in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Gallup | Campaign 2012: Obama, Romney Each Has Economic Strengths With Americans |
0 |
| Chi. Sun Times | New Tone: Inside Sunday’s violent clash between ‘Black Bloc’ anarchists, cops |
0 |
| Power Line | Media Watch: “Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?” |
0 |
| WaPo | Shock: White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry |
0 |
| Politico | Interesting: Obama super PAC slump continues |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Did Bush brainwash America on Iraq?
It seems that Chris Matthews last night on Hardball was trying to get Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to ‘admit’ that the President brainwashed us all as to the threat from Iraq.
I believe it’s Chris Matthews who’s been brainwashed, because apparently he hasn’t seen this poll roundup (via the Washington Post) taken over the course of two years where the American people by and large – and way BEFORE the President started talking about going into Iraq – believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11 … and the numbers actually went *down* over the course of two years by a few points. And as far as WMD goes, well, we’ve already clearly established that it wasn’t just this President and this Congress who believed that Saddam Hussein was a WMD threat to the international community.
Chris Matthews should retitle his show “Welcome to the Spin Zone”, methinks.
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The name of the show should be “Odd Ball, Chris Matthews.” I’d say “Odd Job”, but that might insult James Bond fans world wide. Odd Job didn’t mess with politics, just killing. Odd Ball, just messes with politics that get US Soldiers killed.
Where do these commentators come up with such nonsense? He probably also believes that karl personally e-mails or calls each and everyone to give them their thought for the day. We get our scripts at 7:00 a.m. everyday
And he claims to be a Republican, which doesn’t mean that he should toe the party line, necessarily, but he also shouldn’t actively seek to invent stories to distort the party line, either.
brainwashed is too harsh but i think over-hyped,exaggarated about it’s imminency of the threat that saddam was. still i wouldn’t have used the word brainwashing. it males him look like an idiot. and as youse know i’m a leftie.
tommy in nyc- I was thinking of how overused that word has become. If people only realized what it actually took to brainwash a person, they might pick another word.
Tommy,
What is interesting about this whole equation is that the president actually talked conservatively (carefully) about Saddam and Iraq. There were many others including many Democrats who had since 1998 through 2003 who talked about Iraq much stronger and even used the word “imminent” (the president didn’t say Iraq was an imminent threat – others did including Democrats).
What is a reality that Democrat leadership will cloud over is that it was an intelligence failure that lead ALL of these politicians to speak so harshly about Iraq and Saddam (concening WMD’s). For over a decade or more we hadn’t had any convert agents on the ground in Arab countries as testified to by intelligence representatives but British, French, German, Russian intelligence agencies DID and they fed some of this SAME misinformation to politicians. It was a WORLD intelligence failure and the Democrat leadership and you Tommy want to talk as if Bush exaggerated. Remember these words came from Democrats since 1998 and Bush didn’t come into office until 2001.
To conservatives, via logic and common sense the Democrat leadership’s attacks and accusations just don’t add up and we have to go through this long information war of words. But the longer we go through it there are some (like Brian) who will remain convinced that Bush should be impeached for something (due to the amount of attacks and accusations – people just get convinced that someone is bad just due to the volume of accusations).
Wait a minute baklava. You are trying say it was a world intel failure all right but the decision to go to war was Bush 43′s alone. So youse are saying if the war goes badly it was a world intelligence failure but when this country prevails eventually Bush 43 was a visionary right. C’mon man that’s what you are really trying to say right. Damn it just never ends from the right thank God for the blue states.
tommy, it is your liars who are leading your party. Every time their OWN quotes from when Clinton needed a fig leaf with the press are shown, you lefties star spinning faster than a gyroscope.
You know we ARE NOT going to get any honesty from the left, PERIOD!
Two separate things.
1) Intelligence is the reason that 90% of politicians were for “regime change” in Iraq and talked about Saddam being a threat to national security and why Clinton bombed Iraq for a month and why there were over 14 U.N. resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm or else.
2) It wasn’t Bush 43′s decision alone. Most of the Senate authorized Bush to use force against Iraq. These are the same Senators who said the harsher things than Bush. These are the same senators who then voted (like Kerry) not to help these soldiers with armor and funding for other things like education and veterans funding increases. Bush did NOT act unilaterally as there were more countries helping than the 1st gulf war in the beginning stages. We successfully disposed of Saddam and he is out of power and the country is building it’s institutions just like Japan and Germany had to after WW2. Japan took 7 years and Germany took 10 years.
Tommy should learn new debating skills as he said, “So youse are saying if the war goes badly it was a world intelligence failure but when this country prevails eventually Bush 43 was a visionary right“.
I never said any of this so you shouldn’t attribute something not said to people you debate with. The planning and execution of every war is the responsbilility of the Pentagon’s and the military. Bush did not plan or execute the war. He was given a variety of options to choose from as commander in chief and ordered the execution of a plan that was presented to him. SECONDLY, the war has had successes and setbacks and failures. I would’ve liked to have seen the military use force for any building that terrorists hid in including in Mosques in Fallujah. There is no safe haven just because you are losing you can’t dodge into a mosque and feel safe. These people need to surrender or suffer the consequences of carrying out acts against our military. I personally thing the war was too soft footed. We should’ve had bombers in the air for the first 6 months and dropped a bomb on a building that a terrorist sniped from. There would be no snipers at that point. THIRDLY, this county WILL prevail DESPITE the attempts of liberals to bring down the commander in chief and bad mouth the actions of our military in general and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
I give credit to Bush for sticking it through and not looking at the poll numbers that have been fueled by the irresponsible rhetoric of the Democrat leadership and the cohorts in the media.
I also give credit to people like Lieberman.
Again, you can’t lump the two together as you’ve done. The intelligence failure (which preceded Bush being in office) was not just a U.S. intelligence failure. Every major intelligence agency in the world failed with respect to the capabilities of Saddam. The execution of the war is not something to lump in with the intelligence failure. The execution of the war (and EVERY WAR) could have monday morning quarterbacks. WW2 we could’ve said FDR failed after the practice run to D-Day as so many of our soldiers died on the practice. During the 4 presidents who oversaw Vietnam (which had 65,000 of our soldiers die) we could say a lot of things about those 4 presidents. But I say that Iraq has been by and large a greater success than ANY of our previous war’s that this country has taken on.
That is my opinion. You have yours. If you disagree it doesn’t mean that someone is then able to be impeaced or evil or mean.
Several points…
1) The Bush-Cheney admin started talking about invading Iraq THE DAY AFTER 9/11 (if not the same day); we know this from several sources including Paul O’Neill, Bush’s first Treasury Secretary. These sources tell us that the Bush admin was in fact was obsessed with finding a link between Sadam and Al Qaida. They started a media push on this theme immediately after 9/11, and by the time more balanced reporting on the non-involvement on Sadam came out, it had already become a fixture in the minds of a large majority of Americans. My point – what the majority of Americans believed is really not relevant; they had already been subject to a convincing barrage of misinformation by the very people that now use this propagandized view that the people held as support for their own agenda, and misguided actions.
2) We keep hearing over and over again how everyone had the same intel as the Bush admin, and I can’t believe some of you still insist on repeating this, pardon my French, BS. Neither the congress nor the people were aware of any of the CIA information provided to the admin casting doubt on much (most?) of the intel the admin was relying on; the unreliability of “Curveball” (no-=one else knew who curveball’s long reputaion of being unstable and saying whatever it was the people he was talking to wanted to hear); we didn’t know about the total invention of interpretations of spy photos that showed Bio-weapons factorys that turned out to be water purification plants; we didn’t know about the many reports that the reputed attempt to gain uranium from Niger was fake (most recently we know France, who tightly controls access to Niger uranium, was among those telling the admin that this was nonsense; etc. I can continue with a much longer list and will, later – I have some things I need to tend to now. But my point is that we (congress, the media, the citizenry) DID NOT have nearly all the info the admin had, because they actively suppressed anything that did not support their pre-ordained course of action.
Oh, one more thing I’m also tired of – Bush repeatedly saying that Saddam “refused” to let inspectors do their work. The inspectors were making great headway and getting much more cooperation in the last few months before Bush attacked; he attacked before the UN weapons inspectors had time to finish their work and many nations protested the U.S.’s precipitant decsion to attack before the inspector’s work was done. In other words, Sadam DID NOT refuse – he was cooperation. Bush just didn’t want to wait.
More later.
Ken G
Well i don’t think bush 43 should be impeached. He had bad intelligence and was authorized by the congress and senate to use military force you’re right about that. I just know that Bush 43′s agenda foreign and domestic is NOT GOOD for the U.S.A. That’s just my point of view.
“1) The Bush-Cheney admin started talking about invading Iraq THE DAY AFTER 9/11 (if not the same day); we know this from several sources including Paul O’Neill, Bush’s first Treasury Secretary. These sources tell us that the Bush admin was in fact was obsessed with finding a link between Sadam and Al Qaida. They started a media push on this theme immediately after 9/11, and by the time more balanced reporting on the non-involvement on Sadam came out, it had already become a fixture in the minds of a large majority of Americans. My point – what the majority of Americans believed is really not relevant; they had already been subject to a convincing barrage of misinformation by the very people that now use this propagandized view that the people held as support for their own agenda, and misguided actions.”
(Emphasis added)
WHAT?? That is EXACTLY the point. The Bush administration might have thought Iraq had something to do with 9-11 but that wasn’t expressed publicly to anyone – certainly not the public in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. The admin’s initial belief that Iraq might have had a hand in it did NOT influence the public’s opinion. The public thought this two days after the attacks. In fact, even after the Bush admin push to go into Iraq, the public belief that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 actually *decreased*. So your point on this falls completely flat. The admin was no more “obsessed” with finding a tie to Iraq than you or I would have been. Iraq had been a sworn enemy of the US for quite some time and it was perfectly natural for the admin to want to explore the possiblity that they were tied to 9-11. Even Richard Clarke himself said that the Aug 1998 bombing of the aspirin factory was done, in part, due to the belief that there was collaboration between AQ and Iraq.
tommy, go surrender if you want to but the rest of us are going to stand firm.
Ken, you’re the one full of bushwa. No matter what evidence is shown you, you only believe the defeatists and starved for power partisans at DU and moveon.org.
Kenwg wrote, “was obsessed
That my friend is opinion. Nice how it was passed on as a news story in many publications.
Kenwg wrote, “they had already been subject to a convincing barrage of misinformation ”
Please let us know what the barrage of misinformation was… do you mean the information that was made available by the intelligence agencies around the world? To characterize this as misinformation being given is the pattern of the left (misinforming with their accusations).
So.. Ken by your last paragraph you could just say that you disagreed with going to war. But your condescension over it is overpowering. You disagree with others who agreed and you think your opinion is better than ours.
OK.
But, Saddam would’ve still been in power and the Iraqi people would’ve still been subject to the many killings by Saddam and the abysmal conditions they lived under. They are doing BETTER now and have a much better life as evidenced by the polls coming out.
So you disagreed. I cannot for the life of me see why the condescencion. Just agree to disagree. We are there now and we can’t reverse time.
Yep PCD that last comment you posted was typical of how the right operates. If you’re behind the admin all the way then we must be looking to surrender to the terrorists.sigh………. well you got to admit the right has got slicker pr people than us on the left what can you do(shrugs shoulders)
tommy,
We just tell it straight. You, on the other hand, look to know-nothings like George Lackoff who tell you to lie more effectively. To you it is all slick pr and packaging because your side never tells the full truth about the craziness it wants as policy. You hate yourselves and you hate people who don’t hate themselves or even worse yet in your opinion, we are self-confident, optimistic, and self-reliant. Qualities your side lothes.
PCD, I disagree and think Tommy is actually one of the more rational liberals we’ve had post here. Ya need to cut him a little slack, methinks
tommy,
with posts like that, you wonder why I have no respect for you.
Tommy,
Your post at 2:15 was appreciated. It didn’t have an inaccurate accusation that you’d typically find in a Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Kerry speech.
I wish they would just say they disagree with what they think the direction is and then state the direction they’d like to head…. But they don’t. .. They incessantly make inaccurate representations (accusations) about what they think the policy is of conservatives and/or Republicans. And the funny thing is that it’s English 101. We (conservatives) will tell you what we think solutions to problems should be. Then to have it mistated and misrepresented is insulting.. It ends up being that the 50% of liberals in this country actually think that Republicans/conservatives are evil because they think we want for things to be problems in this country.
Thanks for listening.
Tommy, not to add to the pile-on because you seem to be pretty sensible and I do respect that, but let’s not forget that Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States in 1998. So if Bush and Cheney started talking about going after Iraq the day after 9/11 (and why shouldn’t they? Shouldn’t they be working on all possible scenarios at that point?) then they were only following the tennants of the Clinton administration.
As for the intelligence, you’re right insofar that Congress as a whole didn’t have the exact same intelligence (and according to many Democrats, they didn’t even bother to read what was given them!), but the Security and Intelligence committees had access to what you talked about there. In any case, the other countries around the world operated on their OWN intelligence and came up with similar conclusions, as did the previous administration. Explain THAT.
Finally, how could you possibly think that inspectors were making headway? Under the UN’s own rules, the responsiblity of providing information on supposedly destroyed WMDs rests solely on the country of origin. Otherwise, again, UNDER THE UN’S OWN RULES, the country is therefore suspected of retaining the weapons. Saddam refused to turn over information on the destruction of the weapons, and he blocked the inspectors at every opportunity. He could have ended it immediately by showing proof of the WMD destruction, but he absolutely refused to, figuring that nobody would call him on it. So don’t you say headway was being made, that compromises were happening, because all that was going on was hemming, hawing, and stalling. Not progress.
Apologies, the previous should not have been addressed to Tommy, but kenwg. And I retract my Tommy is sensible compliment as well, after seeing his slander on religion there. Guess you didn’t see that Gallup poll today putting the number of Americans who believe in God at 91%, did you now?
So much…
First, to continue where I left off – Congress and others having the same intel as the Bush Admin. Here are a few links:
Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005, By Murray Waas, special to National Journal:
“Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel”
LINK
Wednesday October 9, 2002, The Guardian: President Bush’s case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.” “Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA,” said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former head of counter-intelligence.
LINK
November 6, 2005, Douglas Jehl, The New York Times: “Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions”
LINK
January 2004, “War In Iraq, Evidence and Implications”, report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
“Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from
Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence
failures noted above, by…Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53); Misrepresenting inspectors’ findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire. (p. 53) LINK
October 3, 2004, David Barstow, William J. Broad and Jeff Gerth, The New York Times: “Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America’s leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.”
LINK
And so on. I could continue with pages and pages of references and different examples.
By the way, another argument used frequently to obscure honest argument on this issue is the argument that “the CIA says it wasn’t pressured…” First of all that’s not true. They DO say they were pressured (see link below). And even if they weren’t, that’s not the point. The point is that intel contradictory to the admin’s agenda was withheld by the admin.
Link: (“Multiple visits to the CIA by the United States Vice-President, Dick Cheney, created an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments on Iraq fit with Bush Administration policy objectives, intelligence officials said.”)
LINK
Now, something on the Admin’s attempt to ramp up the threat posed by Saddam by implying an “imminent threat”:
September 28, 2002, Radio Address by the President to the Nation: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.” LINK
2003-10-27, Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker: Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser, addressing questions about the strength of the Administration’s case against Iraq, said, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”—a formulation that was taken up by hawks in the Administration. And, in a speech on October 7th, President Bush said, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
LINK
“And so on. I could continue with pages and pages of references and different examples. ”
And so could I. But it’s pointless. Your point that the admin “brainwashed” the people into believing Iraq was a threat has been soundly refuted by *one* link – it was all that was necessary. People ALREADY believed Iraq was a threat even before 9-11. Why? Thank the prior two admins for that. They believed it before 9-11, they believed it in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 (even believed two days afterwards that Saddam had a hand in 9-11) as well. The admin didn’t “brainwash” people into believing this unless you think they were able to reach into people’s brains in the 90′s and convince them of it.
You can post all the links in the world, Ken, but though the number of links are impressive, the content is not because they fail to refute the central point of my post – which was Chris Matthews belief that America was “brainwashed” by W into believing Iraq was a threat. They were not.
BTW, this thread isn’t an argument for or against the Iraq war. Please keep that in mind for your future comments in this thread. You might want to hold on to those links for threads you actually need them in.
Actually, ST, I am going to get to your point… I’m having problems with my browser. Give me a minute….
“Actually, ST, I am going to get to your point… I’m having problems with my browser. Give me a minute….”
Why haven’t you already instead of posting irrelevant links the last few posts?
ST, for the 2 years before the invasion the Bush Admin was linking Sadam to Al Qaida on a regular basis. What Chris Matthews said was right on the mark, except the “brainwashed” – too strong a word. Propagandized would be better. Bush created his own reality, the one he wanted the public to believe, and it worked. Here are references:
February 6, 2003, George Bush, Press Conference: “Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaida have met at least eith times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaida. Iraq has also provided Al Qaida with chemical and biological weapons training.”
Link: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/O302/06/se.09.html
January 29, 2003, The Guardian, speaking of Mr. Bush: “He said that US intelligence had discovered extensive links between Iraq and terrorist organisations including al-Qaida…Mr. Bush revealed that the US had fresh evidence of links between iraq and al-qaida, as Washingon prpared to release its secret files on Saddam Hussein in a bid to gain global support for a war.”
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/IRAQ/Story/0,2763,884409,00.html
Sept. 27, 2002, U.S. Deparment of Defense American Forces Information Services: “Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this morning the link between al Qaeda terrorists and Iraq is “accurate and not debatable”
Link:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2002/n09272002 200209272.html
and so on. I have plenty more. The point is that there is overwhelming evidence that what Chris Matthews said is true – the Bush team created the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda were linked.
Ken G.
They no more ‘created’ the idea that they were linked than I created the Toyota Corolla, Ken.
In retrospect they WERE linked (see any number of Weekly Standard columns on that front – though biased, they are almost impossible to refute). The admin has done a terrible job of backing up their assertions that AQ and Iraq were linked, but there was no ‘deliberate attempt’ to brainwash anyone. The prior admin, as well as this one, believed the two were linked and at least this admin still maintains that, even though they do a terrible job backing it up. The media, OTOH, has done a (likely deliberate) horrible disservice to the American people by continuing to confuse what the administration has asserted regarding the Iraq connection to Al Qaeda. There is a difference between being connected to Al Qaeda and being connected to the events of 9-11. If people out there thought that saying there were ties to Al Qaeda = saying Iraq was tied to 9-11, that isn’t the admin’s fault; it’s their own fault for not having the ability to read things carefully and thoroughly. Cheney kept bringing up the possibility of the Prague connection, which Prague still does not deny. But the admin did not tie in Iraq with 9-11. The American people did so long before the admin had any chance to talk to them about Iraq. That is a fact supported by my link.
Chris Matthews is simply full of it when he asserts and/or implies that the admin brainwashed the American people on the threat from Iraq. They didn’t. Because the American people have believed Iraq was a threat since the 90s, when Bush I and Clinton both repeatedly made statements and/or speeches declaring them as such.
You, and the media, and folks like Chris Matthews who are part of the opinion press, seem to want to rewrite history, but with all due respect, people like me are always going to be around to provide the full picture rather than the incomplete one people like Chris Matthews (who should know better) like to give.
ST,
Ken, the above is all I got from you … you may want to repost.
ST,
I don’t disagree that Iraq had “links” to Al Qaeda, if by links you mean “occasional contact”. But I do disagree that there was any cooperation between the two of any substance – certainly not to the extent that the admin implied.
Obviously we’re just going to have to disagree on this one. I have a few comments to make on some other responses, but they will have to wait – too much to do.
Ken G.
You know I was thinking that Iraq’s surrender in 1991 was unconditional. If that is true any agressive behavior was reason to attack and dismantle this tyrant. – Lorica
To finish up my earlier comments….
Baklava – >> Intelligence is the reason that 90% of politicians were for “regime change” in Iraq and talked about Saddam being a threat to national security and why Clinton bombed Iraq for a month and why there were over 14 U.N. resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm or else.> It wasn’t Bush 43′s decision alone. Most of the Senate authorized Bush to use force against Iraq>>Ken, you’re the one full of bushwa. No matter what evidence is shown you, you only believe the defeatists and starved for power partisans at DU and moveon.org.>>Kenwg wrote, “they had already been subject to a convincing barrage of misinformation ”
Please let us know what the barrage of misinformation was… do you mean the information that was made available by the intelligence agencies around the world? To characterize this as misinformation being given is the pattern of the left (misinforming with their accusations).
So.. Ken by your last paragraph you could just say that you disagreed with going to war. But your condescension over it is overpowering. You disagree with others who agreed and you think your opinion is better than ours.>>let’s not forget that Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States in 1998. So if Bush and Cheney started talking about going after Iraq the day after 9/11 (and why shouldn’t they? Shouldn’t they be working on all possible scenarios at that point?) then they were only following the tennants of the Clinton administration.
whoops – that last post was a screw-up. Still having problems with my browser. I’ll try again…
To finish up my earlier comments….
Baklava – >> Intelligence is the reason that 90% of politicians were for “regime change” in Iraq and talked about Saddam being a threat to national security and why Clinton bombed Iraq for a month and why there were over 14 U.N. resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm or else.> It wasn’t Bush 43′s decision alone. Most of the Senate authorized Bush to use force against Iraq>>Ken, you’re the one full of bushwa. No matter what evidence is shown you, you only believe the defeatists and starved for power partisans at DU and moveon.org.>>Kenwg wrote, “they had already been subject to a convincing barrage of misinformation ”
Please let us know what the barrage of misinformation was… do you mean the information that was made available by the intelligence agencies around the world? To characterize this as misinformation being given is the pattern of the left (misinforming with their accusations).
So.. Ken by your last paragraph you could just say that you disagreed with going to war. But your condescension over it is overpowering. You disagree with others who agreed and you think your opinion is better than ours.>>let’s not forget that Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States in 1998. So if Bush and Cheney started talking about going after Iraq the day after 9/11 (and why shouldn’t they? Shouldn’t they be working on all possible scenarios at that point?) then they were only following the tennants of the Clinton administration.
Ach! I’ll have to figure out what’s happening to my computer – what I’m typing isn’t showing up if it’s more than a few lines. Baklava’s getting lots of play though…
Ken G.
This was happening earlier, Ken – for example, the post above where you wrote “ST” … that was all that came up on that post in the moderation que. I assure you I’m not deleting out anything you’ve written – I’ve shortened some links in your prior posts to prevent scrolling but that’s it.
To finish up my earlier comments….
Baklava said “Intelligence is the reason that 90% of politicians were for “regime change” in Iraq and talked about Saddam being a threat to national security and why Clinton bombed Iraq for a month and why there were over 14 U.N. resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm or else.”
No, Saddam’s known bloody history and threat to the region was the reason everyone favored regime change, not intelligence. Note also that while they favored regime change, they DID NOT favor invading Baghdad to do it. You conflate the two, with the implication that GWB just did what everyone wanted when indeed that is not the case.
Baklava also writes:
“It wasn’t Bush 43′s decision alone. Most of the Senate authorized Bush to use force against Iraq”
No, the congress authorized Bush to use force IF AND ONLY IF the U.N. weapons inspection program FOUND weapons, or if Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. Bush waited a few weeks then just pushed ahead with the war, ignoring the protests of the UN that the weapons inspectors hadn’t finished their job, and also ignoring the Congressional resolution’s requirements that the inspections be concluded before going to war. Big difference. Unfortunately, when he did so, most in congress lacked the cajones (typical spineless Democrat leaders) to stand up and say so when they knew better, in the face of overwhelming (and misguided) public support for the war. Now it’s too late for those same spineless Dems to go back and protest that they didn’t approve it; their lack of opposition when they should have spoken up gave tacit approval to Bush’s going to war.
PCD wrote:
“Ken, you’re the one full of bushwa. No matter what evidence is shown you, you only believe the defeatists and starved for power partisans at DU and moveon.org.”
That’s very ironic coming from you, PCD. You haven’t swallowed the Bush Admin story hook, line and sinker? I may not be right, but at least I make the effort to look at and evaluate both sides, and support my postion with facts and references, or to rebut yours with same. It seems to me that whenever you, on the other hand, are presented with facts that counter your opinion, your response is usually the same sort of dissembling toss-off dismissal as the one you’ve given above. Can I reference some of the sources I’ve referenced to support my positions lately (those “defeatist and starved for power partisans…); George Bush (above); Deparment of Defense American Forces Information Services (above); Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (Valerie Plame WAS undercover); etc. Quite a wing-nut, lefty bunch, huh…
Perhaps I’m wrong though; maybe I’ve just missed some of your more well-researched and referenced commentary. If so, please accept my apologies.
Baklava further writes:
Kenwg wrote, “they had already been subject to a convincing barrage of misinformation….do you mean the information that was made available by the intelligence agencies around the world? To characterize this as misinformation being given is the pattern of the left (misinforming with their accusations). ”
No, I’m referring to the hyping of shaky and unreliable information, and the suppression of any evidence they had that discredited the assertions they were making. I’ve provided plenty of examples, and can provide many more if you’d like.
And regarding my “condescension”. Perhaps you’re right; you’re probably referring to my “I can’t believe some of you…” comment. I get a little frustrated with the constant refrain of what I consider discredited assertions, and I guess I let it show. I’ll try to refrain. In my defense, though, I have to say I see the same kind of comment directed at me and others who disagree with the prevailing view here, fairly often. I guess it’s hard to restrain…
ArizonaTeach writes: “let’s not forget that Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States in 1998. So if Bush and Cheney started talking about going after Iraq the day after 9/11 (and why shouldn’t they? Shouldn’t they be working on all possible scenarios at that point?) then they were only ”
I think I already answered this above – there’s quite a gulf between stating a policy favoring “regime change” and invading Baghdad. There are a lot of other options, which in fact were in play before the invasion.
Cordially,
Ken G
Oh, and by the way, in case I can’t get back to posting before Christmas, a sincere MERRY CHRISTMAS (and happy holidays for all you non-Christians)!
Hey, I finally got it working! Don’t know why or how…
Ken G.
can’t help either PCD or Arizona teach if they think i’m some f—–g moonbat.All I know is that I served in the USN did my duty and if they don’t like my point of view that’s just to bad.
Tommy, I have the right to disagree with your leftist bilge. You seem to forget that whilst crying about your rights.
Ken, why do you insist on posting lies? Plame is not covert. She is not covert nor overseas as the law required. The fact that you can’t accept that REALITY makes posting fact, court proceedings, etc. useless edited – ST.
Ken says: “I think I already answered this above – there’s quite a gulf between stating a policy favoring “regime change” and invading Baghdad.”
Therein lies a major difference between Liberals/Democrats and Conservatives/Republicans, we C/R’s prefer to say what we mean, and mean what we say, and believe that you should do what you say you are going to do. L/D’s, OTOH, are much more in favor of paying lip service to something rather than actually doing it. Witness the Dems reaction to their vote authorizing Bush to go to war. “OMG!!! We didn’t actually think he’d DO IT!!!”
This points out a markedly different approach to the world between the two sides of this “debate.” Dems are the most cynically partisan and poll driven people I’ve ever seen, and believe that talking and obsfucation are wonderful things, whereas Repubs tend to want to actually solve problems, not talk them to death while they steadily get worse. Again, witness Social Security. It’s not a crisis, no no, we can’t privitize or fix it! We’ll talk about it some more! While the Republicans, and Bush particularly, wants to fix it before it completely blows up in our faces.
But then, what can you expect from a party that wants to vacillate on all issues until they get the latest poll results. A leader is one who makes a decision, implements it, because they know it to be right, not necessarily popular.
A general note to all:
Let’s please can the moonbat accusations and argue on the merits of the person’s argument itself.
Thanks.
Severaian,
I think you are right – these issues do point to a difference between Dems/Libs and conservatives, int the way they think & act. I’ve noticed it before. The way I see it, simplisticly put, Dems/libs see things in greater shades of grey, are more inclined to indirect solutions and seeking consensus, and conservatives see things more in black and white and attack the issues head-on, and let the crumbs fall where they may. I of course believe the former is usually the more productive approach in the end, and you the latter. This is an interesting topic to me (psychological/personality parallels to political points of view); I’m sure we could expand on it quite a bit on some appropriate forum.
Ken G
By the way, ST, I just realized my commnet way up the thread about my writing not getting through but Baklava getting a lot of play might have been misunderstood. It was not a suggestion that you were messing with my posts – just noting that Baklava was luckily benefitting from my computer printing out what he said whenever I tried to input my comments. The thought that you were editing my comments never entered my head.
Ken G
The problem with libs and Dems is that they see such profligate shades of gray that they get paralyzed and wind up doing little or nothing, or do things that address the wrong issues (feelings rather than facts). This is a common problem in science and engineering that is referred to as “Analysis Paralysis.” One general said, of large weapon system development, “Sooner or later in the course of every project it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and enter production.” The same thing applies here, sooner or later you have to move off dead center and make a decision. That’s when you need someone, like Bush, who is willing to lead and stick to it, not wobble, waffle, and see what the polls say, and then change course if the polls change again.
Leadership is what we need, and the Democratic party is sadly lacking in people who are capable of doing this. They value their political careers and their party’s return to power more than the value solving the problems that face the country.
I’ve inserted a virus. It tries to only allow truth to be typed.
It’s a very complex virus to write though. One word in a sentence can throw things off.
For instance:
1) The intelligence was faulty
2) The intelligence was manipulated.
Well, the intelligence was faulty going on over a decade and Bush didn’t get into office until 2001. He only reported (as Colin Powell did) what was presented to him. Now liberals rightly point out that there WERE countering intelligence views but that’s the point. There was no manipulation and nearly all of the politicians believed the preponderance of evidence that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD’s (as did Clinton and Albright).
To make the charge that intelligence officers were pressured is inaccurate as ALL heck because the intelligence officers themselves all said “NO” they weren’t pressured. 100% of them said “NO”. This is in the Senate Intelligence Report and was pointed out to which page on this very blog. I will not expend the energy to find the pages of text of quotes by the 100% of intelligence officers again. You can either find it yourself or continue your “reckless charges”. Which do you prefer. If you prefer the “reckless charges” then it is pointless to debate you as it is pointless to debate Brian as he couldn’t read the text either.
To add to what I said above, this is not an exclusive fault of Democrats, it unfortunately is a traditonal fault of politicians in general, it just appears that most of our current Democrats have elevated it into an art form.
Perhaps the quote should be ammended to read “Sooner or later in the course of any crisis, it becomes necessary to shoot the politicians and fix the problem.”
PCD, you wrote: “Ken, why do you insist on posting lies? Plame is not covert. She is not covert nor overseas as the law required. The fact that you can’t accept that REALITY makes posting fact, court proceedings, etc. useless”
PCD, you’re still being a little sloppy in your allegations. I did not say she was “covert”. That is a specific legal term with specific criminal implications, and an issue that hasn’t yet been decided legally. And your assertion that she was not covert, by the way, is speculation based on a lot of unproven and uninvestigated comments in the press and on the blogs. Hmmm – perhaps I should call YOU a liar for satying that she was NOT covert when we don’t know that.
What I said was that she was “undercover” (which many on the right have denied) and also that that assertion was made by Special Prosecttor Patrick Fitzgerald:
“Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security. Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003…. she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003″
Here is the link PCD, see for yourself:
http://southerncrossreview.org/43/fitzgerald.htm
And more to the point – an issue that the Bush admin defenders like to sidestep, is that whether or not she was covert is not the only issue, or even the central issue. In the same transcript linked above, Fitzgerald goes on to say ” if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.”
In other words, whether she was “covert” or not, her situation WAS classified, and divulging such secret information may have been a real crime – one that many would call treason, in fact. I also, by the way, citied George Bush on this same issue, calling this “…a criminal action”. Here’s the link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-3.html
So, PCD, unless you can discredit the above sources, I would truly appreciate it if you would refrain from saying on this forum, as you’ve done before, that I am “posting lies”. Lies is a very strong term. I don’t use it, and I really don’t like it.
Thanks,
Ken G
Ken, you may wish to shade definitions, but you are not telling the truth and you don’t intend to. To be in violation of the law, the person named has to have benn BOTH overseas and Covert with in 5 years of the naming. Plame was not. Pure and simple. To state otherwise is a lie. Whether or not that is original with you is not the point. It is a lie and you knowingly repeat it.