Clear enough....wipe the spittle from your glasses and try responding to the actual point someone is making.

Regarding, Clinton....a strawman argument? Laugh myself silly. He's the strawman for about every failed policy of this administration. Criticize Mr Bush for anything and the response inevitably leads to Clinton being responsible. Of course he screwed up the threat. Everyone screwed up the threat. Republicans, democrats, both presidents.

Tandential idiocy? It may be that to you.....I think it's the fact(s).

I don't know if Bush li... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

I don't know if Bush lied or not".....neither do you. I do know he took advantage of fear.

But if Bush did not lie than the fear was justified. Warning people about actions that need to be taken against a perceived threat is not taking advantage of fear.

Hugh, this ain't even about... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Hugh, this ain't even about Clinton. Stop trying to change the subject.

Fact; what Clinton said about Saddam Hussein from 1993 to 2001 is no more different than what Bush said about Saddam Hussein in 2001 and 2002.

This is not surprising considering that the nation's Intelligence agencies came to the exact same conclusions from the exact same information for both Administrations.

The major bone of contention is that you're trying to have it both ways. Bush may (how generous of you) have lied but Clinton definitely did not.

Pointing out that BOTH Administrations said the exact same thing from the exact same information is not "blaming Clinton" no matter how you try to spin it.

Try harder.

Uh Muriego,The memo Your re... (Below threshold)
914:

Uh Muriego,The memo Your referring to was stuffed down Sandy Burglars pants and destroyed exactly because it showed how inept the former administation was and/or is in fighting terrorism..Ty

Martin:Thanks for ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Martin:

Thanks for the reply but you missed the boat again. I didn't bring up Clinton. Wingnuts posting here did, I was simply responding that in fact it is the wingnuts who change the subject to Clinton when they can't argue on the merits. The theme of the posting has to do with an accusation that it is democrats who politicize the war. I think that's an absurd statement. I think there's no doubt both sides do.

Here's what I think:

1) All the intelligence agencies under Clinton and Bush dropped the ball:

2) Clinton dropped the ball on intelligence and Osama:

3) Bush dropped the ball by hyping intelligence that was questionable - did he lie? I really don't know -time and history will answer that. Do I believe presidents lie? Of course I do -how naive to think otherwise.

4) He dropped the ball when Osama got away from Tora Bora.

5) I don't hate Bush. I just think he's done a lousy job as president. That's why we have elections I think.

Clear enough? Or to put it simply. They BOTH have screwed up. Now I doubt you think Bush has. Since you righties love psychiatric syndromes you may well have BCDNR syndrome (Bush Can Do No Wrong). I hope not.

Lets try to set the reco... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Lets try to set the record straight . I posted quotes from Bush and other's in his administration, some of which use the word "imminent.' True, not Bush himself.

So, Bush never said it was imminent. The only person who said it was "imminent" was the press secretary, who quite frankly, gets bombarded with so many asinine questions that he's trying to think of synonyms to answer the same question he was asked 20 seconds earlier.

What I also said was that "Both" sides politicized the intelligence and interpreted it in way's favorable to their views. Repeat....both sides.

But here are some quotes from him and some from his administration. The evidence is overwheling what theit intention was....remeber the mushroom cloud comment?

Yup, looks like you said "both sides" there.

This silly horse sh** about appeasers and Nazis says it all about playing politics.

Or, in the circles of sane people, it's called "learning a lesson".

Lastly, some of you take the blame Bill for everything game to absurd heights. So, in conclusion do I think Bush lied? I don't know whether he did or not. Neither do any of you.

I'll refer you back to the italicized portion. Your intention was pretty clear.

Can you name ONE thing the Bush administration did in its first 8 months to address terrorism...which the Clinton administration advisers told them in the hand off should be priority #1.

Increased funding for intelligence services.

Which puts them ahead of Clinton's, oh, EIGHT YEARS. He also leaned on Arabia to allow investigation of the Khobar Towers attack, which Clinton flat-out refused to do.

Yikes Martin.....you miss the boat. It was a simple assertion I made. BOTH sides have politicized the run up to and the conduct of the war.

Except you DIDN'T say that. You said Bush did it. When somebody pointed out the fallacy of your argument, you then changed your tune.

...without providing examples of your own of "both sides" doing it.

Thanks for the reply but you missed the boat again. I didn't bring up Clinton.

True. You said Bush and his people lied about the intel.

What was provided to you was DEMOCRATS (note, not just Clinton) saying the IDENTICAL thing that Bush said.

Nice try to move the goalposts, though. You seem to forget that your original post is viewable, though.

Clear enough? Or to put it simply. They BOTH have screwed up. Now I doubt you think Bush has. Since you righties love psychiatric syndromes you may well have BCDNR syndrome (Bush Can Do No Wrong). I hope not.

Should've said that from the get-go and not the usual "Bush lied" tripe you unleashed.
-=Mike

MikeSc:I don't think... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

MikeSc:
I don't think I've ever replied to you before. if I have then my bad. Either you can't read or you're so blinded by your ideology you can't think straight. Here's what i said in the earlier post:

"Lastly, some of you take the blame Bill for everything game to absurd heights. So, in conclusion do I think Bush lied? I don't know whether he did or not. Neither do any of you. Do I think he took advantage of fear....absolutely."

I've tried to lay off the name calling on these blogs but I can't help my self this time. You really are an idiot.

All those Dems thought Sadd... (Below threshold)
Robert:

All those Dems thought Saddam had WMDs.

Which one was so sure they started an ill thought out war that led to tens of thousands of casualties?

Clinton? Kerry? Pelosi?

Hello Hugh,... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Hello Hugh,


    Do I believe presidents lie? Of course I do -how naive to think otherwise.

This is irrelevant. A non-sequitur. We are focussed exclusively on the question of whether or not the Bush Administration (and therefore the Clinton Administration) lied about what they knew about Iraq.

Nobody ever said Presidents do not lie. Stick to the topic and leave that straw man alone.

    The theme of the posting has to do with an accusation that it is democrats who politicize the war.

No. I read Lorie Byrd's post. The theme of the posting has to do with the Democrats' charge that the President lied (or exaggerated - same difference) about the Intelligence in Iraq. The title "Setting The Record Straight" says it all, doesn't it?

    I didn't bring up Clinton. Wingnuts posting here did, I was simply responding that in fact it is the wingnuts who change the subject to Clinton when they can't argue on the merits.

This isn't about Bill Clinton and quite frankly nobody changed the subject. This is about whether or not Bush lied in 2002 about Iraq. You cannot therefore plausibly claim that the public statements of belief of the Administration that left office in 2001 is entirely irrelevant.

Indeed, in light of the fact that the Clinton Administration said the exact same thing about Saddam Hussein's Iraq using the exact same Intelligence (and involving the exact same DCI - George "Slam Dunk" Tenet), bringing up the Clinton Administration in this case is entirely appropriate.

When we have Clinton himself saying; "... it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons" as late as July 2003, how can you demand that there be no mention of the Clinton Administration's own interpretation of the intelligence on Iraq's WMD?

Just because some Right-wingers bring up Clinton when it isn't relevant does not mean that any and all mentions of the Clinton Administration is out of bounds.

    Bush dropped the ball by hyping intelligence that was questionable - did he lie?

Help me square this circle.

Fact: there is nothing that Bush has said about Saddam Hussein's Iraq that Clinton did not say before him. They had the same Intelligence reports and they even shared the same DCI. So how can only one of them be lying? It is not possible. It's either both of them lied, or both of them told the truth as they knew it.

Please note that I am not "blaming" Clinton or casting any aspersions on him. I do not believe he lied. I believe, like Bush, he was ill-served by the Intelligence Community. But you,on the other hand, say you don't know if Bush lied. So let's test your own honesty ... do you also doubt whether or not Clinton told the truth? Yes or no?

Clinton? Kerry? Pelo... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

    Clinton? Kerry? Pelosi?

Did they vote for it?

Why yes, they did!

Try harder, Robert. That was too easy.

Thanks for your response Ma... (Below threshold)
Martin:

Thanks for your response Martin:

I don't know if either one lied. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if either did. As I said, time and history will tell us.

Again, I have to say it wasn't me who brought up Clinton. When i posted quotes from Bush and his admin the response was to bring Clinton into the picture. That is a strawman....this post had nothing to do with him even accepting what you said the post was about. My point stands
- frequently in response to a criticism of Bush the wingnuts find a way to blame Clinton.

This is what Lorie said that I took as an argument about politicizing the war and has been my discussion throughout:

"Anyone who has read my blogging and columns (here and here) knows that a topic I return to time and time again is the subject of "setting the record straight" on Iraq. There is much to argue, on both sides, about the mission in Iraq, and I am all for debate of the issue. There has yet to be much substantive debate, though, because there has been so much misinformation spread and so much vitriol injected into the discussion."

That's how I took it so that's what I responded to.

oops....don't know how I go... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

oops....don't know how I got Martin as the signature above...an old age moment.

Hugh [sigh],But in... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Hugh [sigh],

But in the very next paragraph, Lorie wrote this;

    In the first chapter, "Iraq: Democrats Lied and their Credibility Died," David takes a look, one by one, at the Democrats' claims that Bush lied us into war in Iraq.

Now let's look at the title of the post; "Setting The Record Straight". On what? Here's a hint; Pharcyde almost immediately leveled the accusation that Bush lied about Saddam's WMDs to justify toppling Saddam Hussein. You then jumped in to stand with him with your long list of quotes clearly suggesting that the President was being less than honest about Iraq in the run-up to the war.

Let's not pretend, Hugh. You and I both know that this post was not about some nebulous charge of "politicizing the war". Your first comment on this proves it and unless you can edit what you wrote, there is no amount of obfuscation and goal post moving that would change that fact.

    Again, I have to say it wasn't me who brought up Clinton.

Who said you did? I would have been shocked if you had, anyway. When the subject is Iraq, Leftists, from the New York Times on down, do their utmost to avoid mentioning anything from before 21/01/2001. The problem is that they shriek like banshees when others refuse to go along with the mass self-imposed amnesia.

    When i posted quotes from Bush and his admin the response was to bring Clinton into the picture.

And that was entirely appropriate, no matter what you say, because both Administrations, acting from the same information and even sharing the same DCI, came to the exact same conclusions. That sure as heck is not irrelevant to the argument as to whether or not the BushLied™ story you people are pushing is valid or not.

The fact is; you guys are trying to have it both ways, even though it's completely illogical. You want to be able to claim BushLied™ without having to acknowledge that this must also mean Clinton lied as well. So, instead you demand that we lobotomize ourselves of the world before 01/21/2001 because that's the only way your argument can stand.

    - frequently in response to a criticism of Bush the wingnuts find a way to blame Clinton.

What does this have to do with anything? In fact, cite one single person in this thread who actually "blamed" Clinton. In fact, nobody is even claiming that Clinton lied. You were just trying to change the subject and we called you out on it. There's absolutely no way you can convince anybody with an ounce of intelligence to ignore history when it is entirely appropriate.

PS: You're still trying to weasel out of answering my (entirely appropriate) question; do you also doubt whether or not Clinton told the truth? Yes or no?

Martin: (double sigh)... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Martin: (double sigh)

I give up...we have, to paraphrase the famous quote from Cool Hand Luke, a failure of communication. We are speaking in cross purposes and so lets agree to move on. We'll meet again no doubt.

BUT...I'll answer it for maybe a 3rd time. I don't know if Clinton lied about Iraq...I do know he lied about Lewinski and probably other things as well. I don't know if Bush lied about Iraq...again, only time and history will tell. Clear enough?? (God I hope so).

Hugh

Hugh,Cool ...... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Hugh,

Cool ...

See you around.

Lastly, some of you take... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Lastly, some of you take the blame Bill for everything game to absurd heights. So, in conclusion do I think Bush lied? I don't know whether he did or not. Neither do any of you. Do I think he took advantage of fear....absolutely."

Except you didn't initially say that. You snarkily stated that righties blame Clinton for everything and that they bogeyman is not in the closet.

Again, you seem to forget that we can read what you wrote.

I've tried to lay off the name calling on these blogs but I can't help my self this time. You really are an idiot.

And you're an intellectually dishonest --- and defective --- dunce.

Your point is?

Again, I have to say it wasn't me who brought up Clinton. When i posted quotes from Bush and his admin the response was to bring Clinton into the picture. That is a strawman....this post had nothing to do with him even accepting what you said the post was about. My point stands
- frequently in response to a criticism of Bush the wingnuts find a way to blame Clinton.

If one wishes to argue that somebody "fixed intel" to a pre-destined conclusion --- pointing out that the "pre-destined conclusion" was a conclusion long before they came into office is an exceptionally fair and apt point to make.

You can't "fix" intel that was "fixed" long before you arrived on the scene. It'd be like blaming the people trying to sort out Enron's financial catastrophe for causing it in the first place.
-=Mike

Mike:I have no ide... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mike:

I have no idea what you're talking about or even what you are trying to prove other than you are superior. So, I surrender, you are superior. There is no point in tring to have a dialogue with folks like you and Scrapiron and RedFog so have at me anytime you want..and I'll suffer silently (a little joke)...don't get snarky here...by the way snarkily isn't a word :)

"I have no idea what you're... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

"I have no idea what you're trying to prove"

That's fairly obvious.

You made a statement.

People call you on it.

You deny you said it and, instead, say you said something else.

That's called intellectually dishonest debating.
-=Mike




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