[N8 v2.0]

Let's get this straight....

COMMENTARY
December 2005

Who Is Lying About Iraq?
Norman Podhoretz

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

More....

 

[Changleen]

We like to ignore stupid, partisan articles?

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=248339

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Absolutely correct, N8. It was actually Dick Cheney!

The Cheese

 

[Echo]

Being a liberal has nothing to do with why someone would ignore that.

The reason 99% of the population of the world will ignore it is because it's an asinine partisan rambling that twists facts for a ridiculous amount of time while failing to make a valid point.

 

[Ciaran]

Being a liberal has nothing to do with why someone would ignore that.

The reason 99% of the population of the world will ignore it is because it's an asinine partisan rambling that twists facts for a ridiculous amount of time while failing to make a valid point.

Kinda like N8!

 

[kidwoo]

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike.

Where?

Insanity and Holmes?

Project for a New American Century. These tools wanted Iraq LONG before the monkey with the heart attack shaking hand up it's butt got a job.

 

[N8 v2.0]

The trail of Saddam's WMD go back well into the Clinton years. I'd say we went to war based on what the intel community was reporting at the time. Saddam's WMD's were widely accepted by the democrats and was used by them to further their adgendas when they deemed it nessessary.

 

[Echo]

Except their agendas didn't include slaughtering half of Iraq's population.

 

[Tenchiro]

The trail of Saddam's WMD go back well into the Clinton years. I'd say we went to war based on what the intel community was reporting at the time. Saddam's WMD's were widely accepted by the democrats and was used by them to further their adgendas when they deemed it nessessary.

Well we know he used to have them, I mean we were the ones that gave them to him.

But apperantly he used them all before we got there.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Except their agendas didn't include slaughtering half of Iraq's population.

Yes, that al_Q thugs are a real problem.

 

[kidwoo]

Saddam's WMD's were widely accepted by the democrats and was used by them to further their adgendas when they deemed it nessessary.

What........ like legalizing abortion and gays in the military?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Except their agendas didn't include slaughtering half of Iraq's population.

It might have. Why put it past any politician?
I think we all know that Saddam did indeed have weapons in the past (regardless of who gave them to him). The only question was how much of a danger was he. Numerous politicians from both sides said he was a threat.
I guess the old adage of "All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing" may have applied to the current admin's psyche. That the democrats have gone on record saying what they did about the threat, and then later saying they'd have done nothing with the same intel should tell you something of their moral fiber. Or lackthereof.
So there were no WMDs. Who knew? Not you. Not me. Not John Kerry or Ted Kennedy or George Bush. But at least we know now. And we're trying to fix the place up.
Gripe all you want about how it's being handled. Im all for that, because without complaint, there'd never be improvement. But to harp on the original intent... C'mon guys. Use your heads.

 

[Changleen]

Did you somehow not notice the part where the CIA didn't believe there was a current threat, but somehow that information was ignored?

 

[kidwoo]

... C'mon guys. Use your heads.

I use mine enough to know that everyone that voted for the invasion did so only with the "modified" intelligence they were provided by bush's security council which was nowhere near the level at which that bushy himself had access to.

I'll say it again. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've actually heard of it.

Project for a New American Century.

If you haven't, find it.

Okay quiz time: Which current member of bush's high level administration actually DIDN'T have their name on it?

 

[N8 v2.0]

I use mine enough to know that everyone that voted for the invasion did so only with the "modified" intelligence they were provided by bush's security council which was nowhere near the level at which that bushy himself had access to.

Yeeeaahhh.... riiiiight.... been in the kool-aid again?

 

[kidwoo]

Yeeeaahhh.... riiiiight.... been in the kool-aid again?

So you'll actually sit there and tell me that members of congress had access to everything bush did when they voted?

 

[N8 v2.0]

So you'll actually sit there and tell me that members of congress had access to everything bush did when they voted?

..same crap as they had acess to when Senior Clinton was in...

 

[kidwoo]

..same crap as they had acess to when Senior Clinton was in...

.......and even that never necessitaed an invasion.

It was only AFTER what bush claimed to know that the case was made.

The VERY FIRST security council meeting bush ever had in 2001, the fist thing he brought up was finding justification for going into Iraq....long before september.

 

[N8 v2.0]

.......and even that never necessitaed an invasion.

It was only AFTER what bush claimed to know that the case was made.

The VERY FIRST security council meeting bush ever had in 2001, the fist thing he brought up was finding justification for going into Iraq....long before september.

:cue Twilight Zone theme song:

 

[BurlyShirley]

I use mine enough to know that everyone that voted for the invasion did so only with the "modified" intelligence they were provided by bush's security council which was nowhere near the level at which that bushy himself had access to.

You mean the same intel the British, French and German leaders saw too? As it was a collaboration from numerous sources? I think you should try thinking a little harder about this...with your head, and not your heart. I cant think of one piece of intel put forth by ANYONE that said otherwise... can you?
What intel specifically can Bush see that higher US govt cannot? ie. national defense commitee. What intel are you so sure that he saw that French and German leaders did not see, but that Tony Blair obviously did?

 

[BurlyShirley]

.......and even that never necessitaed an invasion.

It was only AFTER what bush claimed to know that the case was made.

The VERY FIRST security council meeting bush ever had in 2001, the fist thing he brought up was finding justification for going into Iraq....long before september.

And as I said before, if the belief that Saddam had WMDs was prevalent, "All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing"

 

[kidwoo]

You mean the same intel the British, French and German leaders saw too? ?

France and Germany opposed the invasion. That's why we're supposed to not like them remember? Unless there's another France and Germany somewhere that you know about.

As it was a collaboration from numerous sources? I think you should try thinking a little harder about this...with your head, and not your heart. I cant think of one piece of intel put forth by ANYONE that said otherwise... can you?

Richard Clarke. Hans Blix. Pretty much the entire United Nations. The France and Germany that are in Europe (I don't know about the other france and germany)

My "heart" has nothing to do with it. I get budget cuts at work because we are at war.....started with the wrong people.

What intel specifically can Bush see that higher US govt cannot? ie. national defense commitee. What intel are you so sure that he saw that French and German leaders did not see, but that Tony Blair obviously did?

Quite a bit. The national security council provides the president's office with whatever it requests. Reports sent to congress are refined versions.

And Tony Blair is the US's b1tch for a lot of other reasons than feeling that we had a right and an obligation to do what we did.

And France and Germany opposed the war........did I mention that?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Jesus. Where did you learn how to quote?

I added France and Germany SPECIFICALLY because they opposed the invasion and still offered ZERO intel to counter the intel put forward by the russians, us and israelis. I thought that wouldhave been obvious, but apparently I gave you too much initial credit.
Now, what about that intel from Hans Blix and the "Entire UN" as you put it?
I seem to remember them placing sanctions on iraq and sending in weapons investigators and saddam "not fully complieing",but I dont remember ANY CONTRADICTORY INTEL AT ALL. So please, where is this intel you speak of. Maybe i just forgot about it.

 

[kidwoo]

Jesus. Where did you learn how to quote?.

Same place you leart too spel. I fixed it right after I sawr it.

"not fully complieing",

I added France and Germany SPECIFICALLY because they opposed the invasion and still offered ZERO intel to counter the intel put forward by the russians, us and israelis. I thought that wouldhave been obvious, but apparently I gave you too much initial credit.
Now, what about that intel from Hans Blix and the "Entire UN" as you put it?
I seem to remember them placing sanctions on iraq and sending in weapons investigators and saddam "not fully complieing",but I dont remember ANY CONTRADICTORY INTEL AT ALL. So please, where is this intel you speak of. Maybe i just forgot about it.

So based on that logic, we had a right to invade not because the supporting evidence was weak, but because other countries (as well as some members of our own government) couldn't come up with proof of a negative?

Based on that we might as well invade everyone.

You don't need anything more contradictory other than zero justification for doing it. Which (especially in retrospect) is what there has always been.

Then what do you think about the shifting justifications.....Saddam supports terrorism, terrorism attacks occurred here, let's go get him ...............to the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction that "could" be used here? One came after the other when the first was weak. Which brings me to my previous point. Neither wmds nor 9/11 had squat to do with these guys wanting Iraq. You still haven't done your homework. Look up what I asked you to and answer my question.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Same place you leart too spel. I fixed it right after I sawr it.






So based on that logic, we had a right to invade not because the supporting evidence was weak, but because other countries (as well as some members of our own government) couldn't come up with proof of a negative?

Based on that we might as well invade everyone.

You don't need anything more contradictory other than zero justification for doing it. Which (especially in retrospect) is what there has always been.

Then what do you think about the shifting justifications.....Saddam supports terrorism, terrorism attacks occurred here, let's go get him ...............to the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction that "could" be used here? One came after the other when the first was weak. Which brings me to my previous point. Neither wmds nor 9/11 had squat to do with these guys wanting Iraq. You still haven't done your homework. Look up what I asked you to and answer my question.

B!tch I dont owe you homework or sh!t else.
If you have evidence in court, and the defense has nothing to counter, then the verdict is guilt. Period. You got nothing.

 

[ohio]

ANY CONTRADICTORY INTEL AT ALL

Do you understand what it is to prove a negative? It's impossible for them to say there are no WMDs in Iraq. All they can do is ask for positive proof. Did you ever see any positive proof of WMD stockpiles? Did you ever see any positive proof of intent to create WMDs? The absence of a proof positive IS the contradictory intel that you're looking for.

Even the CIA said that any evidence for WMDs was shaky. Bush et al selectively rejected and modified reports to err towards a predefined conclusion. Perhaps not suprisingly, this is the same technique people use to "prove" creationism.

 

[ohio]

If you have evidence in court, and the defense has nothing to counter

What if the prosecution says "I have the evidence at home, but forgot to bring it to court, but you can trust me on this one?"

 

[BurlyShirley]

What if the prosecution says "I have the evidence at home, but forgot to bring it to court, but you can trust me on this one?"

They presented it. Satellite images. Documents. 2nd hand rumors from crack whores. All the goods.

Its freaking Saddam Hussein. The world was probably MORE shocked that he didnt have any.

 

[kidwoo]

B!tch I dont owe you homework or sh!t else.
.

And that's why you're an ignorant moron who sounds so foolish when you pipe up.

Look it up kid and you might begin to grasp what I've been talking about.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And that's why you're an ignorant moron who sounds so foolish when you pipe up.

Just because I decide not to prop up your tangent (and thats exactly what it is) doesnt mean Im uninformed. It just means Im not hear to play your stupid game.
The quotes from both sides are there to see. Just read them.

 

[kidwoo]

Just because I decide not to prop up your tangent (and thats exactly what it is) doesnt mean Im uninformed. .

It's not tangential when it lays out a desire to invade iraq in the 90s...expressed by the majority of bush's cabinet during his first term.

So yes, about this administration and it's actions, you are ignorant.

 

[BurlyShirley]

It's not tangential when it lays out a desire to invade iraq in the 90s...expressed by the majority of bush's cabinet during his first term.

So yes, about this administration and it's actions, you are ignorant.

So I see you have completely abandoned the debate at hand. Good job. Id expect nothing less from someone with no argument who is intelectually outmatched. Good try though.

 

[kidwoo]

So I see you have completely abandoned the debate at hand. Good job. Id expect nothing less from someone with no argument who is intelectually outmatched. Good try though.

Oh good gawd.
By you? Hardly.
The intellectual prowess of BS. That's classic.

I've been saying all along that based on bush's reasons for going to war, we should not have. I've laid out a document drafted and/or signed by the majority of bush's cabinet before he was in office detailing the US's need to take control of Iraq (You refuse to read it and so have no opinion on what I offer as justification of my point)...........and I've stated that the "intelligence" bush had access to is much more thorough than what was presented to congress......which is true and that there was actually a pretty large consensus beyond these here borders that our case for going to war was weak.....which was echoed by the very same people that bush sent as weapons inspectors. Plus shooting down your "logic" that it was okay to invade because we couldn't prove a negative. You don't understand that do you?

So what is it exactly that I've backed down from?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Oh good gawd.
By you? Hardly.
The intellectual prowess of BS. That's classic.

I've been saying all along that based on bush's reasons for going to war, we should not have. I've laid out a document drafted and/or signed by the majority of bush's cabinet before he was in office detailing the US's need to take control of Iraq (You refuse to read it and so have no opinion on what I offer as justification of my point)...........and I've stated that the "intelligence" bush had access to is much more thorough than what was presented to congress......which is true and that there was actually a pretty large consensus beyond these here borders that our case for going to war was weak.....which was echoed by the very same people that bush sent as weapons inspectors. Plus shooting down your "logic" that it was okay to invade because we couldn't prove a negative. You don't understand that do you?

So what is it exactly that I've backed down from?

And again you refuse to answer ANY of my previous questions. Unbelievable. Do your parents know that you're on the computer again?

 

[kidwoo]

And again you refuse to answer ANY of my previous questions. Unbelievable. Do your parents know that you're on the computer again?

Okay, I just went back and looked.

I did answer your questions. Anywhere I didn't answer directly, I pointed out flaws in the reasoning of even asking such questions. If anything you haven't responded to my points with anything more than condescending bs and you're trying to act like you won an argument. Repeating it doesn't make it so and it sounds like insults are all you have left. Go back and read a bit.

 

[Changleen]

:cue Twilight Zone theme song:

No N8, That is a fact.

 

[Changleen]

Specifically, the DIA concluded the following in February 2002:

“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”

 

[Changleen]

and..

Remember Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, when he made that frightening, compelling case for war? He knew the American public would never send their children to die for oil or something so vague as a "pax Americana." No, he needed something more dramatic, something visual, something scary ... a mushroom cloud!

So we heard him deliver those now infamous 16 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." One left that speech picturing Iraqi missiles aimed right at grandma.

Problem is, the White House had known for a year that the charges were absolutely false. In February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate precisely those rumors. Wilson not only concluded that they were baseless, but an actual hoax using forged documents. He said so to the CIA, which passed the information up to the White House.

The case should have been closed with that. Yet there was Bush, nearly a full year after Wilson's report, beating the drums of war while chanting proven untruths. So six months later, in July 2003, Wilson penned an op-ed for The New York Times, concluding that "the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

 

[kidwoo]

I think chang and I are the only ones reading this thread still but here's a rough summary of what BS refuses to bother himself with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Pay attention to some of the dates.

The document itself "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is pretty long and tedious but you can't ignore the contradiction of Iraq suddenly becoming a threat only after 9/11.

So n8, regardless of your attempts to make some sort of statement about my sanity, here's some proof of what I've been saying. Please educate yourself before taking hollow jabs.

I also appreciate the fact that you, like me were actually old enough to vote in 2000 as well as the 90s.

 

[narlus]

dan quayle's on the PNAC...good to see he's still plugging away...doing whatever it is he does...