« Senate votes to privatize its restaurants | Main | Advice from an expert on dysfunctional »

Myth Busting

On the weekends, I often listen to NPR. And I make an effort to hear "On The Media."

I'm starting to wonder why I bother. I'm coming to realize that it's the radio equivalent of "Media Matters For America -- devoted to exposing any hint of conservative "bias" in the media, usually by shamelessly promoting whatever are the current liberal talking points. Those, of course, get taken as gospel, while anything that might contradict them are taken with about 7.6 metric tons of salt.

Last weekend, they interviewed former White House Spokesman Scott McLellan. And they didn't come to the interview with the traditional skepticism journalism claims as its hallmark. Instead, the host -- Bob Garfield -- whipped out his anti-administration checklist and ticked off all the things in McLellan's book that backed them up.

The really fun part was when he cited last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report on the circumstances leading up to the war. Garfield didn't mention a few pertinent details, such as:

  • The report was written by two Majority staffers.
  • Minority members were not allowed to even offer any amendments.
  • The summary that everyone ran with was utterly undercut by the actual text of the report.

Anyway, that's just one detail. I'm curious why Garfield didn't ask McLellan a few more interesting questions, such as one that's been bugging me for about a week:

Why was the book that was published virtually unrecognizable from the book proposal he originally shopped around? What happened to that book, and where did this one come from?

I have my own theory, of course: it's the golden rule. Him with the gold makes the rules.

Alternately, "when you take the king's gold, you play the king's tune."

Here's my uttelry unsubstantiated (yet fairly congruent with known facts) theory:

McLellan started shopping his book around, the one where he was the poor, benighted press secretary who got mauled by the tremendously hostile press. He also included a few details on some minor to moderate inside dirt on the White House, but that wasn't enough to get a really, rally good offer from a publisher.

Until he went to PublicAffairs. There, they didn't even read his proposal, to see what he wanted to write, but instead he saw the book they might be able to get him to write.

PublicAffairs being one of George Soros' many loftily-named front groups, of course.

So McLellan and his editor from Perseus Books put out a book that did its darndest to confirm all the nastier allegations against the Bush adminsistration, with McLellan offering credibility to back them up.

I think the single most damning bit -- both from the book and Garfield's interview -- is the accounts of the Valerie Plame affair. McLellan says that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby conspired to out her and evade responsibility for that heinous deed. This was done in meetings where McLellan didn't intend, but he knew what went on behind those closed doors, darn it, and don't nobody question him on it! I mean, come on, if you dscount EVERYTHING that McLellan reveals that went on in meetings he wasn't in attendance, you'd have to toss out about half his book!

They kind of glance over it in the interview:

BOB GARFIELD: Let's talk about the war. You've admitted that you were passing along, at least, lies from Scooter Libby and Karl Rove about the Valerie Plame affair.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Unknowingly, yes.

BOB GARFIELD: But what about other White House lies, that Saddam Hussein and 9/11 were somehow connected, that waterboarding is somehow not torture?

Here's where the truth gets a bit inconvenient for these two gentlemen. We know that Plame was outed by Richard Armitage. We know this because that was the conclusion reached by the special prosecutor, aided by Armitage's own admission that he was the one who did it. Libby was convicted not of anything to do with the Plame outing (which was not a crime, obviously, because Armitage was never charged), but lying about it -- based on the fact that his accounts of the whole matter differed in details given by others interviewed during the course of the investigation. Rove was never even charged with anything (TruthOut's breathless (and never retracted) reports of a "secret Rove indictment" notwithstanding).

And here's where The Big Lie comes into play.

"But what about other White House lies, that Saddam Hussein and 9/11 were somehow connected?"

This one drives me nuts, and has been for some time.

I have repeatedly challenged ANYONE to show me when Bush -- or any other administration official -- directly linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11.

Saddam had ties to terrorism. That is not disputable.

Saddam had contacts with Al Qaeda. That, too, is also not disputable.

Saddam and Al Qaeda did talk about collaborating on operations. That is not disputable.

But was Saddam actually involved in 9/11? There is not a shred of evidence to support it. And I have never seen any single statement by the administration that puts forth that case.

Logically speaking, it is absurd. One thing Al Qaeda was very damned good at was operational security. They kept their most important plans very quiet, not letting anyone know about them who did not have an absolute need to know them. And Saddam had no need to know.

Indeed, he had a pretty good need to not know about it. If he did, he might have been tempted to sell it out in exchange for concessions on the sanctions that were keeping him down. Further, it it came out that he did know about it ahead of time and did nothing, he'd run the risk of getting treated much like the Taliban -- but even faster and more brutally than he did.

Maybe my brain works differently than most people (especially those whose intellects are best expressed with the slogan "Bush lied, people died!"), but on 9/11, I came to a very unpleasant conclusion: we were not at war with Osama Bin Laden. We were not at war with Al Qaeda. We were at war with terrorists, with the most militant and psychotic and barbaric adherents to Islamism, and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were merely the biggest names on that list. It didn't start with them, and it wouldn't end with them. The war had started long before 9/11 (personally, I set the beginning of the open war to be the Iranian Hostage Crisis; it just took us 22 years to recognize that we were at war, but others choose other milestones), and it will not end with the capture or death or discovery of the death of Osama Bin Laden.

So, what's up with Garfield casually asserting that the administration linked Saddam with 9/11, and McLellan choosing to gloss over that instead of contradicting it?

Because, I suspect, McLellan is an honest man.

In the context of the "honest politician," of course -- one who once he's bought, stays bought.

Scott McLellan has chosen to take the king's gold. He's going to keep playing the king's tune.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/30063.

Comments (35)

McLellan is a useful idiot,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

McLellan is a useful idiot, well paid, but still an idiot. Using hindsight he points out what we all know are mistakes and claims they are something more than mistakes. McLellan offers no evidence for any of his assertions. This was all pointed out during his interview on Fox. The book is nothing more than McLellan's opinions arrived at in hindsight. Good thing McLellan has enough money to retire because not even liberals dare trust him least he sell them out for another book deal.

Here, here, JT, one of your... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Here, here, JT, one of your best posts ever. I could not agree more. What is so ironic is that the left has to lie to say Bush Lied!. He left also thinks the terrorists are waging war against GW and the republicans only. That is such a dangerous thought. ww

On next week's installment ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

On next week's installment of On The Media, Bob Garfield explores the question:

"Do you think President Obama should pardon George Bush or should he just rot in jail as is befitting such a miscreant?"

Constitutional scholar Cindy Sheehan comprises the roundtable discussion.

JayThis is SOP for... (Below threshold)

Jay

This is SOP for NPR, the spectrum hogging government subsidized monolith that has exactly four offerings of note:

1)Karl Haas

2)Car Talk

3)Dick Estell

4)Wait Wait Don't Tell Me

The news division sold its soul years ago, having reached the pinnacle of its aspirations with Nina Totenberg carrying the rope in the high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas.

Listening to the news product is only enjoyable when one of the their sacred cows has been severely gored: my favorite was Ortega's stunning defeat by Violeta Chamorro in 1990. Morning Addition and ATC were comedies that day.

On rare occasions, NPR's ne... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

On rare occasions, NPR's news division produces a program that is worth listening to -- like a few weeks ago, when I listened to a one-hour program, name not recalled, which for the first time explained the whole mortgage/credit disaster in terms I could understand -- how it began, how so many people got approved for loans they couldn't possibly repay, where the money came from, why the effects will be felt worldwide, and why the last people to suffer for it will be the people who actually wrote the bad loans in the first place.

...and why the last peop... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

...and why the last people to suffer for it will be the people who actually wrote the bad loans in the first place.

Eh. Maybe NPR still isn't as good as you think. The last people held accountable for this is the Congress, which has been forcing banks to give loans to people who had no business getting these loans; under the guise of atoning for 'racism' and redlining.

Adrian Browne<... (Below threshold)


Adrian Browne

"Do you think President Obama should pardon George Bush or should he just rot in jail as is befitting such a miscreant?"

Congratulations, you have stumbled upon an accurate comment. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear a question like that asked on NPR.
Nor would it be out of character for them to invite Cindy Sheehan on under the pretense of interviewing a constitutional scholar.

"which for the first tim... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"which for the first time explained the whole mortgage/credit disaster in terms I could understand"

While I haven't listened to NPR in years, its a safe bet that they told you a small subset of the whole story. You may have understood the leftist propaganda they were spewing, but I very much doubt you understood the big picture from listening to NPR. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

BOB GARFIELD: But what a... (Below threshold)
Tim:

BOB GARFIELD: But what about other White House lies, that Saddam Hussein and 9/11 were somehow connected, that waterboarding is somehow not torture?
Sorry Bob, but the idea that waterboarding does not constitute torture is an opinion, as is the idea that waterboarding IS torture. Geez, put down the template for a minute and think! You can do it!!

I'm glad to hear someone el... (Below threshold)
epador:

I'm glad to hear someone else speaks well of Dick Estelle, the second most favorite thing I missed when I left Michigan and could not get the Radio Reader in Tennesee.

I'm in a "mixed marriage". ... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

I'm in a "mixed marriage". My wife leans "moonbatty" (yes, it is difficult at times) and listens to NPR.

I like the Sunday Puzzle with Will Short(?), but everything else is just white noise... "blah blah blah Bush administration failure, blah blah blah seemingly endless war, blah blah blah poor palestinians..."

Once in a while, they'll throw in a story that's worth listening to, but it's few and far between.

when I listened to a one... (Below threshold)
mantis:

when I listened to a one-hour program, name not recalled, which for the first time explained the whole mortgage/credit disaster in terms I could understand

That was This American Life, and it's the best show on NPR (and it's got a good TV version on Showtime). Here's the episode on the mortgage crisis: The Giant Pool of Money

Great that your citation re... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Great that your citation regarding the intelligence report is supported by...Fred Hiatt? How about something that's not an opinion piece?

"Libby was convicted not of anything to do with the Plame outing..."

Ummm...that's why he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. He hindered the investigation (aka took the fall) so Fitz was unable to prosecute anything but the lying.

Jay Tea:
"I have repeatedly challenged ANYONE to show me when Bush -- or any other administration official -- directly linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11."

"In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

(notice that this is NOT an opinion piece - better for fact-checking)

That's an amazingly patheti... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

That's an amazingly pathetic attempt, jp2.

Oh, and by the way, jp2, cl... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Oh, and by the way, jp2, claiming that Libby "took the fall" is a completely false statement. Armitage made the disclosure to Novak. Fitzgerald learned that within days of beginning his charter. Libby was not trying to protect Armitage. So much for your "fact checking".

IMO, McClellan was full of ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

IMO, McClellan was full of shit BEFORE the book, so it logically follows that he is full of shit now.

Cheney was very keen on lin... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Cheney was very keen on linking Iraq to 9/11, SPQR. The rest of the free world knows it; he hasn't been dragged in front of any war crimes tribunal; so there's no reason to be pissy. People don't seem to care that the administration tried to link 9/11 to Iraq (explicitly or otherwise). The media failed to do its job in this regard, and people have moved on.

You can just shrug your shoulders and say "Nyah nyah!" You don't have to stick up for those ghouls anymore.

I paid really close attenti... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I paid really close attention during the lead up to the war. I NEVER heard any link of 9/11 to Iraq. I did hear we cannot wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat. You lefties believe what we will. It is amazing that the left has to lie to say GW Bush lied. ww

"He hindered the investi... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"He hindered the investigation (aka took the fall) so Fitz was unable to prosecute anything but the lying."

Now that's some funny stuff.

It is amazing that the l... (Below threshold)

It is amazing that the left has to lie to say GW Bush lied.

Sorry, ww, sadly it's amazingly not amazing. They've been doing it for years when it comes to any and all things Republican. The mantra is demonize, distort and demonize some more until it becomes conventional wisdom or the accpeted "truth". All I have to go is go back in my memory banks and recall the stupid and ignorant things I said (and believed) about Reagan. What the Left says about Bush and Republicans now is strikingly similar in tone and language to what was said about Reagan (i.e., King George vs. St Ronnie; he's a spoiled rich kid vs. he's an actor; each is an aggressor bringing us closer to Armageddon with their "cowboy" ways; and, of course, neither one has a brain but are somehow conducting these massively complex and secretive overthrow over our freedoms and our government.)

No, it's just the same joke in a different decade. And people like jp2, ryan a, and barney (wherever he may be) are like some tired vaudeville act that still uses cream pies and rubber chickens as props, only in this case it's cheap, baseless and tired rhetoric. Yeah, I've seen this "lie" act before and it's not amusing or even mildly entertaining. It's just pathetic and washed up.

McClellan sold his honor fo... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

McClellan sold his honor for gold. Would any sane person hire him for anything, or trust him now that he has crawled under the snakes belly? He has no way out and must live the rest of his life hiding, yes, the democrats will dump him as soon as they're done using him.
Kind of like picking up an ugly hooker or democrat politician. Daylight comes and you aren't going out in public with them.

Garfield didn't mention ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Garfield didn't mention a few pertinent details, such as:

Did he mention that the Republican majority stonewalled this report for years? Hmm, wonder why they did that....

PeterF, you are correct but... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

PeterF, you are correct but at times I am still amazed. ww

Hyperbolist, you can't stic... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Hyperbolist, you can't stick to one story for the entire length of a comment can you? Rebutted in one falsehood, you just rush off to another.

As for the "media failed to do its job", that's correct. The media never objectively reported the Bush administration's arguments. But with respect to the lies you are telling, regarding the Bush administration and 9/11, the falsehoods you keep repeating were oft repeated media memes.

This is what is a constant with you hyperbolist, as with the rest of your crowd, the only way you can make your case about "Bush lies" is to continually lie yourself.

Rumsfeld said that the WMDs... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Rumsfeld said that the WMDs were to the north, south, east, and west of Baghdad. Not a liar?

Rumsfeld said that the W... (Below threshold)

Rumsfeld said that the WMDs were to the north, south, east, and west of Baghdad. Not a liar?

While not excusing the clumsy and lazy response to the question by Rumsfeld, you also must consider that statement was said on March 30, 2003, a full 7-12 days before the total fall of Baghdad (depending on one's point of view on when Baghdad fell into U.S. hands), long, long before we could even begin looking for WMD with purpose and not having to engage the enemy at every turn.

Moreover, considering the operation was running on poor/bad intelligence as we would only find out later (and please don't feign like the anti-war constituents knew ANY better or somehow had better intelligence) and that the statement was also said during the fog of ongoing combat operations, no, none of it makes him a liar or constitutes lying. But it does make you a disingenuous bastard for trying to portray Rumsfeld and others as such.

"If we're successful in Ira... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney

Well, he said he knew</i... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Well, he said he knew where they were, and then gave an explanation that he assumed would be proven correct (as everybody thought Saddam had to have had some nasty shit lying around somewhere). His statement was not shown to be correct a posteriori.

So he lied. If I say "unicorns exist" and you somehow prove they don't, though I wasn't absolutely sure one way or the other when I said it, I'm a liar. "WMDs are here" means "It is true that WMDs are here". He didn't say "I have a hunch they're lying around some place," he lied, and you're defending him. I don't particularly care, but the fact is, Rumsfeld is a liar.

"Moreover, considering the ... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Moreover, considering the operation was running on poor/bad intelligence as we would only find out later (and please don't feign like the anti-war constituents knew ANY better or somehow had better intelligence)" -- Peter

Actually, we did. As you yourself state it was you conservatives who chose to rely on poor/bad intelligence. While you elected to go with people like "Curveball" or his good buddy "Change-up" or whatever, we anti-warriors chose instead to rely on the UN Weapons Inspectors, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR THE DAMN WMD!! And these inspectors found nothing, but they had to leave, because the Moron King you're responsible for wouldn't let them finish up.

Later on Mr. Kay and Mr. Duelfer also found nothing. You think Rummy was embarrassed? Hell no. For neither Rummy nor the rest of you gave a damn.

"Here's where the truth get... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Here's where the truth gets a bit inconvenient for these two gentlemen. We know that Plame was outed by Richard Armitage. We know this because that was the conclusion reached by the special prosecutor, aided by Armitage's own admission that he was the one who did it. Libby was convicted not of anything to do with the Plame outing (which was not a crime, obviously, because Armitage was never charged), but lying about it -- based on the fact that his accounts of the whole matter differed in details given by others interviewed during the course of the investigation. Rove was never even charged with anything (TruthOut's breathless (and never retracted) reports of a "secret Rove indictment" notwithstanding)." -- Jay Tea

Again, Mr. Tea has chosen to write rubbish. First, Armitage was just one of the leakers, the only difference being that the reporter he told (Novak) chose to go public with it. Libby leaked to Valerie Miller, Rove leaked to Matt Cooper, and Fleischer leaked to (if I'm not mistaken) David Gregory. Mr. Tea's continues with his stupid arguments, concluding, astonishingly enough, that because a leaker was not charged, no crime was "obviously" (his word) committed. Of course, the only thing that this means is that Fitz believed he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the leakers knew Ms. Wilson was covert when they outed her, THEY COULD WELL HAVE KNOWN, but Fitzy like the rest of us is no mindreader, and proving what someone knows or doesn't know, can be a difficult thing to do.

In any case, what the Leaking Bushies did was morally wrong. Consider the following hypothetical situation, conservatives. You know that someone works for the CIA, but you don't know if she's undercover or not. DO YOU GO BLABBING HER NAME TO THE PRESS???? YES OR NO??? Let me make this easy for you: if she's not covert, then no problems, but IF SHE IS, THEN WHAT????

"But was Saddam actually involved in 9/11? There is not a shred of evidence to support it. And I have never seen any single statement by the administration that puts forth that case." -- Mr. Tea

Now would be a good time to alert readers that when confronted with Republican stupidity, an excellent source for refutation materials is Thinkprogress.org. From that site we get:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/13/cheney-cited-evidence-that-was-known-to-be-false/?sortby=toprated

Actually, we did. As you... (Below threshold)

Actually, we did. As you yourself state it was you conservatives who chose to rely on poor/bad intelligence.

Almost exactly the same intelligence as Clinton was operating under when he bombed Iraq in December 1998. Furthemore, many Democrats were also privy to the intel and raised not one wink of fuss over it.

Next point...

...chose instead to rely on the UN Weapons Inspectors, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR THE DAMN WMD!!

Would you like me to pull Hans Blix 2003 testimony that Saddam was not cooperating with inspectors, denying them access to sites, impeding interviews, etc, or would you like to look it up yourself? All violations of Resolution 1441. And only until later AFTER we invaded would we learn the depth of Saddam's WMD deception program--so deceptive that not even Saddam knew he did (or did not) have WMD--a program so deep and complicated that Blix and Co. could never have proved its existence to the satisfaction of the UN. Nor would many of those on the UN Council give a shit as they were collecting billions in the Oil-For-Food Scandal.

Next feckless point...

Later on Mr. Kay and Mr. Duelfer also found nothing.

Yes, thank you, I am aware of that. And it was AFTER the fact, not BEFORE. Before, the onus was on Saddam to prove he abandoned his WMD programs. And even the Kay and Duelfer reports show that even still there were covert WMD programs and research going on. (Yes, go look it up in their reports, especially Charlie Duelfer's, it's far more comprehensive than Kay's.)

Onto your final feckless caterwauling "point"...

You think Rummy was embarrassed? Hell no. For neither Rummy nor the rest of you gave a damn.

First, grab the brown paper bag and breath into before you pass out from hyperventilating. Second, what makes you think he wasn't? What makes you think anyone involved in the gathering of that intelligence wasn't? A close family relative works deep in the intel community and he was deeply distraught at the lack of WMD, as were his colleagues.

Did you want Rummy, Dick or Bush to crawl on TV before the world and say how embarrassed they were? Would you honestly expect that of ANY leader in ANY country, no less doing it during the middle of a war? You either a fool or an idiot to believe any of that as true. I suspect you're both.

Well, he said he knew wh... (Below threshold)

Well, he said he knew where they were, and then gave an explanation that he assumed would be proven correct (as everybody thought Saddam had to have had some nasty shit lying around somewhere). His statement was not shown to be correct a posteriori.

Geezus, you're argument is strained and immature.

Here's your argument applied to everyone: When someone states and believes something given the present information available to them, and later that information turns out to be false, that that person was/is therefore lying.

Wow.

As an example, if they weatherman says, "Today's Monday, and the forecast models point to their being sunshine on Friday and Satruday", but instead the models turn out to be wrong and it rains instead, the weatherman therefore lied!"

So yeah, by your weird-ass--no, retarded--logic, yeah, Rummy lied.

Do you even know that a "lie" requires foreknowledge of facts previously known not to be true?

What foreknowledge did Rumsfeld or ANY of the 5 or so of the world's intelligence agencies have that Saddam's WMDs didn't exist? And please don't cite conflicting reports from here and there, I know about them--conflicting reports are always considering in every intel assessment. Give me something concrete that says "Rummy knew Saddam didn't have WMD at the time of this statement, yet said it anyway."

You're right about one thing: your name. You're very good at it. But that's all that your point is: hyperbole. Bordering on blathering gobbledy-goo.

No, Peter F., you moron, wh... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

No, Peter F., you moron, when a weatherman says "I know that tomorrow it will rain," he is lying. Rumsfeld did not couch his assertions in uncertain language, as he ought to have, and ergo, he lied. He didn't know what he was talking about; framed it as though he did; and sold the knuckle draggers who took him seriously a false bill of goods. Nobody knew anything about Saddam's weapons, obviously, though they lined up to tell us lies to the contrary. Shouldn't have invaded that country, as there wasn't sufficient justification, and now, alarmingly, it's worse off than when Saddam Fucking Hussein was murdering and torturing people. Heckuva job, Rummy/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle/Bush/Powell/Rice/Bremer/Fleischer. Sociopathic fucks.

Sociopathic fucks.</... (Below threshold)

Sociopathic fucks.

No, you and your argumentative "logic", "arguments", historical revisionism, distortions and ignorance of historical events and timelines and refusing to provide concrete examples to the questions makes YOU the only sociopathic fuck in this thread.

Then again, you a ARE a hyperbolist. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Except bullshit.

Well, Peter F., you clearly... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Well, Peter F., you clearly find Mr. Blix to be most credible. Okay, then, deal with this:

"Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein." -- from Wikipedia

Ouch. That's got to sting bad, doesn't it, conservative?

And, conservative, don't even start talking about mere "programs," the war wasn't sold to Congress and to the American people on this basis, but the existence of WMD:

"Bush led [Cheney, Rice, Powell, and the rest of the immoral idiots you're responsible for, to your everlasting shame] with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That [the 231] was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida." from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/

Want a specific example, Peter F.? Okay. From Bush's State of the Union speech, January 28, 2003:

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs"

"...so deceptive that not even Saddam knew he did (or did not) have WMD" -- Peter F.

LOL!!!! So which is it, conservative, did he have them or not? INCAPABLE OF MAKING UP YOUR MIND????

On the other hand, perhaps you can:

"A close family relative works deep in the intel community and he was deeply distraught at the lack of WMD, as were his colleagues." -- Peter F.

So, if Weapons That Kill Large Numbers of People had been present, this relative of yours would have been jumping for joy. How sick, how truly sick and depraved.




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