Monday, January 21, 2008
This Day in the History of Forgiving the Shirkers Who Tresspass Against Us
Labels: Democrat hypocrisy
For example, Roger Fraley advocates an agressive US military policy as long as its other people's kids who do the fighting. Roger is a perfect example of a chickenhawk because back in the day, when he had a chance to step up, he hid home under the covers. Likewise, today, his kids have other priorities.
Second, on February 10, 1968, John Kerry wrote an application to his commanding officer stating "I request service in Viet Nam". Here it is.
Roger, what part of "I request service in Viet Nam" do you not understand?
Would W have accumulated sufficient flight hours if he weren't serving on a an Alabama senatorial cmapign?
Mark, there are people out there for whom my default condition is doubt. If Dan Rather said the sun was shining at mid day, I'd automatically check the window. Disgraced is not the half of it. And stupid to bring up his greatest disgrace with his enormously stupid lawsuit. Loser doesn't begin to cover it.
Speaking of falsehood, the Center for Public Integrity has identified 935 instances in which President Bush, VP Cheney, the WH press secs, the SecDef, the asst SecDef, NSA memebers, or the Sec of State uttered falsehoods about Iraq and WMDs between 9/11/01 and 9/11/03.
So I am like Roger. There are people for whom my default position is doubt.
From Gabriel Schonefeld
532 Bush Administration Lies About Iraq
01.23.2008 - 08:06
What is a false statement? If the New York Times, relying on an outside team of meteorologists, reports that there is 100 percent probability of rain in Central Park tomorrow, but tomorrow comes and the sun shines all day, has the newspaper lied to the American people?
The question arises because of an article in today’s paper about a new online tool developed by an organization specializing in “investigative journalism in the public interest.”
In a story by John Cushman, the Times reports that “[s]tudents of how the Bush administration led the nation into the Iraq war can now go online to browse a comprehensive database of top officials’ statements before the invasion, connecting the dots between hundreds of claims, mostly discredited since then, linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or warning that he possessed forbidden weapons.”
The database has been created by The Center for Public Integrity and can be found online here. It is introduced on the website by a statement declaring that “the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.” The most visible officials in the administration “made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.” On some 532 separate occasions, ranking officials “stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration’s case for war.”
But, reports the Center, “it is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose “Duelfer Report” established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.”
What are we to make of all this? After delving into the database and reading the Center’s analysis, the question arises: did the Bush administration “methodically” lie to the public? The Center’s own answer is yes, and the same answer is the impression left by the news pages of the New York Times. Indeed, the paper reports that what the database exposes is akin to the worst political scandal of the American presidency: “Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard M. Nixon used to dismissively call ‘wallowing in Watergate.’”
Toward the end of its story, the Times notes that “officials have defended many of their prewar statements as having been based on the intelligence that was available at the time — although there is now evidence that some statements contradicted even the sketchy intelligence of the time.”
But that is an absurd way of putting it, minimizing and obscuring some central facts. Would it not have been more honest for the newspaper of record to recall that however “sketchy” the intelligence, it was not presented by the CIA to the administration as sketchy at all? Rather, it was presented as an iron-clad case, most memorably by CIA director George Tenet as a “a slam-dunk.” And would it not have been more honest to point out that the post-war studies of Iraq’s WMD program, like the Duelfer Report, had the benefit not merely of hindsight but the ability of investigators to roam freely through Iraqi archives and facilities? Back in 2002 and early 2003, when the U.S. was gearing up for war, things looked very differently than they did afterward.
This brings us back to the question which we began. What is a false statement? Did the Bush administration lie when it relied on the CIA’s estimates of Iraq’s WMD program, or is it the Center for Public Integrity that is now doing some lying, with the New York Times brazenly helping them along?
But wait.......here is more...
Here are a couple of inconvenient truths the AP story neglects to tell us:
* “A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations…”
The Fund for Independence in Journalism says its “primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups.” Eight of the eleven members of the Fund’s board of directors are either on the BoD of the Center for Public Integrity, or else are on the Center’s Advisory Board. Thus these “two” organizations are actually joined at the hip.
* “Fund for Independence in Journalism…”
The Center is heavily funded by George Soros. It has also received funding from Bill Moyers, though some of that money might have actually been from Soros, laundered through Moyers via the Open Society Foundation.
Other funders include the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts (used to be conservative, but in 1987 they veered sharply to the left, and are now a dyed-in-the-wool “progressive” funder), the Los Angeles Times Foundation, and so forth. The Center is a far-left organization funded by far-left millionaires, billionaires, and trusts…
…I’m certain it’s sheer coincidence that this nonsense was spewed across the news sockets during the peak of the election primary season… and right before the primary in Florida, of all states. Had anyone at AP or the Times realized how this might affect the election, I know their independent journalistic integrity would have suggested they hold this non-time-constrained story until afterwards. Say, they could even have used the time to consider whether “Iraq and al-Qaeda had a relationship” and “the relationship didn’t amount to direct cooperation” contradict each other.
A less charitable person than I might imagine this “database” was nothing but a mechanical tool to allow good liberals easier access to a tasty “two-minutes hate.”
But realizing that the elite media has only our best interests at heart, my only possible conclusion is that, despite the multiple layers of editorial input that must occur at these venues, several important facts just slipped through the cracks:
* The fact that the Center for Public Integrity is a Left-funded, leftist, activist organization with a serious hatchet to grind with the Bush administration;
* The fact that the Fund for Independence in Journalism is neither independent, nor is it engaged in journalism (it’s a front group of mostly the same people whose purpose is to shield the Center from lawsuits);
* And the fact that the vast majority of the supposed “false statements” are in fact simply positions with which liberals disagree, or else statements widely accepted at the time that later investigation (after deposing Saddam Hussein) showed to be inaccurate.
I must assume that these self-evident facts must simply have been honestly missed by the gimlet-eyed reporters and editors at AP and the NYT.
Shall I mention the littany of statements from the likes of Senators reid, and Clinton, Rep pelosi, hans Blix, Howard Dean, John Edwards, John kerry ?
Why is there no study or count as to their " lies" about Iraq ?
I have them if you need them. But their "lies" really don;;t matter to you I supose.....only Bush's "lies".....right ?
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
If I am able to believe Wikipedia, George Soros has funded CPI obn four occasions between 2000 and 2002 but did not fund this project.
You know, some day the twoi of you are going to come to your senses and admit the invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake. You are both intelligent and I have faith in you.
Meanwhiler Snake Hunters forwarded me some photographs of all the project in Dubai that are being funded by petro dollars and $3.00 per gallon gasoline.
Here are the facts gentlemen: the invasion of Iraq served no strategic purpose so far as our national security is concerned; the war in Iraq has caused more instability in t eregion; has empowered Iran, much more our eney and the enemy of Israel that Iraq ever was; is responsible for higher oil prices which are mostly responsible for inlaftion in ythis country and which prices have the trickle down effect of slowing our economy--not the only reason but a big one.
Slice the pie any way you like. Either the Bush administration lied to us or plunged us into the most expensive foreign policy disaster in recent history based on false intelligence.
I throw down the gauntlet on a continuing basis. You list all the positive results of the invasion after which I will overwhelm those reasons w/ the negatives.
Roger has previously identified precisely three which are:
Saddam dead; Udey dead; Qesay dead.
Any more here Rog?
I have said more than once that there is no arguing that invading Iraq, was a mistake.......there were no WMD's......Hindsight is 20/20.......
The whole Ggaggle of NOT removing Sadddam in 1991 is the seed that sprouted into this huge mistake.....worst intelligence disaster, militarily....evem moreso than Pearl Harbor....because even back in 1941, Roosevelt had an isolationist approach.
The WORLD stipulated the presence of Saddam's WMD's.....even non neo cons like Blix....again, I ask you , what were we SUPPOSED to do, in a post 911 world....?
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
Interesting comment psoted by Roger today, 01.25. about the FBI agent and Saddam.
In 199o, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, he did so in part b/c George H.W. Bush did not send him a clear message what would happen if he did so.
That said, Bush the Elder said that he did not proceed to Baghdad b/c he had no exit strategy. Had we proceeded to Baghdad in 1991, the mess that is Iraq today would have occurred 12 years earlier. That's all.
Even in a post 9/11 we have to weigh threats that are credible against ones that are less probable.
My question has always been: "Why after getting the snot kicked out of his country in battle in 1991, would Saddam attack the United States when he could be certain that the next U.S. retaliation would rsult in his deposition?"
Remember, afte 1991 his military capability eroded considerably and he had no AF having flown it to Iran b/f GW I.
Bush the elder did not oust Saddam because the UN mandate was to rid saddam from Kuwait.....not from Iraq.
The cease fire agreement was in large part put in place with conditions of removal of WMD programs......Had the UN allowed saddam to be ousted, there would have been no massacre of the Kurds, whom we ( the UN coalition ) left hanging.....so, 17UN resolutions and 12 years later, we still had the "problem" of saddam, oil for food scandals, and daily engagements with anit aircraft batteries in the no fly zones.
I agree with GHW Bush that at that time there would have been no exit strategy....he was right....because there IS NO exit strategy. We are there for good. End of story.
What's the exit strategy for the 38th parallel ?