THE WAR
What a joke. Take a look at this. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ilEvmNkMwodj0jDtAWgNtOWmaRzQD8UBB2UO2 In many ways nothing new, but when you see the actual count of false statements which led us to war it has to piss you off. It is even broken down by number of false statements, polite for lies, from Bush, from Colin Powell, let alone the total, and we're talking in the hundreds. How do we in media not feel a little guilty? I've always pointed out that I was not a journalist. Even the journalists bought into these lies, and I certainly did as well for a time. I suppose we all need to re-learn the lessons of Watergate and question authority even more. Beyond sad that you can't trust these so-called leaders. They lead us alright. Just look around at where we are.
posted by Jeff Deminski at
4:18 AM
16 Comments:
I'm right there with you in falling for these lies. I grew up in a Democrat family and have leaned that have for the most part too, but I was a big supporter of the war and Bush after the speeches he gave at the time to convince us to go to war. I assumed our President wouldn't lie to us like that and argued with much of my older-wiser family members regarding it.
Man was I pissed when I starting to find out the truth and still am.
January 23, 2008 7:59 AM
Even more important than recognizing this past deception, is using those same skills to recognize it the second time around....IRAN.
January 23, 2008 8:15 AM
All the politians lie about everything look at Debbie stabenaow she promised all the public school kids them hand held pda and after she got elected guess what? she said oh no we cant do that. Its we as all voters that get sucked into their lies and deception and for some reason cant seem to get out of the box. They all want the job but when it comes to doing the right thing like leaving Iraq alone until we really have some hard proof and helping all Americans, Bush decided to go fiish Daddys war. and I didnt want to bielive that but after reading and researching it, it looks like thats all he did. and now we all get to pay for it.
January 23, 2008 2:15 PM
My apologies, old friend, but I simply cannot let that pass without comment. I found that article to be one of the most inaccurate, distorted, and slanted pieces of liberalist garbage that I have seen outside of the far left weirdo web sites. There is a distinct difference between “false statements” and incomplete intelligence reports. One major problem is that intelligence is always incomplete; just various shades of gray that are never perfect. That is generally referred to as the “fog of war” – the difference between what is 100% known and what may possibly be. And that space in between is dangerous. Exactly how dangerous is debatable. The republicans are often accused of “fear mongering.” In order to determine the legitimacy of that charge, one must determine the extent of the actual risk. Let’s look at what we know for sure:
1. Iraq manufactured large quantities of anthrax, botulism, serin, VX, and other deadly agents (this is not in dispute by anyone - there are extraordinarily detailed records of their production).
2. They used some of this stock against their own citizens. I have pictures of the end result of these actions, if you’d like to see them.
3. There are no records of the ultimate disposition of the majority of these weapons.
Stating that there are “no links” to Qaida is misleading. Ultimately, it depends upon how you define a “link.” There is little doubt that Hussein and bin Laden hated each other, but the old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” rings true. At the very least they were linked in terms of ideology – a severe hatred of America - and it is quite possible that there were administrative links as well, especially at lower levels. Abu Nidal, one of the most notorious terrorists of all, was found in Baghdad, and there is clear and convincing evidence that several other known terrorists had at least passed through Iraq. That is not a place you just “pass through” without some type of administrative assistance at the governmental level. What they did while they were there, how much assistance they received, what that assistance consisted of, and whether these issues constitute a “link” is open to debate. It is “fog.”
So I find the statement "It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," to be patently absurd. While much of these arguments are subjective, that statement is just plain wrong. There appears to be little doubt that some of the evidence was trumped up, and some of it may have even been outright fabricated. The infamous “yellow cake” uranium from Africa is perhaps the best example, and there are others. It is also true that the conduct of the war was seriously flawed. But I find that article to be nothing more than propaganda – it is no more “journalism” than that which it seeks to criticize.
Just my opinion…
Deathpool Dave
DPDave.com
January 23, 2008 3:03 PM
Man I had to stop listening to your show when the war was just starting. You guys were so pro war it made me sick. I think the local paper was even making comments about that fact.
January 23, 2008 4:28 PM
To Deathpoole:
I found your comment to be one of the most inaccurate, distorted, and slanted pieces of chicken-hawk garbage that I have seen outside of the far right weirdo web sites.
"Ultimately, it depends upon how you define a “link.”
Hate to tell you, but ultimately, everything depends on how you define it. You could say Bush was a great president who led us into prosperity and peace if you define the mess we have today as prosperity and peace.
Things are very simple - either they lied or they didn't.
I never heard them say "Iraq mqy be producing WMD's". I heard them say "Iraq IS producing WMD's"
If they had said "Iraq was producing WMD's" like you have conviniently mentioned, I'm preetty sure it would not have had the same Impact. Tell me this, If our intelligence agencies didn't know what was going on in Iraq how come German BND and French DGSE knew?
It's been widely reported that pretty much everybody knew, but certain people chose to cover their eyes and ears - very conviniently, migh I add.
History will judge Bush very harshly. Unfortunatly, that same history will mark us as people who elected him - twice. For our choice in 2004 we will forever be placed in the same drawer as German electorate in 1933.
January 23, 2008 10:51 PM
I agree with Death Pool. Not only was his point on point it was well said. The truths we seek may never be found out. I think they expected it to be like the first time we went in where everybody surrendered and was happy to see us. A lot had changed between then and I think we underestimated just how much.
January 24, 2008 2:56 AM
I think it's just as misleading to label the statements made prior to the war as "lies". We, as a society, have come to equate false
statements with lies and that's inaccurate. We forget that it's possible that he was simply wrong. No lies...just wrong. I understand, it's fashionable to bash the government and subscribe to all kinds of conspiracy theories.
Having served in the intelligence gathering community, I can vouch for the fact that there is a structure that exists to virtually ensure accuracy prior to reporting to those in command.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that Saddam was doing everything in his power to ensure we believed he did indeed have and was prepared to use WMD's. Remember the IAEA and Hans Blix?... that was THE most fantastic cat-and-mouse shell game I've ever witnessed and the world stood by and cheered as Saddam was able to make fools of the inspectors time and again.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the Russians were selling expertise and the fuel rods while the French were selling the centrifuges used to spin the uranium. Ironically, these were the countries most opposed to any action. Nevermind the fact that it also gave the U.S. a black eye and took them down a peg or two... something the French, Russians and Chinese never miss an opportunity to exploit.
So yes... it turns out that the intelligence community was wrong. Those inaccuracies were seized by an administration too eager perhaps and they should absolutely be held accountable. But remember this... the French, the Russian... almost every foreign intelligence organization on the planet agreed Saddam had and was developing delivery components for WMD's. Why? Because he (Saddam) wanted us to believe he had them. At no point was he being honest and forthright in his dealings with the international community even when being presented ample opportunity to do so... time and time and time again.
His defiance of UN resolutions went on for a decade. Think about that for a moment. Not a week... not a month... not a year... a decade. Ten years. How long was Europe and the rest of the UN prepared to wait? How long would they have watched from the sideline? I'm sure they would have called for more "dialogue"... action seems to be something reserved for fantasy and theory to be discussed in ambiguities buried in flaccid resolutions.
When someone or a nation goes so far to intentionally mislead the
international community, I think that opens a whole lot of wiggle room with regard to what is or is not a false statement.
The bottom line, for me, is that while I think the administration was far too eager and did not go about explaining events clearly to not only us (U.S. citizens) but the global community as a whole.
Rather than claim WMD's in front of the UN... show a timeline of ALL of the UN resolutions Saddam violated from the end of the 1st Gulf War through 2003. Many of those resolutions alone provide justification for reengaging Iraqi forces in combat. Keep in mind, these resoltions were passed by the UN... these were sanctions and resolutions over many, many years that had failed to get Saddam to comply with the conditions that might have allowed him to stay in power.
January 24, 2008 3:43 AM
In response to Anonymous, in chronological order:
1. There is no “e” in pool. Sorry - I know that's a cheap shot...
2. What is “chicken hawk” garbage? I understand the garbage part of course; it’s the other phrase that has me stumped.
3. I agree that there is no shortage of crazies on both the left and the right. Clint Eastwood had a great line on it – he said they each go so far to one side that that they start meeting each other in the middle. Ha!
4. Regarding WMD: May be…Is… Was… I’m not sure what your point is. They made tons of the stuff. Everyone knew it – they openly admitted to it. The issue is what they did with the stock. This wasn’t dynamite to be used in suicide bombings – these are weapons that even with relatively crude delivery systems can kill millions.
5. If there is anything that I learned from Bill Clinton, it is that you are spot on with your comment about how we define things. He made a defendable argument that BJs are not sex, and therefore not cheating, and for that I forever owe him a debt of gratitude. And I personally would define the circumstances I described as a “link,” although I respect the validity of alternative viewpoints on that issue.
6. I disagree that it is as simple as “lied or didn’t.” I believe that there are many more layers than that and you have oversimplified a complex situation.
7. You may be right about Bush, but I don’t think we’ll know for 20 years. If democracy takes root and spreads, a tenuous assumption at best, he’ll be hailed as brilliant. If not… not so much.
8. Comparing these circumstances to Nazi Germany, and by extension the Holocaust and systematic execution of millions of people, exceeds the boundaries of hyperbole and enters the realm of silliness.
9. Speaking of – watch out for that spell check Nazi from a few posts ago – he/she may have serious issues with you. But don’t worry – we got your back on that one.
10. Be well…
January 24, 2008 10:34 AM
OK I raced to the comments section to set Jeff straight but Death Pool and Thredder beat me to it, and in a far more superior way. Good Job Men.
Let me just reiterate, there is a big difference between lying and being wrong. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry saw the same intelligence as the president. Are the liars too?
While President Bill Clinton said that Iraq had WMD's, was he lying?
The Russians, French, Germans, and Brits all said Iraq has or was seeking to acquire WMDs, were they all lying? Thredder is absolutely right when he points out that Saadam bent over backwards to make it appear as if he had these weapons. So don't use this as a reason to join the "Hate Bush" crowd. If you want to hate him, hate him for something he really did like expand government, wanted to give amnesty to illegal’s, and never seeing a spending bill he didn't like.
January 24, 2008 11:21 AM
I just wonder what might have happened if we did not go to Iraq. No one really knows anything for certain. Perhaps going over there was a mistake, but perhaps it has saved us from further threats (that we are not even aware of).
January 24, 2008 11:25 AM
To Dave,
It's funny how you brought up my spelling as an argument in this discussion. That makes me think that either you have no better argument or you feel that you're smarter than me.
Being that English is my fourth language, i feel that I'm doing pretty darn good with my spelling. BTW, how's your German spelling?
Let us get back to issue at hand...
When I mentioned Germany, I specifically said "German electorate in 1933". Those are the people that elected NSDAP (Hitler's party). They didn't want to kill Jews or start the World War, all they wanted was a strong and prosperous country. For that I'm not going to criticize them.
Problem is, however, that they fell for Hitler's rhetorical nonsense, and fear tactics, just like Americans fell for Bush's fear tactics, and deflection of real issues into issues like gay marriage.
How come we didn't find any of the wmd in Iraq?
Btw chicken hawk is someone who is pushing for war in which he wants somebody else to fight in. Also, chicken hawk could be somebody who avoided draft at any cost (perhaps by joining Texas ANG), than 30 years later sends kids to die in a war caused by his lies.
As majority of Republican politicians think - "It's OK to be in war as long as someone else's kids are fighting it."
BTW, Stuff Clinton did while wrong and discusting, doesn't come close to Bush's crimes against Humanity.
This is a Presidency of USA we're talking about here. I think we have the right to a certain standard of behaviour from people we elected.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about BJ's or causing death of 1000's of US soldiers.
One jack-ass doing something wrong doesn't give the next guy a blank check for his own criminal deeds.
January 24, 2008 7:39 PM
Oh come on gay marriage as a "real issue"? That's the least important issue even BEFORE any talk on war. Bush didn't commit any fear tactics, at least nothing new to American politics. Its just how the game is played. You're naive if you think Bush is somehow innovative on this.
There are any number of reasons. One, for example, they could have moved to like Syria. They could have been sold off on the black market. He could of buried it somewhere. You honestly believe we can dig up every square inch of Iraq for a WMD? Its the size of California. Its like finding a specific penny somewhere in your house. Its all luck to find something or not.
Oh along with that, there have been some weapons found, nothing as big as we suspected, but enough to classify as it still existed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html
500 degrading shells with mustard and sarin gas...Those seem like important WMDs themselves. Anybody remember the Tokyo subway?
Oh sure we didn't find 1000 nuclear warheads. But even if they did find that...why is it that you would say "OH THEY WERE PLANTEDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!1!111!111!"
How is that joining the Air National Guard being a draft dodger? And why do you think he was the only rich guy to do it? Oh come on. Any dad with some money did that for his son.
Plus, why does chickenhawk even exist? OOH Abe Lincoln was a chickenhawk for not getting a musket. FDR too, oh and Wilson. You know what? You don't like fires do you? Go run into a burning building and save people. Yeah doesn't really make sense does it?
"As majority of Republican politicians think - "It's OK to be in war as long as someone else's kids are fighting it.""
What the hell is this? "OOH THEY HAVE SONS, MAKE THEM FIGHT!!!!"...What? I Just what? I'm going to have to use the fight the fire argument and tell you to send your son and daughter to rescue people because you support the fire department's actions against building fires.
January 25, 2008 12:50 AM
To Anonymous,
You have made your true colors pretty clear. You’re not using any facts in your arguments, only emotions filled with obvious rage. You are resorting to name calling and stereotyping. The fact that you know 4 languages doesn't make you any more or less intelligent then anyone else. Just like Dave being a better speller doesn't make him any better or worse. I know 8 computer languages and dozens of sub languages, that doesn't make me any more intelligent either. The advantage Dave, myself, and several others that have posted here have working for us is that we are basing our opinions on the facts, not emotions. In your last post you made it absolutely clear you hate republicans and more specifically G.W. Bush. What was it you said, oh yea "As majority of Republican politicians think - It's OK to be in war as long as someone else's kids are fighting it." Since it is we republicans who vote for these poloticians, generally because they best represent our own values and views, then the majority of republicans must also feel that it is ok to go to war with other people fighting it. You know you think that is true, nice try though; you tried to skirt this criticism of what you said by including the word "Politicians" in your blanket condemnation of republicans.
I thought liberals were the "Kind", "Compassionate", "Tolerant", and "intellectual" ones of our society?
I guess that's only with people that agree with you huh?
Me, and most conservatives I know, will be the first to point out problems with "Our Guy" in office, see my previous post.
Word of advice; Your hatred is blinding you to the facts, it will be your undoing.
January 25, 2008 10:17 AM
Chronologically:
Gay marriage is NOT a real issue. That was my exact point. Instead of talking about real issues on which they have no ground to stand on, our politicians - both sides, come up with ridiculous issues that polarize people and make them forget the real problem. I like to call that political slight of hand.
You can say whatever you want on WMD's - THEY WERE NOT THERE. According to bush we knew exactly where they were when he was at the UN. Then we conviniently lost track of them.
ANG
It is draft dodging when your daddy is high ranking politician who can guarantee that you will not get sent to Vietnam.
And again, just cause all the other rich daddies did it doesn't make it right. Their kids did not start this war. Junior did. Isn't it funny how every REAL veteran politician is against the war, even republicans ( congressman Myrtha). How many of Bush's advisors or close assosciates are even Veterans?
Abe Lincoln had no war to fight in, and Abe Lincoln didn't fabricate reasons to go to war.
If you saw a House burning with people inside you wouldn't try to save them? I would. That argument is a little flawed. You might want to reitirate you "fight the fire argument" since it doesn't make sense.
Language:
EXACTLY, Knowing languages, or not being able to spell does not make you smarter or dumber. That was the point I tried to make, since i felt he was discounting my inteligence due to the fact that i misspelled.
Only thirty percent of people support the war. Sixty (or so) percent of people voted for Bush in the last elections. Lets assume that all the people who support the war voted for Bush, and that none of the people who voted against him support war. That means that 30 percent of the people who voted for him ar AGAINST the war. Some of these people have to be republicans.
That's why i said "majority of republican Politicians". Besides i think that ordinary republicans are willing to fight in the war they support. The main problem in the US is that politicians who say they stand for republican values in reality rearly do, and same goes for Democrats. They say what they think we want to hear - ie. gay marriage issue - republicans against, democrats for.
BTW, I'm not a democrat or a liberal. I am against this war cause i spent three years fighting in my home country, and I know what war really is. It makes me sick when people who never had a shot fired at them glorify war and fighting. Therefore you can keep your name calling to yourself. Please quote me where i insulted anybody or called them a name.
Do you see any parallels btw Kwame and Bush? They both screwed majorly, and they both use "us against them tactics" to rally support behind them.
I do not hate Bush. In fact I have no feelings for him, beside that I think he's a screw-up, not unlike Kwame. You guys, however, remind me of Detroit residents who defend Kwame, no matter what.
BTW, Deminski you really got a winner with this post. This thing will probably be going for a year, LOL. It's funny how certain issues get the blood boiling.
January 25, 2008 12:30 PM
Since when is it a requirement that to be Commander And Chief of the U.S. armed forces you must have served in a combat position during a war?
Do you honestly think you can sit down and talk things over with radical Islamists? Ask Israel how that goes. Those people want us all converted or dead, nothing in between, no exceptions, no compromises, no compassion, and anyone that believes otherwise is a fool.
So let me get this straight, because you fought in a war in your home country, that somehow makes you against this one. Hmm, let me see if I understand what you are saying. Are you saying we should just pull out of Iraq right this moment and disband our military (we don't obviously need it because there is no moral reason for war). We then ask the extremists to not take over Iraq, we ask the Chinese and Russians, among others, to please not invade our country because we no longer have a military. And if someone does invade us, then that's OK to, because we will just accept their ruling over us with the peace of mind that we never fired a shot in self defense? Wow, are you naive
BTW did you mean representative Murtha? He is a Democrat.
As for you having "No feelings for him" (Bush).... BULL. You admitted in the same sentence you thought he was a "screw-up, not unlike Kwame". You refer to him as "Junior" and a "draft dodger" and say his "daddy" kept him out of Vietnam, you hate him.
Oh and as for the names you have called... "Junior", "Draft Dodger", "Chicken Hawk", “screw-up”, and implicitly referred to him as Hitler.
Also, you must be a democrat because you obviously think the American public is so stupid that we could get distracted from the war on terror with gay marriage. Which, by the way, Bush did not bring up... Democrats in San Francisco and Massachusetts did, he just threw in his 2 cents. Or is it also your belief that a President can only engage one issue at a time, once that issue is complete move on to the next.
And in closing, you are a liberal, that is not name calling, it is your ideology. Why don't you go do some reading up on the issues, from multiple sources, instead of getting 100% of your opinion from CNN before you post again. And BTW, go back and read all the previous posts.... yours are the only ones that sound like “bloods boiling” (Maybe because of your hatred for Bush (The president, not girls)).
January 25, 2008 4:43 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home