But , but , but … we were DUPED!!!
Surfing Moore’s site today, I clicked a link to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, whose editorial board is apologizing to its readership for allowing itself to be “duped” by the Bush administration in the days leading up to the Iraq war on the matters of WMD’s.
But, yes, regrettably on the matter of WMD, count us as among the many who were duped. We should have been more skeptical. For that lack of skepticism and the failure to include the proper caveats to the WMD claim, we apologize, though I would note that, ultimately, we didn’t believe that the president’s central WMD argument warranted war. Not then and especially not now.
I suppose I can see why a newspaper editorial board would want to distance itself from it’s earlier reporting about WMD’s, they, like many are trying to re-write the history of the days before the war. Many on the left ( which include most newspaper people it would seem) would like to quietly erase any and all references to Saddam’s WMD’s made by anyone other than Bush and his Administration from the memory of the American public. For those references they can not erase ( like the ones from the MJS’s editorial pages) they seek to immunize themselves from any fallout by claiming “duping”.
The thing that strikes me odd is that they only claim to be duped by Bush and Company. I haven’t read a single reference ( except on the pages of blogs like ours) which note that the WMD case was being made by many, many folks who have nothing to do with this current administration. In fact, the Democrats often articulated a stronger case for taking out Saddam Hussein, based on WMD’s than the current one ever did.
Do you remember these words?;
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Those are pretty strong words, and in the eyes of the radical left, pretty strong lies.
Here’s another:
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it.
Again, all lies. ( according to the radical left).
The authors of these statements were of course, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.
Certainly the case could be made that statements like these are just as responsible for “duping” the editorial boards of many a podunk newspaper as anything coming from the administration. So where, I wonder, is the criticism of The Clintons, Gore, Kerry and the rest of the pre-war Democrat party hawks for thier part of “The Big Lie”? Where are the claims of being “duped” by the Democrats?
My guess is that you won’t hear a peep about the Democrat’s Case-for-War from the press. The way they are re-writing history is a bigger lie than the WMD thing ever was.
Comments
Just a standalone website with many quotes from out beloved democrats:
Anyone read this? I’ve been shopping libraries for it, but I think it’s too recent to have hit the shelves yet.
Anyone else having trouble logging onto moores website today?
who’s editorial board is apologizing to it’s readership
should be WHOSE and ITS as opposed to IT’S I belive.
Just saying…
Anyone read [the book Disinformation]? I’ve been shopping libraries for it, but I think it’s too recent to have hit the shelves yet.
Don’t know about libraries, but Border’s Books has it—just picked it up last night. Fairly easy reading—each myth averages just a few pages, so you can read a given myth in 10-20 minutes or so. And you don’t have to read them in the presented order. You can read them in order of interest.
Recommended.
When a company doesnt meet its forecasted results, investors don’t blame the vice presidents, or the product managers....they blame the man or woman at the top. They blame the leader, the CEO, the President.
The Bush administration led us into this mess. They did the lobbying, they put out the commercials, they debated in the house and the senate, and they put Colin Powell in front of the world stage to deliver a bunch of misinformation.
The blame game starts at the top, and THEN the shit can flow back down. But make no mistake, it must start at the top.
BU
The blame game starts at the top, and THEN the shit can flow back down. But make no mistake, it must start at the top
yes at the top.... what a great logic… except, this didnt start when Bush was in office.,, we had a different leader before this with the same stuff going on,… how convenient that we hold him to his words.
jer bu:
The blame game starts at the top, and THEN the shit can flow back down. But make no mistake, it must start at the top.
So who is “at the top” of an entire international community who all thought the same thing long before Bush was ever in office? Is Bush “at the top of” Clinton, who said in 2003 that WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE, that it was INDISPUTABLE that there were weapons unaccounted for? Is Bush “at the top of” the Iraqi military commanders who all thought the next platoon over were the ones with the big weapons?
nuyorker:
Salman pak
Exactly. Don’t forget Abdul Rahman Yasin
I am fairly new to this site and this is my first post, so forgive any naiveness on my part.
Anyone read Sean Hannity’s “Deliver Us From Evil”? I just got it on tape and recently started listening to it on my way to work. So far, Mr. Hannity makes some great arguments for the War, even if there were no WMDs. I wonder if this guy knows about this site?
The very fact that the argument has to be shifted from “Bush lied” to “Bush is supposed to be held responsible for other people’s faulty intelligence” shows there is no merit to the argument.
When a company doesnt meet its forecasted results, investors don’t blame the vice presidents, or the product managers....they blame the man or woman at the top. They blame the leader, the CEO, the President.
The Bush administration led us into this mess. They did the lobbying, they put out the commercials, they debated in the house and the senate, and they put Colin Powell in front of the world stage to deliver a bunch of misinformation.
The blame game starts at the top, and THEN the shit can flow back down. But make no mistake, it must start at the top.
I guess a leftist newspaper is not accountable for their own reporting.
The left can change their opinion midstream because that is their special right. They just never expect to be called on it.
Is Bush “at the top of” Clinton, who said in 2003 that WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE, that it was INDISPUTABLE that there were weapons unaccounted for? Is Bush “at the top of” the Iraqi military commanders who all thought the next platoon over were the ones with the big weapons?
Bush made the decision for a full on invasion of Iraq. He is responsible for that decision.
The very fact that the argument has to be shifted from “Bush lied” to “Bush is supposed to be held responsible for other people’s faulty intelligence” shows there is no merit to the argument.
The later has been my position all along. I believe it still has merit.
I guess a leftist newspaper is not accountable for their own reporting.
They should be. And if they are that bad, they will be, through declining sales. But we should all care more about a President being held accountable for his decisions over a newspaper, no?
But we should all care more about a President being held accountable for his decisions over a newspaper, no?
Yes we should, however you assume the decision was a bad one. I dispute that invading Iraq and liberating its people is a bad thing.
You also assume that the ONLY reason for the war was to rid Iraq of WMDs. It wasn’t, it was A reason, not the only one.
The decision to invade Iraq was made to make America safer by getting rid of WMDs that Saddam had (he didn’t) and to start the spread of liberty and stability in the region. Looking at the Iraqi votes and the unprecedented elections in surrounding countries and I’d say that not only was the decision right, but it is working.
The cry of the liberals that Bush misled them is a dangerous slope. They continually portray Bush as a dullard and yet he has managed to dupe them at every turn and made them believe Iraq had WMDs (among other things) enough to make them support a war! Wouldn’t that make Democrats the party of gullible and indecisive nimrods?
I love how lefty arguments are based on falsehoods, innuendo and conjecture. To enter into this argument as to whether Bush “duped” anyone, you have to concede Bush knowingly misguided everyone on the intellegence on Iraq. You also have to constrain the only reason for the war to WMDs when in fact the reasons were much broader.
Why doesn’t the left spend more time looking into where all the Oil for Food money went, THAT’S the real deception concerning Iraq!
Why doesn’t the left spend more time looking into where all the Oil for Food money went, THAT’S the real deception concerning Iraq!
But wouldn’t mean having to face the reality of what the UN really is? That’s just more than most liberals can handle.
You also assume that the ONLY reason for the war was to rid Iraq of WMDs. It wasn’t, it was A reason, not the only one.
Can you honestly tell me, that if in President Bushs State of the Union address, he had said the Iraq had no WMDs, that the support for the war would have remained high? Do you think it should have remained high? I believe it was around 70% of Americans supported going into Iraq at the time.
Yes, it wasnt the only reason. But it was the corner stone. It was definitly the corner stone of the argument for going in. Think of the SOTU address, Powell at the UN. WMDs were the key peice.
Yes, it wasnt the only reason. But it was the corner stone. It was definitly the corner stone of the argument for going in. Think of the SOTU address, Powell at the UN. WMDs were the key peice.
And he was not the only person saying this. The US was not the only COUNTRY saying this. EVEN IRAQ thought that Iraq had WMDs. And as it happens that all Saddam REALLY had was the materials, the facilities, the manpower, the desire, and a system of bribing UN officials to get them to lift sanctions so he could rebuild his weapons. [sarcasm]Other than all that, there was no reason to believe he represented a threat.[/sarcasm]
Can you honestly tell me, that if in President Bushs State of the Union address, he had said the Iraq had no WMDs, that the support for the war would have remained high? Do you think it should have remained high? I believe it was around 70% of Americans supported going into Iraq at the time.
Yes, it wasnt the only reason. But it was the corner stone. It was definitly the corner stone of the argument for going in. Think of the SOTU address, Powell at the UN. WMDs were the key peice.
Alone I don’t think liberation would have cut it with the left so WMDs were a part of the equation. Bush used the intellegence of the time in good faith to solidify the waivering left.
Can you honestly say that the world community, not just the USA, didn’t believe that Iraq had WMDs and Bush twisted their arm?
EVERYONE THOUGHT THEY HAD WMD’s there is plenty of evidence that the left believed this well before Bush took office in 2000. Reports from other countries indicated it.
The only ones who didn’t think it and didn’t want war were on the take via Oil for Food and were afraid of losing the cash cow and being found out.
an you honestly tell me, that if in President Bushs State of the Union address, he had said the Iraq had no WMDs, that the support for the war would have remained high?
This is circular logic. Without overwhelming evidence, whether it was good or bad, his calling for the invasion would have fallen flat and I highly doubt he would have done it in the first place. It was only because there was overwhelming evidence that WMD did exist that he called for the invasion.
Again, it’s easy to say in hindsight what we should have, could have or would have done. But, at the time, there was enough evidence to not only convince the Bush administration, but also the UN Security Council (until they wimped out on their own resolution), nearly the entire US Senate and the many, many other countries who joined us in the effort.
The real argument now should be how best to handle the situation we are in, not what we should or shouldn’t have gone. But, instead, we are wasting time trying again and again to find some kind of smoking gun that can be used to bring down the Bush administration. Not real helpful in the overall effort right at this time, ya know?
But they DIDN’t have WMD’s. It was the backbone of the invasaion arguement, and it was untrue.
So YES, Bush is accountable. He is the President. He is accountable. When we go to war, he is accountable. It does not matter if the intelligence was faulty, he is accountable for making sure it was legit.
I supported going into Iraq, but never once because of some WMD’s. The WMD arguement was convenient at the time given the deep down fear of terrorist attack that was on everyones mind. But that is not why I supported going. Removing Saddam and developing a stable force in the region was plenty enough reason for me.
But it was not plenty enough for Bush and his cronies. They chose to focus on the WMD arguement, and they chose to move ahead on that basis.
Hell yeah Bush is accountable. I wouldnt want a President who wasn’t. Do think of it as an attack on the right. Think of it as simply holding the people in power responsible for thier actions. If Clinton had invaded, he would be accountable too.
Bu
I still support us being there by the way. We don’t pick up and run when things get tough. We need to fix Iraq, and we need to hold Bush accountable. Two great truths for one great problem.
you:
But they DIDN’t have WMD’s. It was the backbone of the invasaion arguement, and it was untrue.
me:
And as it happens that all Saddam REALLY had was the materials, the facilities, the manpower, the desire, and a system of bribing UN officials to get them to lift sanctions so he could rebuild his weapons.
I agree that Iraq would be a misstep IF the ONLY reason were WMDs and ONLY if he immediately possessed them. Even in the absence of that, his intentions to rebuild, his political maneuvers to do exactly that, his chemicals in camouflaged bunkers in the desert, etc, satisfy the weapons threat imo. And that’s not including the terrorist training camp, the financial and diplomatic aid to terrorists, and oh yeah, the millions of people he had raped, tortured and killed over the years. Despite a long and compelling list of reasons that caused our policy towards Iraq to SHIFT over to REGIME CHANGE in 1998 (repeat: 1998), the major focus of criticism towards Bush seems to be based on one diplomat’s report which senate reports have deemed his public statements on his trip to be largely false, and criticism of a British white paper which the British government investigated after the fact and found that while the documents of a reported SALE were forged, the spectre of Iraq seeking nukes was WELL-FOUNDED. Based on that, Bush is a nefarious liar and Saddam is innocent?
Also, people often talk of ulterior motives in the administration but leave out the fact that the major nations opposing the war have been the ones that were arming Saddam for 20 years (including violations of UN sanctions), who were the targets of his bribes, and who had a financial incentive to leave him in power.
Damn, this is aggravating.
By continuing the debate about the validity of the intelligence, based on one report (the yellowcake report) that may have been inaccurate, the left has taken control of the dialogue to the point that is it now generally accepted (for no good reason) that
1>All of the intelligence was bad
and
2>Saddam never had any WMD’s.
In fact, these things have actually been repetitively stated outright, without any damn good reason to think so.
Selective memories are convenient, but dangerous.
First, recall that there was never, ever any question that Saddam had WMD’s. We knew he had them. Hell, we had photographs and videotape, as well as UN inventory reciepts of them! He had them, undeniably.
Did he have them in 2002? I don’t know for sure. And guess what...? Neither do you.
However, there’s no good reason to think he did not.
Oh, right… the UN inspectors, who had been stymied and delayed at every turn by Saddam, didn’t manage to find them.
BIG surprise, there. Personally, I don’t think Hans Blix could find his ass with both hands, even if Saddam didn’t cut them off.
The UN, by resolution, had ordered Saddam to destroy all existing WMD’s, and to prove he had done so, within specific guidelines.
He never did so.
If he did destroy them, they certainly didn’t prove it. (Unless, of course, you’re apt to take kindly uncle Saddam’s word for it, on faith.)
So here we are, with a proven, undeniable previous existence of WMD’s, and intelligence corroborating their continued existence that was, for the most part, accurate; only one major report is even in serious question by anyone remotely credible.
(And I will remind you that the main detractor even for that report was an unauthorized investigator with a history of anti-conservative sentiment- Joe Wilson.)
As for the credibility of the intelligence itself… well, as we’ve been discussing, it was credible and verifiable enough that is was cited and used by a large number of public officials, including left-wing senators and a liberal administration!
But I guess they didn’t feel it was too necessary to dig as deep as anyone claims Bush should have, since they weren’t going to war; they were just calling for strikes/sanctions/MORE UN resolutions, etc., or lobbing the occasional missile. Funny.
So how do you go from that, to a language of “We know for a fact there’s no WMD’s, and that the intelligence was all wrong/fixed/made-up, etc., PROVING the President is a liar!”???
Easy. You ignore it, forget it, pretend it never happened… you take control of the language, and keep screaming the nonsensical party line until more and more mindless dullards on your side of the line believe it.
Then THEY can scream it, too… and before you know it, the cacophony is as deafening as it is ignorant.
But hey… whatever works for you.
Welcome to the new left.
Incidentally, in referrence to my previous post;
For the record, I’m more angry at the conservatives here and elsewhere for this than I am at the left.
I expect them to pull crap like this. It’s their M.O.
But by reeling back against this nonsense… by falling back into defense of Bush because he “didn’t intentionally lie” or that “Well, that wasn’t our only reason for going, so it doesn’t matter"… we become guilty of allowing them to take control of this issue, and completely revise history, here.
Why are we retreating on a point that should not in any way be conceded?
Libs controlling this issue is not their fault; it’s ours.
It does not matter if the intelligence was faulty, he is accountable for making sure it was legit.
What, in your opinion, should he have done to make really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really sure that there were no WMDs? If every single intelligence agency around the world was saying it, the out-going President said it, The UN Security Council said it and even Saddam himself, in effect, said it by acting like he was in possession, what more would you have had Bush do to show you that he did everything in his power to confirm or counter the intel he was given? Was he supposed to parachute into the country under cover of darkness and gather the intel himself? I think that type of Presidential power is reserved for Martin Sheen or Harrison Ford.
Bush is accountable for making decisions based on the information he has available to him at the time. He cannot go back in time and change course as the situation changes. He has to make the best decision possible, in the time when it needs to be made (considering current events and without the luxury of a crystal ball) and then hope and pray he is right And then deal with the consequences.
And to you and many others, it seems that those consequences are to indict, impeach and incarcerate the leader of the free world during a time of war. Brilliant!
artmonkey - incredibly valid point. I still argue with people about how Saddam was given 15 months to stash away anything he had before we went in. I remember how all we heard at the time was how were rushing to war and it took 15 months of daily updates on where we stood and how close we were to actually, finally, really going in. You just don’t give a person like Saddam 15 months to clean out his closets and then scream “See, there was nothing there! Bush lied!”
But, until there is something found, we are stuck with the meme that he never had them and, without a big flashing neon sign over a big old pile of smoking nukes, nothing will convince the left that he was in possession. As long as they got that stick, they ain’t never lettin’ it go.
But, until there is something found, we are stuck with the meme that he never had them
I disagree. We are only stuck with what we accept being stuck with. If we continue to bow to this nonsense, it’s our own fault.
They’re just going to keep moving the goalposts, you know. It’s our responsibility to stop them.
without a big flashing neon sign over a big old pile of smoking nukes, nothing will convince the left that he was in possession
I don’t care about convincing them of anything. They’re moonbats. Let them be moonbats. But what I do care about is engaging them in their own insane forum.
I care about us allowing them to make these rediculous statements as fact, without challenge. It only emboldens them to push it further.
If we allow them to continue at this rate, by this time next year, it will be the same brand of “widely accepted knowledge” that GWB personally ordered the WTC attack.
As long as they got that stick, they ain’t never lettin’ it go.
Then it’s up to us not to let go of the other end of that stick.
There’s an old axiom that I think is incredibly true, and very apt to this situation;
“That which is is tolerated today will be celebrated tomorrow.”
It was the backbone of the invasaion arguement, and it was untrue.
No, the Iraw war reolution was… the media ignored the parts of the resolution that contained justification more than just WMDs
and i jst fell into the group artmonkey just warned against.... sorry
Then it’s up to us not to let go of the other end of that stick.
You’re right, but maybe it’s just my optimistic hope that, by meeting some of these people halfway, they will be more willing to engage in a more reasonable discussion. As opposed to simply screaming the same crap over and over, ad infinitum, or, as you said, coming back with even more insane pronouncements and accusations.
My mistake for assuming that any kind of concession would be met by the same from the opposing side.
Interesting take on who the real liar is in this whole situation.
Thank you artmonkey for reminding me that this tired argument is totally unecessary, being right means that you don’t have to entertain senseless arguments. I hereby resolve to roll a paper up and snap any lefty attack dog spewing this garbage on the nose.
It appears that the Democratic Party, or at least the extremists in its ranks, is turning into the Party from 1984. We all know we must do the best for the party, comrades! We’re at war with this nation. We have ALWAYS been at war with this nation!
Poosh,
Thanks for the grammar check. Now I remember why I took steps to stop sleep blogging. My grammar sucks when I’m half awake.
Artmonkey.
You are correct. We are stupid if we continue to allow the fringiest of the fringe frame every debate we ever have, especially this one.
Not everyone was convinced there were WMD’s in Iraq, I remember reading some quite heated debates on this very site, where people who questioned this ‘proof’ of WMD’s were lambasted by the great and the good. The rights argument seems to have changed to ‘everyone knew they were there’ - seeming to forget how much dissent there was before we even invaded. Accountability must be with Bush and Blair, as they were the guys who decided there was enough evidence of WMD’s to make it a reason for going in at that time. If your acting on your evidence is going to send your country to war, the I do expect you to investigate it to the nth degree. Sure the newspapers, op ed peices and non administration politicians have to answer for it, but their fingers weren’t ‘on the button’ so to speak.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Accountability must be with Bush and Blair, as they were the guys who decided there was enough evidence of WMD’s to make it a reason for going in at that time.
is it worth going into this agian? It just shows how determined the left id to make a case to blame Bush.
With great power comes great responsibility.
I don’t usually enter into this discussion, but I will address this particular point by ilovecress simply because it gets to the real heart of the matter.
There is simply no way to legitimately shift responsibility for this episode in history to Bush and Blair. Before the invasion it was not their responsibility to destroy Iraq’s chemical weapons and it was not their responsibility to produce proof of that action. That responsibility was Saddam Hussein’s.
The restraint and patience shown by the US and others over the course of 13 years did not change Iraq’s behavior, let alone their intentions. It is undeniable Iraq illegally possessed chemical weapon during sanctions. Nobody refutes the evidence. That was Saddam Hussein’s responsibility.
At any time during the 15-month “rush to war” Hussein could have ended the entire affair simply by being a responsible head of state. He chose to remain his old irresponsible self.
Yes indeed, ilovecress, with power comes not only responsibility but also accountablity.
When you are able to account for the whereabouts of Iraq’s chemical weapons, please let us know. If you’re going to blame Bush and Blair, that’s your responsibility, you know.
The rights argument seems to have changed to ‘everyone knew they were there’
Changed? o_O
This is not a new argument. Some of us have been saying it for the last couple years. However, as I recall, the argument was not “Saddam has no weapons” but that “the inspections are working”. Which unto itself was a strange argument when you thought about it. The UN report on his weapons suggested they were largely destroyed during/after the Gulf War. Yet Saddam was blocking inspectors constantly, and eventually threw them out of the country. Clinton bombed a number of his nuclear facilities during the Lewinsky scandal. And even after the inspections started back up prior to the recent war, we caught Saddam buying missiles from North Korea as recently as March 2003. But surely there’s no reason to think anything is out of the ordinary. God knows I keep all of MY farming (and only farming) chemicals in a camouflaged bunker in the desert, and MY mobile chemical labs (which of course are purely medical labs) buried beneath the sands. Yes, his actions make perfect sense to me. Despite the fact that every dual-use anything that the US has ever sold to Saddam is automatically a weapon, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that every dual-use anything found in Iraq is automatically being used domestically. That must be why his people had so much food and health care.
Further, I want you to look at this UN report and tell me that we had reason to believe Iraq was being genuine in its denials. Some highlights:
1. Iraq did not acknowledge its proscribed Biological Warfare (BW) weapons programme until July 1995. From the first UNSCOM inspections in 1991 until 1995 Iraq denied it had a BW programme and has taken active steps to conceal it from the Special Commission. These steps included fraudulent statements, forged documents, misrepresentation of the roles of people and facilities, and other specific acts of deception.
2. Since its first revelations in July 1995, Iraq has submitted three “Full, Final and Complete Disclosures” (FFCDs) of its proscribed biological programme. <cont>
6. Both the Vienna TEM and the experts’ review in Baghdad concluded that Iraq’s biological FFCD is an inadequate document for verification purposes. The FFCD does not provide a coherent or comprehensive account of Iraq’s BW programme and lacks any supporting framework such as descriptions of planning, objectives, policy and organizations involved. The experts found that much of the information collected by the Commission to verify the FFCD in fact contradicts statements therein, particularly the evidence regarding weaponization, the quantity of agents produced and the media balance. The hundreds of interviews that the Commission has conducted with Iraqi officials also fail to provide a comprehensive account and even allowing for errors of memory, often contradict the account in the FFCD.
12. The Commission has little or no confidence in Iraq’s accounting for proscribed items for which physical evidence is lacking or inconclusive, documentation is sparse or nonexistent, and coherence and consistency is lacking. These include, for example: quantities and types of munitions available for BW filling; quantities and types of munitions filled with BW agents; quantities and type of bulk agents produced; quantities of bulk agents used in filling; quantities of bulk agents destroyed; quantities of growth media acquired for the programme; and quantities of growth media used/consumed. In addition the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed; that no BW munitions or weapons remain in Iraq; and that a BW capability does not still exist in Iraq.
219. In the Commission’s view, Iraq has not complied with requirements of the relevant Security Council resolutions on the disclosure of its BW programme. A full, complete and verifiable disclosure of all its biological weapons activities needs to be presented by Iraq.
If I remember correctly, the report Iraq submitted to the UN about their weapons capability did not account for everything, including quite a bit of VX nerve agent. 10 mg will kill.
If anyone is being duped, it is the average voter, and the duping is being done by the Democratic party.
But you guys dont get it… Bush, WMDs, Iraq, evil, noooooo!
-Im getting sick of Liberals and their excuses and tired, rehearsed and repeated arguments
If your acting on your evidence is going to send your country to war, the I do expect you to investigate it to the nth degree.
I wonder how liberals will apply this logic to Iran? Perhaps liberals may finally concede the moral high ground to Israel as they dig themselves out from beneath the radioactive rubble of what was once Tel Aviv, then proceed to vaporize 10 million Iranians. Now, that’s a code you can die by.
ilovecress, in the age of terrorism and WMD humanity cannot afford to tolerate irresponsible regimes. The risk has become far too high. If Iran continues to act irresponsibly Israel has not only the right, but the responsibility to their citizens to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, especially in light of Iran’s clearly stated goals destroying Israel. That’s exactly what they did when they took out Iraq’s nuclear reactor.
And by the way, prior to 2003 Iraq had been acting irresponsibly for the previous 35 years. In 1967, a coalition of Arab states illegally amassed troops and military hardware on Israel’s borders for the sole purpose of driving the Israelis into the sea. Iraq was one of those states, and Saddam was a part of that government. And Israel acted responsibly. They didn’t wait for the coalition to invade . . . they struck first. The war was over in 6 days. Had they waited for absolute proof of Arab intent - that being taking the first hit - it’s highly likely Israel wouldn’t exist today. And that’s a code you can live by.
But you guys dont get it… Bush, WMDs, Iraq, evil, noooooo!
...and my personal favorite:
“HALLIBURTON! End of discussion.”
Not everyone was convinced there were WMD’s in Iraq
Wrong. Everyone knew Iraq had WMD’s. It was a well documented, videotaped, UN catalogued, Saddam-admitted fact.
I understand that you may not have known this. (no, I’m not being a wiseass.)
Unfortunately, so much information that people make their political decisions on lately is second-hand from politically charged sources.
Add to that the fact that the media tends to gloss over the origins of a story, and focus only on the most current developments, and you have a recipe for large groups of uninformed or misinformed people, as we have here.
See, the argument you refer to was never “did Saddam have WMD’s?”. The only question was “Does Saddam still have the WMD’s he had in the 90’s?”.
You do rememebr the 50,000+ Kurds he murdered, right? How do you think he did that? Bad breath?
So no, there was never anyone who doubted the existence of Saddam’s WMD’s. (barring perhaps some lunatics who say aliens told them there were never any, and that Bin Laden is from Uranus.)
There were only those who doubted he still had them, and did not destroy them as he was ordered to do.
Artmonkey, I wish you could write a letter to national papers stating EXACTLY what you wrote...beautiful piece of writing regarding Saddam and his lack of WMDs! I am so sick of the argument the Leftists are making that Bush lied and that he purposely deceived our country to lead us to war against Iraq!! Now our liberal media has accepted as fact the Lefts notion that because the UN did not find WMDs that there were never any and has passed on this message to the public. People in our country rely WAY too much on our media to get all of their information. It is no wonder Bush’s rating is at an all-time low: with misconceptions by our media that their word is law, the president is never going to be seen as the righteous person he is with better moral values and sense of leadership than Bill Clinton EVER exhibited!!!
MostlyRepubMan,
Actually, I have written 2 letters to this effect to 2 of my local papers. (Small time suburban papers, but it’s a start.)
I never even got a callback to verify my identity as the letter-writer. (As is customary for anything they consider printing.)
However, every day without fail, I read a string of anti-Bush, and/or anti-War letters in both of these papers, with few or no conservative voices represented.
Mind you, this is in a region of Pennsylvania Bush carried in 2000 and 2004. You simply can’t tell me that there weren’t any letters submitted that did not include such classic phrases as “Bush lied” “Bushies” “Bush Cronies” “Bush’s rich oil buddies” etc. etc....
Hell, I know there were at least two letters to the contrary. I wrote them.
So when people shrug off the idea of a leftist media, I can only shake my head at their self-enforced ignorance. I see it, plain as day, whenever I read the morning paper.
Thanks for the support, BTW.
Artmonkey,
I don’t mean to sound like a sycophant, but if someone with your well-stated viewpoints and engaging writing style can’t get their comments posted in their podunk local paper, then something must be wrong. Liberal bias, indeed.
My own podunk paper published a letter of mine shortly after 9/11. It was in response to a four paragraph long, semi-coherent rant by one of those “blame America first” types. Curiously, my own submission was four paragraphs long as well...but somehow was edited down to only two. I really appreciated the spelling and punctuation mistakes that were added to mine, too. I realize that all sorts of editorial concerns over page space and content validity enter into the equation here, but it is curious how a newspaper which is supposedly interested in presenting both sides of an issue would selectively omit commentary from an opposing viewpoint, meanwhile eagerly printing a presumably full-length contribution by someone with a severe case of BushCheneyHallibution-itis.
By the way, I say podunk only because I’ve been to Saylorsburg ;)
RSS (Subscribe)
It appears that the press was being duped by Bush before he even took office too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html
Read the whole thing. It’s amazing what a selective memory the “Bush lied” crowd has.
(By the way, I am a centrist and not a conservative, nor particularly fond of President Bush. I just find this kind of hypocrisy to be repugnant.)