The Anchoress seems a little smoked:
Karl Rove and Matt Lauer apparently went at it today about whether "Bush lied" about WMD.
Lauer has decided he will stick to the narrative established by the media and Democrat party:
ROVE: There were 110 Democrats who voted for the Iraq war resolution. 67 of those Democrats, including John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, on the floor of the Congress said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So, he may be able to dismiss it in one snarky line, but I have, I have, I have the facts in here. . . . Look the intelligence was worldwide agreed that he had WMD. That he had ignored 14 resolutions following his surrender after Kuwait to account for his WMD. He had spent 12 years stiffing the international community. We now know because of two international reports by two international weapons inspectors, Kay and Doefler, that he was diverted tens of millions of dollars a year to Oil for, from the Oil for Food program to keep together the necessary dual-use-
LAUER: But agreement was not worldwide. Here's from, from Bob Woodward's book State of Denial. He writes in October of 2002, the top intelligence officer, Major General James "Spider" Marks, in charge of looking for WMD in Iraq looked at a list of 946 WMD sites and found quote, "He couldn't find with confidence there were any weapons of mass destruction or stockpiles at a single site."
ROVE: Well, that's one, but there were many intelligence...
LAUER: But you said it was worldwide. There was disagreement!
Emphasis mine.
Rove is right, but he is wasting his time trying to get anyone in the media to admit that they were complicit in the building of a false narrative established for political considerations. But what I think is interesting is how malleable Matt Lauer can be on the issue of "consensus." For close to a decade, he has accepted the notion that a "consensus" on "man-made global warming" has outweighed any and all differing opinions. Under no circumstances was credibility conferred upon questioners, even though "there was disagreement!", serious disagreement, with the narrative.
But now, in the case of Rove, and Bush, and Iraq and WMD, suddenly, "consensus" doesn't mean much, because "there was disagreement!"
Hey, Matt, psssst! On AGW: "there was disagreement!" Real disagreement! Please tell Al Gore.
She's so right on... and she begins with a quote from President Clinton that just makes the whole thing.
The Progressivism/Liberalism/Leftism espoused by today's media darlings is simply rank with duplicity and hypocrisy and you've got to have a screw loose to embrace and especially defend it.
You've got to.
Matt Lauer has displayed for those with eyes to see how deceptive his ideology is... yet I'm convinced that he, and many who think like him, are unaware.
They've been fooled. They are deluded. They've been misled.
I'm reminded of this Scripture... one I've not thought much about in quite some time:
For we are not wrestling with flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the despotisms, against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere.
I have no other rational reason that can explain away the mindset.
Perhaps you do.
Crossposted(*).
Comments (12)
s green "And you proba... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Marc | March 9, 2010 7:56 PM | Score: 8 (12 votes cast)
s green "And you probably think "God is on your side" too, eh?"
Maybe, maybe not.
But it must be said one of your heros,presumably, Bill Clinton didn't have much problem invoking the name of a deity when needed:
"Part of our essential humanity is paying respect to what God gave us and what will be here a long time after we're gone." - Slcik Willy.
"I disagree first of all because I remember how I felt [when I heard] the promise of the scriptures in Isaiah, where God says to Isaiah "Fear not for I will redeem thee. Call me by thy name. Thou art mine." Slicker Willy.
1. Posted by Marc | March 9, 2010 7:56 PM |
Score: 8 (12 votes cast)
Posted on March 9, 2010 19:56
2. Posted by GarandFan | March 9, 2010 7:58 PM | Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
"I have no other rational reason that can explain away the mindset."
It's in the Democratic "nuance". Bush = EVIL.
Democrats = Purity. Just like when being obstructive WAS "patriotic". All depended on who was patriotically obstructing.
Ask Stevie, he'll tell you. When you have shit for brains, it's easy.
2. Posted by GarandFan | March 9, 2010 7:58 PM |
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Posted on March 9, 2010 19:58
3. Posted by Geoffrey Britain | March 9, 2010 8:04 PM | Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
Obama and leading Democrats are leftists who are fundamentally opposed to the foundational principles upon which this country was founded.
They are using useful idiots like Lauer to effectively destroy this country's culture and way of life.
If they succeed, this country will fall and be conquered, either by Islam or Russia or China or combination thereof.
If the US were to be overcome, democracy and representative government will cease to exist upon the earth and the entire world will enter a modern version of the dark ages and, in not more than 50 years.
3. Posted by Geoffrey Britain | March 9, 2010 8:04 PM |
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
Posted on March 9, 2010 20:04
4. Posted by WildWillie | March 9, 2010 8:08 PM | Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
Liberals like Stevie cannot seem to grasp the concept of history. History is what it is. No one can make it up. They can try, but the facts are just that. What Rove said to the unmanly Laur is plainly a fact. Just like the fact is we didn't find any. It is a fact that all the democratic heavy weights believed exactly the same as GW Bush. It is just a fact. Stevie thinks you can yell, name call and strawman facts away or change them. It can't be done. ww
4. Posted by WildWillie | March 9, 2010 8:08 PM |
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
Posted on March 9, 2010 20:08
5. Posted by iwogisdead | March 9, 2010 8:42 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Steve Green with some more irrelevant posts. Thanks, Steve!!! Go home and smoke yourself!!!
Leftists cannot grasp the concept that a mistake as to nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists leads us to annihilation. A mistake as to the "global warming" fraud leads us to . . . warmer autumns. There is a difference.
5. Posted by iwogisdead | March 9, 2010 8:42 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 9, 2010 20:42
6. Posted by Gmac | March 9, 2010 9:28 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
There is an excellent term for them : Useful idiot.
6. Posted by Gmac | March 9, 2010 9:28 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 9, 2010 21:28
7. Posted by wtfo | March 9, 2010 9:31 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
For some reason it seems fashionable outside the military to forget that our troops were hit with chemical weapons on more than one occasion in Iraq. The incidents were small, and (most) were in the context of IED attacks, but that it happened is indisputable. I'm not talking about the ad-hoc chlorine attacks, either, I'm talking about real military munitions.
This explains why the media has sinced moved the goalposts from "no WMD's" to "no stockpiles of WMD's". What I don't understand is why everyone goes along with it... I presume it is simple ignorance.
7. Posted by wtfo | March 9, 2010 9:31 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 9, 2010 21:31
8. Posted by Grace | March 9, 2010 10:09 PM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
wtfo,
It is part Simple ignorance and part Willfull ignorance.
The simple part is that the very definition of WMD's has morphed from chemical, biological or nuclear attacks to become purely nuclear attacks.
The willfull part is that the change has been deliberate so that the chemical part could not be used to support President Bush's policies in the war.
8. Posted by Grace | March 9, 2010 10:09 PM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 9, 2010 22:09
9. Posted by Geoffrey Britain | March 9, 2010 10:51 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Gmac,
That was the term Stalin used to describe the morons who actually believed the Soviet Communist Party's 'official take' on any issue.
9. Posted by Geoffrey Britain | March 9, 2010 10:51 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 9, 2010 22:51
10. Posted by Mary | March 10, 2010 11:24 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Matt Lauer is one that needs to go. Never watch the drive by media news but I do know who this "YES" guy is. Not impressed at all with his "so called knowledge" That goes with the others, too. The thing that is wrong with the news media -- TOO MUCH OF IT-I am 71 and a free thinker and cannot be swayed. I am a strong conservative and a Bush supporter - He has MORALS! Mistakes - yes a few- but he did it his way. What more is there to be said.
10. Posted by Mary | March 10, 2010 11:24 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 10, 2010 11:24
11. Posted by 914 | March 10, 2010 3:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"And you probably think "God is on your side" too, eh?
See my comment above re: rational thought."
When are You going to have one??
"There is an excellent term for them : Useful idiot"
There is another term even more precise and endearing... STEVE GREEN!!!
11. Posted by 914 | March 10, 2010 3:41 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 10, 2010 15:41
12. Posted by Wayne M | March 10, 2010 4:17 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
The premise of Lauer's objection is wrong. It was not up to the U.N. inspectors to find the WMDs - it was the obligation of Saddam to demonstrate that he had destroyed them all. This is the error that the U.N. also made, so it became a shell game.
Lauer is also factually wrong - we just finished transporting about 150 metric tons of yellow cake out of Iraq (to Canada). Saddam had no other use for it than weapons.
12. Posted by Wayne M | March 10, 2010 4:17 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 10, 2010 16:17