Liars and the lying liars who tell them
It’s not new information. But this seems to come straight from the horse’s (Saddam’s) mouth and, if true, ought to obliterate the “Bush lied about WMDs” meme.
Yeah, right. Dream on, you say.
To recap: if Saddam took steps to make the world believe he had WMDs even though he did not, and in fact did retain the ability and intent to make them as soon as sanctions were to be removed (as even the much-misunderstood Duelfer report made clear), then the WMD justification for the war holds even if Saddam possessed no actual WMDs.
Logic dictates that conclusion.
Unless, of course, that idiotic moron Bush is clever enough to have been able to read Saddam’s mind.
It seems obvious that there is some contradiction in the brains of those who simultaneously hold both viewpoints of President Bush. But try telling it to them.
So, which is it? Is Bush impossibly stupid, or is he both brilliant and perceptive enough to have known the exact state of both Saddam’s WMD program and Saddam’s mind, even though the dictator made every effort to deceive the entire world about both?
Then again, perhaps Saddam was lying to his interrogator about his lack of WMDs and having the last laugh. If he really did have WMDs buried somewhere in Syria, would he be the one to tell us, even as a deathbed confession? After all, he lived long enough to see how very useful the “Bush lied about WMDs” meme has been.
It’s not a perfect as an example, but I picture that TPS report guy defending his job (which seems to only consist of picking up the TPS reports and dropping them in someone else’s in box) in Office Space… now talking about Bush….
“But Bush is stupid damm it!” Don’t you understand that? What the hell is the matter with you people?
heh…
Ah, so you’re on Big Oil’s payroll too! /g
Seriously, though, there’s no point in rebutting leftists’ allegations with fact. Most leftists are nitwits who can’t think, and cannot be moved by unambiguous evidence, much less reasoned argument.
Those who can think generate this kind of smear as agitprop. They know perfectly well it’s untrue, but it serves their purpose, which was the whole idea, and they’re never going to admit it’s rubbish.
So the memes about WMDs, Diebold, global warming, US atrocities, Halliburton, etc. are just used by leftist cadres to mobilize the cognitively disenfranchised to work toward the socialist utopia. After years spent in Berkeley I’m only too familiar with their modi operandi.
The “Bush lied about WMDs” will all be hashed out in the history books and by serious scholars in times to come. No biggy.
Occam wrote my post.
I’m so busy studying up on Alinsky that I wouldn’t be able to pay attention to the Enemy, anyway.
And that’s all they are. Especially if they are using Alinsky as a guiding light.
I thought McCain had a chance to get the nomination for the last week or so; with the NYT’s endorsement he’s all done but for the bitter withdrawal speech.
I may be saved from not casting a vote, after all.
This has been pretty obvious for some time. Saddam clearly acted as though he was trying to hide something, and that something pretty much had to be WsMD. If he acted like he had them and he didn’t, then either he didn’t know he didn’t have them (and we did know?) or he was trying to fool us (or more likely, trying to fool Iran and his other neighbors).
In either case, we were justified in the assumption that he had WsMD and, given what was at stake there was no way we were justified in not making it.
If it’s so obvious, why is it so opaque to people? It does seem that people never stop to think things through, nor to judge what they read.
Accept it. Bush hatred has taken over a large part of North American and European academic faculties and journalistic media rooms. There is no way that any journalist or academic is going to give Bush any good press, regardless of the dispassionate facts on the ground.
As long as the pseudo-intellectuals are caught up in this consuming spell of hatred, they will be essentially worthless in terms of rational analysis. They can be safely disregarded.
The recent flap about the NIE on Iran shows how the technically ignorant and those with a certain POV can slant the story. The NIE said that the Iranians probably have stopped designing nuclear weapons, but haven’t stopped trying to get fissionable material they would need for bombs. Guess which is harder for a well-funded state (with a handful of nuclear physics PhDs and access to some smart engineers) to do: design an atomic bomb or get the Uranium or Plutonium. Yep, the second.
Sorry about that, TmjUtah, great minds and all that.
But please vote, regardless of whether McCain is the nominee or not.
I know many conservatives have a problem with McCain, but at least he’s foursquare on the war on terrorism, which to my mind dwarfs any other consideration. We can hash out policy differences later; fighting terrorism is an existential issue.
Thanks.
You can expect the NYT and the left blogosphere to accept your thesis the same week that the Lancet publishes a study proving that BDS is caused by a parasitic brain infection.
Civil rights for Terrorist Juan McCain? No thank you.
Occam’s:
I agree. The most important issue facing the next president will be the war on Terror and I think McCain would keep the faith. Besides we owe victory the young men and women we send into battle, abandoning them would be shameful.
Come November, a lot of people will have to vote for someone who was not their first choice. That is just the way the system works, people need to grow up.
Saddam lied; people died (including Saddam). Apparently, he was more afraid of Iran than the United States. His calculation failed him, but it was probably correct. Why should decades of feckless US dealings with thugs have intimidated anyone? Sure, sanctions were a nuissance but it’s not like they were hard to work around, especially when our allies could be counted on by our adversaries. We even demonstrated that we would not necessarily finish off an enemy just because we made war on him. Saddam validly applied lessons from our prior behavior to his situation in 2003. Maybe it was Qadaffi who made a mistake by applying the lessons of 2003 to his WMD programs without giving our long-term record the weight it deserved. Iran wasn’t so naive.
Was the wishful forward strategy of freedom supposed to help countries become democratic (involuntarily in some cases), thereby transforming dangerous countries into grateful friends? Why not apply the policy to Iran, the original death-to-America country—-especially if its menace contributed to Saddam’s recalcitrance? The golden age of the Bush Doctrine did not last long before it became apparent that the twin mistresses of pragmatism and appeasement were not to be forsaken. Did the forward strategy of freedom (let us help you) discredit or distract from the Bush Doctrine (don’t mess with us)? Helping others is nice; self defense is imperative.
The contradiction of taking out the Baathists in Iraq while avoiding the theocrats in Iran makes me wonder about the nature of Bush’s policies. If there is a meaninful difference between the Bush Doctrine and the forward strategy of freedom, then the Iraq War seems to belong to the latter. The Bush Doctrine is dead because its namesake no longer can or will apply it, but its justification is still as simple as self defense. The forward strategy of freedom, however, is more idealistic and its justification is not as simple. Pragmatically, it could be regarded as a domino theory in which the collapse of the dominos benefits us. In principle, it is a form of altruism since imposing democracy in hope of discouraging hostility by improving some other country’s condition is considered a nobler policy than discouraging hostility by just dropping bombs on a belligerent country’s WMDs, terrorist training camps, or counterfeiting operations. Was the forward strategy of freedom, an application of neoconservatism?
Pondering that question necessitates a definition. I understand neoconservatism to refer to the advocation of liberal values, begun by former liberals and leftists who broke from the left (and the Democrats) because they believed 60s counterculture threatened modern liberalism. Although allowing for more welfare statism than the individualistic classical liberalism favored by conservatives, neocons still uphold the free market—-a stark contrast to the left’s anti-capitalism. In foreign affairs, neocons advocate promoting freedom and democracy as a valuable goal, related to conservatives’ more basic self defense orientation but regarded as more obligatory—-and exactly opposite the left’s desire to reduce US influence.
Inserting a democracy in Iraq for the purpose of making the region friendlier and less troublesome sounds very neoconservative as I understand it. Seeing the US prioritize promoting democracy above defending against Iran’s war against us, leads me to wonder if neoconservative foreign policy has caused more damage than benefit in the last few years. Our true, imperative interest of defending ourselves in the present was harmed for the sake of pursuing a romantic idea of the future. Maybe we should concern ourselves not with bringing democracy to unfree countries but with convincing them that harming the US is not a safe thing to do. The gift of goodwill is morally superior to the obligation of altruism because it is made possible by the wealth and amity that results from respecting and protecting individual rights, i.e. it is in accord with human nature. Our example is a more meaningful and generous gift than material aid or the imposition of a revolution.
Our true, imperative interest of defending ourselves in the present was harmed for the sake of pursuing a romantic idea of the future.
Depends on the timescale. Over days, weeks, months, years, maybe yes. Over decades or generations, maybe no.
It’s kind of like arguing against setting a broken bone because it causes pain, which God knows it does. But it’s a short term pain that obviates the possibility of a long term, and more serious, pain.
Terrye:
“Come November, a lot of people will have to vote for someone who was not their first choice. That is just the way the system works, people need to grow up.”
Right. We all must subcome to the least desireable republican canidate.
I’m sorry. That dont wash.
Harry, two words: President Obama.
Or President Clinton.
Now does President McCain or Giuliani sound a bit better?
Or Romney?
Look, if its down to Juan McCain or Hilbama. I might vote for Juan, but I’d be holding my nose as I do.
Harry,
Or even Romney.
Hold away as you consider necessary, but please don’t sit this one out. Do what’s best for the country, which needs you to step up. We can’t afford another Vietnam, which is what the left is pushing (and pining) for.
If we lose the war on terrorism, no other policy will matter. If we win it, we can fix any other policy later. First things first.
Sounds reasonable doesnt it? But you know what my dilemma is? My dilemma is that then McCain now becomes the default Republican nominee by just my tacit agreement to vote for that sucker.
You dont know how much that turns my stomach.
Its Romney till the primaries. From there I’ll accept bribes to vote. My conscious will be tainted anyway.
BDS will be with us for the next half-century, at least, until someone else can be anointed as the object of deranged bile. There is almost biblical about this need to focus one’s hate so intensely and irrationally (take note, Harry…what exactly has McCain done to you that warrants hate versus mere disagreement?).
I recall a vacation taken in Hawaii at the end of the last century: my wife and I were having a very nice casual conversation with a nice couple on a beautiful beach on a beautiful day when, out of nowhere, the guy (an environmental lawyer, of course) interrupts the conversation, with us (two people that he barely new) with this triumphant outburst. “Do you know what today is?” My wife and I shook our heads. “It’s the 25th anniversary of Nixon’s resignation!”. His wife looked mortified. We looked for the exits.
Even today, I come across Nixon-haters and ask them if they can recall ANYTHING positive that he accomplished during his administration. They can’t (hint: withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam, create the EPA, SALT weapons limitation negotiations, open up China, resolve Native American treaty claims, …).
I hope that that this individual found medication..eventually. Otherwise, his must have been a pretty miserable life. Ditto for today’s BDS victims. I hope that some day they rediscover themselves. Don’t hate them. Pity them.
1. Violated both his commissioning oath and his oath of office as a Senator to “uphold and defend the Constitution” by supporting McCain-Feingold, and then answering a reporter’s question on which he would support, the First Amendment or clean government, by answering “clean government.”
2. Not only supported surrendering our sovereignty to Mexico, but referring to those of us who dared to protest as bigots and nativists.
Asked and answered.
Take a deep breath, SDN.
We still have a Constitution. It’s been violated far worse in the past and we got past that, too. I can disagree with that provision of McCain-Feingold without going into hysterics about the Constitution being shredded and I am convinced htat eventually it will work its way to the Supreme Court and be overthrown. If you want to talk about real threats to the Constitution, there are plenty more-serious things to talk about )e.g., 2nd Amendment, Kelo) but they, too, will get resolved.
And, last I checked, Mexico has no claim on my citizenship.
So, no, I don’t get hysterical about McCain. Every candidate is flawed and I consider McCain’s pluses to out-weighhis minuses. Doesn’t mean that I will vote for him in the primaries..but I certainly will stay civil about it. And if the option is between McCain and the other party, I’ll vote for him with a clear conscience.
There is no contradiction. What there is is political reality.
If you think all the people who are crying about the Iraq war being “illegal” would have happily accepted an invasion of Iran instead , you’re nuts.
There is no way he could have invaded Iran instead of Iraq.. thre would be no Congressional support, no public support, no UN support and no international support.
“(take note, Harry…what exactly has McCain done to you that warrants hate versus mere disagreement?).”
Call it disdain rather for dangerous populist policies, rather than outright hate. I doubt you’ll be seeing me on the beach someday announcing the anniversary of McCain’s fall from grace, but note the date just in case I’ve got nothing else going on that day.
Vince P Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 11:59 am
“The contradiction of taking out the Baathists in Iraq while avoiding the theocrats in Iran makes me wonder about the nature of Bush’s policies.
There is no contradiction. What there is is political reality……….”
Exactly, and only the incredibly shallow and dishonest insist on continuing to “nuance” these events, failing to recognize the significant improvement in actual military strategic position that America (and it’s true allies) now have in that area of the world, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq in comparison to 2001…. while our military has learned a lot of very important life saving lessons for a still ominous future; Too bad the voting public just left of center (McCain, the dead center, no question a RINO) to the left, is largely mired in crass political opportunism, superficiality and smug scapegoating…
Clearly, the people who claim we should not be ignoring the theocrats in Iran would be having fits if we’d ignored Saddaam and actually invaded Iran.
They think they have people convinced they have a stout, realistic, non-appeasement idea.
They don’t. They don’t have a non-appeasement idea and they don’t convince anybody they do.
They would oppose any forthright action except for bailing on Israel.
What was that link to all the quotes by Democrats and Leftists about WMDs and comments that Bush also made?
Some commenter a few threads back posted it.
Sixty Minutes–which I don’t watch as a matter of honor–had an interview with the FBI guy who debriefed Saddaam during the latter’s imprisonment.
So this is no longer a matter of wingnuts in their pajamas posting from their parents’ basements.
Saddaam was a pretty good fooler. Just a bit too good for his own benefit.
What is particularly nice about Neoneocon are the comments. There are plenty of good writers on Town Hall, for example. However, the comments, by supporters and even more by detractors, is simply demoralizing.
oops: third word from the last should be
Trying again, third word from the end should be “are”