Yesterday, Ray McGovern -- an American citizen with a 27-year career as a CIA analyst behind him -- stood up at a speech given by Donald Rumsfeld and aggressively questioned Rumsfeld on various statements Rumsfeld made regarding Iraq. McGovern specifically questioned Rumsfeld about this claim made in March, 2003: "We know where [the WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." We all know what happens to people, including those with a long history of government service, who publicly embarrass the administration - it's time for a nice heap of character smear.
Today, Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds praises and links to an investigation into McGovern's "background" which was undertaken by The Gateway Pundit. Reynolds asks: "Why don't the Big Media do this kind of thing?"
What is it that Gateway Pundit's investigation revealed about McGovern that prompted Reynolds' admiration, along with his lament that "Big Media" failed to issue a similar report? To begin with, in the headlines of Gateway Pundit's post, we learn right away that McGovern is a"nutjob," as in: "Nutjob Ray McGovern Heckles Rummy."
But that revelation is just the beginning. Gateway Pundit also informs us that McGovern is a "certified nutcase" who "has a trail of lunatic behavior a mile long." G.P. also uncovered evidence conclusively demonstrating that McGovern is a "moonbat." I agree with Instapundit- what right does the MSM have to keep this important information from us?
What is the evidence which supports these substantive allegations? G.P. first cites a website - something called PrisonPlanet.com - with the headline: "Government May be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism," presumably to imply that McGovern believes that Islamic terrorist attacks are perpetrated by the U.S. Government. In fact, the website merely quotes McGovern as accusing the administration and its supporters of manipulating terrorist threats in order to maximize their power and urging skepticism about government statements in the event that another terrorist attack prompts efforts to impose martial law.
McGovern has also said that the desire for control over oil and the desire by some "zionists" to benefit Israel were factors influencing the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- views which apparently makes him both crazy and anti-Semitic. Moreover, McGovern travelled to Iraq as part of what G.P. calls a "hate America freakshow" that included "pedophile" (not to mention former United States Marine officer and aide to General Norman Schwarzkopf) Scott Ritter, whose pre-war claims about Iraq (in stark contrast to Instapundit, among others) proved to be entirely true. G.P. also uncovered the highly incriminating fact that McGovern (like 60% of Americans) also opposes the war in Iraq and, as a result, has attended various anti-war events. G.P. also links to "Allahpundit" over at Hot Air, Michelle Malkin's new venture, where the same "charges" are repeated.
So that's the sum of the evidence that the career CIA analyst McGovern is a "nutjob," a "moonbat," and a "certified nutcase" with a "trail of lunatic behavior a mile long" - he opposes the war in Iraq, associates with former U.S. Marine Scott Ritter, and believes that oil and Israel were factors in why we invaded Iraq. All of that leads Instapundit to lament that "Big Media" doesn't do more of this -- namely, smear people with playground epithets and accuse them of being mentally ill if they engage in anti-war activism or if they question the President.
Neither Instapudnit, Gateway Pundit, nor Allah address the substantive point -- that Donald Rumsfeld told the country that he "knows" where WMDs are, and when confronted by McGovern with that false statement, denied that he made it. That fact is, of course, nowhere near as important as engaging in a vicious and frenzied character smear of yet another American who spent his entire career in service to his country and yet has his patriotism and mental health called into question by virtue of standing up to the administration. McGovern is in good company -- along with Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson, Howard Dean, Al Gore, the war critic Generals, and all of the other corrupt, mentally ill and/or unpatriotic Americans whose motives and/or mental health have been similarly maligned after standing up to the administration.
That's the ugly modus operandi of so many Bush defenders. When an American stands up and aggressively criticizes the President and his policies, they immediately insist that there must be something severely wrong with their character or mental state. Ignoring the criticism itself, they try to maul the messenger. Ray McGovern should wear those smears, coming from these particular circles, as a badge of honor.
UPDATE: Needless to say, LGF has joined in the fun, informing us that McGovern is a "radical leftist, Jew hating creep." Aside from reflecting the typical rage that gets unleashed towards Bush critics, in terms of assessing the validity of McGovern's accusations against Rumsfeld, how does any of this smearing matter?
Not only is a lopsided majority of Americans (like McGovern) against the war in Iraq, they also believe (like McGovern) that the Bush administration "intentionally misled" the country into war. The fringe, radical, discredited views on the war are not those expressed by McGovern, but are those expressed by Instadpundit, LGF and company. And yet those same extremists continue to classify people who oppose the war as "radicals"and "leftists" because they apparently still believe -- even in the face of all that evidence to the contrary -- that it is their pro-war views which represent what mainstream Americans believe.
One wonders how are country has survived all these crazy people in positions of importance before the President came along to suss them out.
ReplyDeleteLike Glenn, I wonder about the psychology that allows them instantly look past the merits of any criticism and instead attack the messenger on the first grounds available, no matter how tendentious.
I keep asking this, at some point where do the slander and libel laws in this country kicks in? If someone labeled me a 'nutjob' I'd hit them with a defamation suit inside of 10 seconds. It doesn't matter if I made myself a public figure if I openly question the lies of a political hack on TV: at some point, people should not be allowed to use insults, nor to use lies, to frame the debate.
ReplyDeleteBush Personnel Announcement at 1:45
ReplyDeleteGet that typewriter out, Bart.
Ad. Hominem.
ReplyDeletePorter Goss Resigns!!!
ReplyDeleteHookers, anyone?
I'm a bit conflicted about the claim that using the word 'Zionist' implies anti-Semitism, when used in conjunction with accusations of expansionist and imperialist, er, protocols.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand ... no. Not necessarily anti-Semitic at all, a perfectly good descriptive word (though I'm always interested in hearing what people who use the word think it means).
On the other hand, denying that the word has been used, and is often used, with anti-Semitic undertones (or overtones, for that matter) is simply naive. This doesn't go to the point of this post, of course, which is that McGovern raised a question of fact, and is being non-answered with personal venom. But in the same way that I think 'Negro' is a word which raises suspicions, despite being used by, say the UNCF, people who toss around 'Zionist' make me nervous.
What's wrong with 'right-wing Israel supporters' or 'rabid Likudniks' or something? Zionist? I dunno ...
But as I said, this has no bearing on the larger point. Just been thinking about it.
I also loved how Rumsfeld said "I'm not in the intelligence business." Clearly.
ReplyDeleteThis Hidden Imam person apparently believes that illustrating Mr. Greenwald's point somehow refutes it. Another example of the strangeness of the conservative mind.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiousity.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone anywhere answer McGovern's questions?
Hookergate is goning to be great entertainment until the midterm elections
I'm Anon at 2:51, and the hidden imam goes a long way toward convincing me that I'm utterly wrong.
ReplyDeleteI just endured Bill O'lielly defending Rummy on the radio while using the exact same smear tactics. To his credit he played the interchange right up to the non sequitur moment which is significantly more than any of the major networks, but then my head nearly spun off when his soothing spin job invoked the exact sake non sequitur of everyone knows that Zarqawi was in Baghdad.
ReplyDeleteAnd still the frog sits atop the bunsen burner...
"Bush = Right 100%
ReplyDeleteEvery bush critic = nutjob
What is so hard for you moonbats to understand?"
Typical response to any and all bush critic.
sunny said...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Glenn. Unfair smears -- unlike blaming the J-E-W-S -- have no place among us civilized and progressive folk.
I think Glenn may be Jewish, so your criticism of him on this score is off the mark.
2:55 PM
Hidden Imam - dim bulb.
Thanks for the reminder to "KEEP OUR EYES ON THE BALL" both today and tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteWell, apparently, according to one of Gateway Pundit's links, McGovern did tell his boss at the CIA he thinks Israel financed 9/11.
ReplyDeleteI would also point out that at that "Prison Planet" link, there is in turn a link to the remarks of Congressman Ron Paul, the only full-blown libertarian in that body:
"If we don't change our ways we will go the way of Rome and I see that as rather sad.....the worst things happen when you get the so-called Republican conservatives in charge from Nixon on down, big government flourishes under Republicans."
"It's really hard to believe it's happening right in front of us. Whether it's the torture or the process of denying habeas corpus to an American citizen."
"I think the arrogance of power that they have where they themselves are like Communists....in the sense that they decide what is right. The Communist Party said that they decided what was right or wrong, it wasn't a higher source."…
"These guys are ready to start a war with Iran, Syria, North Korea or China. They can't possibly do that, it's so insane, we don't have the money, we don't have the troops, we probably don't even have the ammunition."
"But, if they are truly delusional they just might do something that's totally irrational."
Who the hell cares WHO asked the question of Rummy. The point is whether the question was valid.
ReplyDeleteIt was, proven by Rummie's lie to avoid it.
If Idi Amin ascended from eternal damnation to ask Rummie that question; it would not have made the question less valid.
Who the hell cares WHO asked the question of Rummy. The point is whether the question was valid.
ReplyDeleteIt was, proven by Rummie's lie to avoid it.
If Idi Amin ascended from eternal damnation to ask Rummie that question; it would not have made the question less valid.
Ditto anonymous 3:15 p.m. I wouldn't care if Lyndon LaRouche himself asked those questions.
ReplyDeleteThis has never been sufficiently investigated or explained. Track down the local MSM reports if you can. From long ago in the Sunday Herald....
ReplyDeleteFive Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ...
.....The respected New York Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported in March 2002, however, that it had received a briefing on the case of the five Israelis from a US official who was regularly updated by law enforcement agencies. This is what he told The Forward: “The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it.” He added that “the conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs”, but the men were released because they “did not know anything about 9/11”.
Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment: “The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.” But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?
We are now deep in conspiracy theory territory. But there is more than a little circumstantial evidence to show that Mossad – whose motto is “By way of deception, thou shalt do war” – was spying on Arab extremists in the USA and may have known that September 11 was in the offing, yet decided to withhold vital information from their American counterparts which could have prevented the terror attacks.
Following September 11, 2001, more than 60 Israelis were taken into custody under the Patriot Act and immigration laws. One highly placed investigator told Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were “tie-ins” between the Israelis and September 11; the hint was clearly that they’d gathered intelligence on the planned attacks but kept it to themselves.
The Fox News source refused to give details, saying: “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” Fox News is not noted for its condemnation of Israel; it’s a ruggedly patriotic news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch and was President Bush’s main cheerleader in the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.
Another group of around 140 Israelis were detained prior to September 11, 2001, in the USA as part of a widespread investigation into a suspected espionage ring run by Israel inside the USA. Government documents refer to the spy ring as an “organised intelligence-gathering operation” designed to “penetrate government facilities”. Most of those arrested had served in the Israeli armed forces – but military service is compulsory in Israel. Nevertheless, a number had an intelligence background.
You want to be careful with two sources TBR, The Barnes Review. A well known holocaust revisionism disinfo organ. And LaRouche's EIR, Executive Intelligence Review. All the best propaganda and disinfo contains some truth mixed in with the lies.
ReplyDeleteWell it WAS time to smear the latest Bush critic. NOW it's time for the MSM to assure the American public Porter Goss resigned to "spend more time with his family."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that smearing and name-calling just FEELS good.
ReplyDeleteAnd as long as the Amen Chorus is loud enough, people can go on beleiving whatever they want.
PS... both sides do it to some degree or another, but the ReTHUGS (see, i just did it) are the ones currently in power and are leading our nation into disaster.
Look, I am not sure that anyone on any side is getting this right. I think the polls Glenn often cites to show that the majority of Americans do not like Bush, do not agree with the war, believe we were misled into the war, etc. are accurate BUT irrelevant. At least, they have not yet proved to be relevant in the current political climate. This is where the whole thing unravels. Disapproval/approval is only relevant at the voting booth and if this alleged swell of anti-Bush/GOP sentiment does not translate into major changes during mid-term elections, then all of these people calling other people "moonbats", "left-wingers", etc. might just have a point insofar as they are saying these criticims of the administration are on the fringe. I mean, they do appear to be on the fringe of influence.
ReplyDeletePut differently, would you think polls are so relevant if, in fact, the polls do not translate into votes?
Perhaps there is a poll out there that shows the ratio of those polled to those polled who vote (or don't vote). There is a disconnect here and I can not seem to identify the underlying reason. At times I think it is because there is no voice able to harness the (suspected) American discontent and translate that discontent into consensus of opinion sufficient to alter the political discourse. Other times, I think that on an individual basis, the discontent is only strong enough to mention when it is easy to answer (phone, in the mall, on the computer) and you don't have to get in your car, or bus, or whatever, and express your opinion by physically moving your body through space. I even sometimes wonder if there is a miss here and that many confuse water cooler chatter with a call for a political overhaul.
If you ask me if I prefer Stella Artois over Busch, I'd say "yeah, no doubt about it". But if you ask me if I am willing to drive to the swanky part of town to buy my preference on a day-in day-out basis, I'd say, "Ummm, no."
I have no doubt that if we had internet voting, or press-a-button-from-your-couch voting, there would be different political culture today. But we don't.
I *think* the tide is turning, I *feel like* a change is coming, but the evidence for this is not yet clear. And I am not sure that the current polling really traslates to much more than a bunch of people saying they like Brad and Anjelina over Tom and Katie.
The right needs to get a new line. Effectively, they've said nothing. I mean, it's not surprising that they have no meaningful comeback to what McGovern said, but c'mon guys. At least get in the fight.
ReplyDelete.
Oh brother redux.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone here remember the "Nuts and Sluts" strategy of a short time ago?
But let me leave that aspect of the controversy to others. Something left out of the accusation was this from the same interview….
I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.
Also left out of the accusation is that this is day nine of the invasion, which I believe was being called a “quagmire” at the time. But the point is that Rumsfeld may have been mistaken, but he didn’t lie.
Consider this, none of the allegations thrown around could be made with out the invasion having taken place. It is all hindsight. Assume we had not invaded. No one would know any more than was known before the invasion. Just as Democrats claimed pre-invasion we would all be asking where Saddam was hiding the WMD’s. Not if, but where.
Even Blix in his report to the UN just two months before the invasion said that …
"Iraq has not genuinely accepted the UN resolution demanding that it disarm and while Baghdad is cooperating on access, it needs to do more on substance" to demonstrate that it ended its pursuit of missiles and biological and chemical arms, Blix told the 15-member Security Council.
.Repeatedly, Blix noted that Iraq was failing to provide "evidence" that it had destroyed weapons that UN inspectors know were once in Iraqi arsenals.
Glenn says that the failure of the press to disabuse the public of the notion that Saddam took part in 9/11 was their greatest failure. I disagree. It’s presenting hindsight as foreknowledge.
The people, such as instapundit and LGF, who write and read blogs such as his, are incapable of seeing the truth. Their entire identity is wrapped up in being a neo-conservative and they actively seek out the ideas that support their position and reject the ones that don't. (Actually, we all do this on some level.) They cannot be changed. If it makes them feel good to call people names, fine. Is it intelligent? No, frankly, it's pathetic. And all they are doing is talking to each other. The fact is, it's the PROGRESSIVE blogs that are getting all the traffic, especially all the NEW traffic. Progressive blogs offer intelligent discourse and try to get to the bottom of issues. Conservative blogs offer name calling and immature dialog. Yes, it's priggish, but keep in mind they are a minority.
ReplyDeleteIt may be too late for most in the MSM to report the facts and seek the truth. All we can do is call them on their lameness and hold them accountable. They don't like bloggers? Cry me a river. Boo hoo.
Glenn, the LGF-ers, Bill OReilly and all the rest haven't yet figured out that they are no longer in the Lunatic Majority, they are now just the lunatic fringe.
ReplyDeleteIt's going to be a rude awakening for them someday.
Mossad – whose motto is “By way of deception, thou shalt do war” – was spying on Arab extremists in the USA and may have known that September 11 was in the offing, yet decided to withhold vital information from their American counterparts which could have prevented the terror attacks.
ReplyDeleteAny chance the FBI will be going to Israel to investigate these accusations and, if found true, will arrest the responsible individuals? After all, they--like Moussaui--are said to have known and did nothing to stop the crnage, ie, the very thing that Moussaui was almost sentenced to death for.
"But the point is that Rumsfeld may have been mistaken, but he didn’t lie."
ReplyDeleteWhen you claim you KNOW something which you do not KNOW, you are lying.
Rumsfeld lied.
He may have BELIEVED Saddam had WMD, and he may have BELIEVED they were in the places he named, but BELIEF is not KNOWLEDGE. To present your BELIEF as KNOWLEDGE is to misrepresent what you really KNOW.
(Blix's UN weapons inspectors complained they were being sent on wild goose chases, as they would be directed by the administration to search HERE, or THERE, or THERE, as that's were WMD were hidden...and EACH and EVERY time, they found nothing. So there was no reason for Rumsfeld to be confident that his BELIEFS constituted KNOWLEDGE or were in any way true. But then, they didn't really concern themselves with that...they BELIEVED they would eventually find SOMETHING somewhere...some little traces or remnants would be sufficient, if nothing more were found...but they assumed they would find something which they could point to later and say "SEE?! We found WMD! There's got to be more somewhere!" That would have been sufficient for them to claim vindication and most Americans would simply have accepted such claims.)
I NEVER accepted the need to invade Iraq...I'm no genius, but even aside from there never having been any proven connection between 9/11 and Hussein, there was ample public discussion even at that time of the doubts of any remaining WMD in Iraq, and of the means by which the Administration was trying to gin up their claims...for those who wanted to see it, there was reason even then to be skeptical of the Administration's claims and to require greater proof before simply accepting their fear-mongering as factual. It was not all hindsight, as some now would have it. Of course, I'm not alonel...forgotten now are the mass anti-war marches which took place around the world prior to our invasion...hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people knew even then there was scant evidence to support an invasion of Iraq.
Rumsfeld lied. As did Bush and Cheney and Rice, et al.
Lots of comments but only one deals with what Rumsfeld actually said.
ReplyDeleteShooter242- you get an A. Hidden Imam and Hypatia B's.
The rest of you, including the bragging litigator, get F's
Terry Gain
I think the ever-so progressive, Cynic Librarian, would be much happier sipping tea in some rundown joint in Amman sharing in the Arab national pastime of endlessly trading in conspiracy theories and blaming the ominpotent J-E-W-S for everything from 9-11 to the tsunamis.
ReplyDeletehidden imam: ...sipping tea in some rundown joint in Amman...
ReplyDeleteThere you go again with those stereotypes about "dirty, animal" Arabs/Muslims. Why "rundown dirty"? Wny not upscale, trendy--as I am sure there are such in Amman and other places around the Mideast. But then you don't want the world to know that Muslims are actually human beings, but simply deracinated, bestial dirt bags.
As far as your insinuation that I trade in conspiracy theories: I believe the poster from whom I took the quote I cited took his/her information from Israeli newspapers and sources.
it occurs to me that these type of weblog attacks on bush's critics are essentially
ReplyDeleteattack ads.
that is, they are similar to those negative political ads run on t.v., ads whose intent is not to inform
in the sense of introducing a candidate and his views
or
of arguing one side or the other of an issue,
but are instead
intended to leave a reader with a negative impression of the bush critic.
in short the classic ad hominem attack described in informal logic.
to do this either in an attack ad on tv or in a weblog post,
one only needs to employ some emotionally loaded words --
"nutcase", "nutjob",
"moonbat", "anti-semitic",
"freakshow", "pedophile",
"anti-war", "radical leftist".
the psychological mechanism which makes negative tv advertising so effective is
the tendency of viewers to store and more easily remember and recall negative info about the individual criticized in the ad
and from that info to form a long-lasting negative opinion of that individual.
in short, "bad" news about a person sticks,
and it sticks in precisely the way that bush propagandists would like it to stick,
with citizens who might otherwise consider
the merits
of the criticism of the bush administration, e.g., the questions mcgovern asked rumsfeld.
would anyone like to bet that there is a centralized network associated with the national republican party , led by ken mehlman, whose task is to dole out appropriate derogatory words to weblog hosts in the expectation they will posts these bits of propaganda.
i think its is very important to do what ggr has done here, to scrutinize in detail item by item the criticisms of mcgovern by reynolds, et al.
but i think it is also important to place this types of attack in the larger context into which they fit,
namely,
these weblog posts are political propaganda
designed to control public discourse
and to deflect, obfuscate, or bury criticism of the bush administration.
and these weblog attack ads have the benefit of also being cheap
very cheap.
Born at the Crest of the Empire thinks that the WaPo has a blockbuster Goss story on the front burner.
ReplyDeletePrison Planet are absolute clowns. I found an article from them the other day that went on and on about imaginary riots during the immigration protests monday, including the colorful image of a county worker in Santa Ana being STABBED THROUGH THE CHEST WITH A MEXICAN FLAG.
ReplyDeleteLike, totally.
Posted about thar.
shooter242 said,
ReplyDeleteConsider this, none of the allegations thrown around could be made with out the invasion having taken place. It is all hindsight.
Utter hogwash.
Robert -everyone's a liar-1014
ReplyDeleteHow is it lying when the Clinton appointed Director of the CIA (ergo not your patsy) tells you it's slam dunk? Slam dunk. Four letter words just like liar. Is it that you find some four letter words to complicated.?
You seem to have been overtaken by a partisan frenzy. Don't have a fair mind? Fair. Mind. More four letter words with which you are unfamiliar?
Terry Gain
Terry Gain
< Robert1014 said...
ReplyDeleteRumsfeld lied.
He may have BELIEVED Saddam had WMD, and he may have BELIEVED they were in the places he named, but BELIEF is not KNOWLEDGE. To present your BELIEF as KNOWLEDGE is to misrepresent what you really KNOW.
Just to demonstrate the fallacious nature of that, consider that every religion requires that one believe what cannot be proven (know). In short you have just declared every religious person of every faith a liar.
Once again, Rumsfeld may have been mistaken, but he didn't lie.
Something left out of the accusation was this from the same interview….
ReplyDeleteI would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.
Of course you know that laughable bit of excuse-making has nothing to do with the statement about WMDs around Tikrit and Baghdad, right?
CL,
ReplyDeleteThe J-E-W-S were behind 9-11. You don't need to convince me. And we're in good company -- McGovern, Ahamadinejad, not to mention our friends sipping tea all day in the uber-trendy and upscale cafes just lining the streets of the paradise that is Amman and Damascus.
shooter: Just to demonstrate the fallacious nature of that, consider that every religion requires that one believe what cannot be proven (know). In short you have just declared every religious person of every faith a liar.
ReplyDeleteTalk about fallacious reasoining. As any logician in modern epistemology will tell you, the nature of religious belief is not the same as normal, everyday belief based on empirical facts (or lack thereof).
Not only that but you introduce the fallacy ofg begging the question since you assert something that you assume is true: ie, that religious belief is the same as empirically based belief.
Finally, you introduce the fallacy of red herring since you divert the attnetion away from the statement under discussion and attempt instead to introduce another, unrelated, issue: ie, that religious believers ate liars, which in and of itself is based on the previously stated fallcy of begging the question.
Sorry to be so late to the commentary - I was too busy lollerbating over the repeated "smear the critic" attempts the jackasses put out...
ReplyDeleteThe Smear is really ALL they have. Notice how it hasn't worked for awhile? The polls continue their Price-Is-Right-Mountain-Man trek downward DESPITE the consistent smear attempts of (seemingly) everyday's new critic.
One would think that a group opposing critics (ie the republicans) would STOP using tactics that are plainly don't work anymore, and move on to implement new strategies that DO work.
Ergo, they don't HAVE any other weapons in their arsenal.
Or to put it another way: conservatism has been shown to be a complete sham, rather like "Intelligent Design" - there's nothing to it beyond smearing anyone who disagrees.
Shooter 242 said (first quoting Robert1014) "'Rumsfeld lied.
ReplyDeleteHe may have BELIEVED Saddam had WMD, and he may have BELIEVED they were in the places he named, but BELIEF is not KNOWLEDGE. To present your BELIEF as KNOWLEDGE is to misrepresent what you really KNOW.' (end quote of Robert1014)
Just to demonstrate the fallacious nature of that, consider that every religion requires that one believe what cannot be proven (know). In short you have just declared every religious person of every faith a liar.
Once again, Rumsfeld may have been mistaken, but he didn't lie."
Invalid analogy. By definition, religious belief cannot be proved true, but only believed on faith. Implicit in any expression of religious faith is the unspoken assumption that the speaker is voicing merely his own belief.
Rumsfeld was speaking of a matter which could presumably be materially known; his statement of certain knowledge implied the administration had--what did he call it?--"bullet-proof" evidence of the existence of WMD, and in the places he named. "Bullet-proof" evidence could only be something in the nature of photographic evidence, or other similar unimpeachable documentation. Hearsay and speculation based on--in many cases--years old reporting, does NOT constitute "bullet-proof" evidence.
Thus, Rumsfeld lied when he asserted certain knowledge. There was no implicit presumption by we, the listening public, that he was expressing only that which the administration BELIEVED to be true.
There's no way around it; he's a lying war criminal.
Terry Gain,
ReplyDeleteWhen one of my students' papers is off-topic, he recieves and incomplete. Therefore, in your scoring of everyone, please take the topic of the original post into consideration. Perhaps you would like to revise your assessments?
Sorry for the interuption and back to your regular programming :)
Everybody gets to beleive whatever they want. I personally knew Rumsfield was lying back when he made the statement. I didn't need to wait until the end of the war to find out there were no WMD's.
ReplyDeleteHow did I know? Because that conforms to my world-view and during the run-up to the war my BS detector was sounding a clarion any time any of those SOB's opened their mouth.
That's why we need a media that doesn't roll over and play dead.
It seems our institutional BS detecter is out of order.
Consider this, none of the allegations thrown around could be made with out the invasion having taken place. It is all hindsight. Assume we had not invaded. No one would know any more than was known before the invasion.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as how Bush had to throw the weapons inspectors out of Iraq before they could continue finding nothing, you are full of shit.
Then again, you'd have to be to take your position.
.
Glenn,
ReplyDeletePretty convenient that you left out the link to the Washington Post quoting Mr. McGovern saying that the war in Iraq was for oil & to give the US & Israel bases to “dominate that part of the world” or his ties to Israeli blaming Cindy Sheehan, the Peace House in Texas or Code Pink. Amazingly enough not only has the MSM not bothered to show those partisan points/statements or anti-Semitic remarks in regards to Mr. McGovern, which was the point inferred by Reynolds, but that you glossed right over it as well & made it all about the war in Iraq in generic terms. The leftist or Jew hating comments are easily supported by the Post article, Sheehan’s numerous “Zionist” statements, the socialist & anti-Israeli support shown by Code Pink, etc. Yep, you sure have proven it as just another glaring example of baseless accusations to reduce Bush critics as nut-jobs & nothing to do w/ the actual statements or beliefs publicly presented by McGovern or his supporters. I guess we can’t consider Sheehan & Code Pink radical leftists or their “Zionist” conspiracy based rants as anti-Israeli either, so you’re right they are just baselessly attacking the innocent. Let me guess because they are mindless cultists, right?
I'll take Daphne's recommendation to heart and follow up on Glenn's posting. At the risk of sounding like a stick-in-the mud rhetorician, I find the tactics used by supporters of Rumsfeld and the Bush propaganda machine in general pretty standard.
ReplyDeleteAs Aristotle pointed out a long time ago, the general public is simply incapable of following a rigorously logical discussion. The truth of this for a modern audience can be seen in considering the conversation of quantum physicists. The knowledge and expertise needed to understand such a discussion is simply beyond most of us.
What people can understand, though, arguments based on appeals to people's character. Most people determine the truth or falsehood of an assertion based simply on the fact that they believe the speaker is or is not a virtuous person. Therefore, we find modern advertising, for example, using stars (alive and dead) as spokespeople for their products. Depending on whether an audience member believes the spokespeople is somewhat to look up to (think of commercials with John Wayne selling beer) or who they think is worthy of respect they will buy that product.
The same considerations apply to politics. People will follow, listen to, support a person whose character they think is virtuous. Virtue here doesn't just mean the moralistic connotation that the term has in general usage, eg, people beyond moral reproach. It includes other issues like prudence, learning, and emotional things like courage, continence, friendliness, and so on.
As a lawyer, Glenn is used to the idea that you can convince an audience of the truth if you present enough facts and connect enough dots. The logical nature of the argument is just as important as the evidence. But a jury sequestered together and under the guidance of judges and lawyers is different than the general public who must often rely on their instincts.
(Although there is the news. The attorney's role in the daily news is provided by talking heads, who try to sort out the facts and get to the "logic" of the siutation.)
My comments are probably pretty obvious and therefore no-brainers. They do suggest, however, why one of the most common tactics used by politicos is to attack the character and motivations of people who present facts and truths that counter the prevailing line that the politicos are selling.
Someone might want to let the geniuses on the right know that the neoconservatives, including Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, told Bill Clinton in 1998 that we needed to invade Iraq because, “...the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.”
ReplyDeleteThose traitorous, anti-Semitic nutjobs.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Let me guess because they are mindless cultists, right?
ReplyDeleteApparently. Got anything sold?
Didn't think so.
.
Something like 66% of all poll respondents have obviously fallen prey to mental illness just within the last few years, because they now do not approve of the job Bush is doing, although they did before.
ReplyDeleteWe need to hire about 50 million psychiatrists and parachute them in to every community in the U.S. so they can treat all this mental illness. And incidentally it will mean a big windfall for the pharmaceutical companies. Lithium, anyone? Haldol? Prozac?
Only for those who distrust the current administration. All other crazy people are fine: just keep doing whatever you are doing.
The cynic librarian says:
ReplyDeleteTalk about fallacious reasoining. As any logician in modern epistemology will tell you, the nature of religious belief is not the same as normal, everyday belief based on empirical facts (or lack thereof).
Oh for crying out loud. I didn’t expect to get into a discussion about the nature of belief. Not being a logician or epistemologist, let’s keep it simple. It seems to me that: Knowledge is actually belief.
Belief is actually prediction.
Knowledge is actually prediction.
Do we really want to get into what people “know” and how they “know” it?
Religion happens to be a universal that relies on belief. Instead, how about the assertion that “I know the sun will rise tomorrow morning.” In actuality it’s just a prediction. A belief. Rumsfeld didn’t inspect the facilities in question up close and personal. Based on the information he had, he thought it reasonable to say he “knew”. Like most people.
Now, if you want to insist that everyone without actual, personal, recorded, total, knowledge of something; start any assertion with the words “I believe”, I can go along with that. But I do mean everybody. Of course, any statistical assertions will become invalid.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, Roberts assertion…
To present your BELIEF as KNOWLEDGE is to misrepresent what you really KNOW.
….remains unaddressed. Care to comment, or are you just going to play professor?
shooter: When I stop laughing at your response to my comments, I will try to disentangle the gibberish that you just posted and post some remarks. I ain't promising anything though. It looks like a pretty big job...
ReplyDeleteshooter 242,
ReplyDeleteFollow the money....
Who benefits...
Rumsfield was defending a decision to go to war based on what everyone now knows were false pretenses. He stated that he knew something. In fact he couldn't have known it because in order for you to know something, it HAS TO BE TRUE. ergo he falsely claimed to know something when he didn't. ergo he lied....
To build on arne's point above, you can see the same dynamic at work here in these threads, specifically how even the slightest mention or criticism of Israel or any of its internal movements/dynamics invariably results in screams of anti-semitism. Few charges can chill a line of argument faster than that one.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, our resident contrarians when arguing in defense of the Administration's more egregious actions have tended to fall back on emotive appeals to Article II that appear impervious to the hard fact the issue has never been clearly adjudicated. Consequently they prefer to claim we are "at war" (a dubious position) and that we 'must' rally about the Commander-in-Chief.
It would be comedic if it weren't such a sad commentary on our nation's capacity for rational debate and action.
daphne said...
ReplyDeleteTerry Gain,
"When one of my students' papers is off-topic, he recieves and incomplete."
daphne
I'm old school. So old that we were taught "i before e except after c and except as in neighbour (sic-CDN) and weigh."
And we were taught to always read our work over twice before handing it in. (Though like everyone I too am guilty of the odd typo such as "to" instead of "too" in my last comment)
Those off topic should get an F. Soft marking leads to soft heads as the comments on this blog indicate- where an inability to reason logically contributes to this phenomenon of people posting comments which infer the worst kind of motives in those with whom they happen to disagree.
So tell me daphne: if you had 10 plausible reasons for doing something - nine of which were beyond serious rebuke and one of which was perhaps false- would you emphasize the one point which was perhaps false?
No? Neither would I and neither would Bush or anyone else.
daphne , if you want to educate better citizens, give out more F's
Terry Gain
It would be comedic if it weren't such a sad commentary on our nation's capacity for rational debate and action.
ReplyDeleteI blame the homosexuals, activist judges, liberals in Massachusetts, flag-burning, illegal aliens, Hollywood, and the lack of prayer in schools.
Robert says
ReplyDeletehis statement of certain knowledge implied the administration had--what did he call it?--"bullet-proof" evidence of the existence of WMD,
Not quite, it seems the “protestor of uncertain character” had shifted in mid-protest to this statement by Rumsfeld…..
”Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
Mr. Rumsfeld said that recently declassified intelligence reports about suspected ties between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, including the presence of senior members of Al Qaeda in Baghdad in "recent periods," were "factual" and "exactly accurate."
Do you want to contest that statement as well? Ironically we have this too from you.
There's no way around it; he's a lying war criminal.
So let me see if I have this straight… since this is an unproven belief and not absolute uncontested knowledge, you’re a liar?
Just trying to make sure I understand where you're coming from. Heh.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLots of comments but only one deals with what Rumsfeld actually said.
Shooter242- you get an A. Hidden Imam and Hypatia B's.
The rest of you, including the bragging litigator, get F's
Terry Gain
4:44 PM
Thank you, instructor Terry Gain, American College of HVAC professionals and School of Automotive Science.
Phd9 says:
ReplyDeleteHe stated that he knew something. In fact he couldn't have known it because in order for you to know something, it HAS TO BE TRUE. ergo he falsely claimed to know something when he didn't. ergo he lied....
I had no idea that I was in the company of such august personages, where every statement of fact, is guaranteed true by virtue of being a statement of fact. Gosh.
Unfortunately for we lesser lights occasionally make mistakes, which presumably then, makes us all liars. Double gosh.
I’d guess you wouldn’t admit to being a liar. Can I assume then that you have never made the assertion that you knew something and were also wrong? Why….that would make you perfect! Or a liar! Triple gosh.
We are not worthy.
But to be on the safe side, I’d better not admit to knowing that for sure.
Terry Gain said...
ReplyDeleteI'm old school.
HVAC? I think you mean hoamskooled. With postgraduate work at Hamburger University.
Isn't Terry Gain a psuedonym for Ben Domenech, when he's writing original stuff?
Shooter242 said...
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that I was in the company of such august personages
We didn't think you just came here for the facts and "reality". It has a "liberal" bias, yanno.
"'I know the sun will rise tomorrow morning.' In actuality it's just a prediction. A belief."
ReplyDeleteI knew the earth was the center of the universe! Einstein was a liar!
Get a brian, moran!
I guess we can’t consider Sheehan & Code Pink radical leftists or their “Zionist” conspiracy based rants as anti-Israeli either, so you’re right they are just baselessly attacking the innocent. Let me guess because they are mindless cultists, right?
ReplyDeleteCorrect. And I met and worked with all of the above in Crawford during two hot weeks in April last year. And from a first person prespective I can unbashedly say you are an idiot.
Oh, and a mindless cultist.
Anti-lukid and anti-AIPAC is not anti-Jewish.
When you lose someone close to you in Iraq, then you have the right to criticize Cindy. Till then you are a chickenhawk and a little mousie farting into the void.
Paul Rosenberg says:
ReplyDeleteIt depends what the meaning of "know" is.
That would be the first step out of the semantic quagmire, but I’m not holding my breath on a consensus. If Rumsfeld is going to be held as liar, for believing something that turned out to be incorrect, there’s not much hope of common ground.
On the other hand, I don’t have to reference Plato for most people to understand the distinctions involved.
"Thank you, instructor Terry Gain, American College of HVAC professionals and School of Automotive Science."anonymous
ReplyDeleteIt's professor to you anonymous.
HVAC- Hot-headed,Venting Angry and Clueless? Moi ou Vous? C'est vous non? Shouldn't there be a D or L in there as well.
Irony- using an ad hominen attack in a blog which is deploring them.
The real Terry Gain
Question:
ReplyDeleteIf the conduct of members of the Bush Administration and its supporters doesn't qualify as thuggish, what does?
What we're seeing is nothing more than a new version of organized crime.
Quotes for shooter and Terry the laundry detergent...
ReplyDelete"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- and the updated and current -
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you voted for George Bush, not once but twice. But I repeat myself."
Mark Twain
FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
A.B.
Irony- using an ad hominen attack in a blog which is deploring them.
ReplyDeleteThe real Terry Gain
I don't deplore them. I revel in them. And this isn't my blog. I'm not responsible for it's content, nor is it responsible for mine. If it gets too rough for you, you can always retreat.
N.B. If this is too rough for you, you must be a Republican WATB.
"If Rumsfeld is going to be held as liar, for believing something that turned out to be incorrect, there’s not much hope of common ground.shooter242"
ReplyDeleteshooter 242,
Go to the head of the class. You need only add "and which everyone else of note believed to be true".
The liars are the revisionists. They act as if there is no record.
No takers on my 6:31 post?
So tell me daphne: if you had 10 plausible reasons for doing something - nine of which were beyond serious rebuke and one of which was perhaps false- would you emphasize the one point which was perhaps false?
Terry Gain
That would be the first step out of the semantic quagmire, but I’m not holding my breath on a consensus. If Rumsfeld is going to be held as liar, for believing something that turned out to be incorrect, there’s not much hope of common ground.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I don’t have to reference Plato for most people to understand the distinctions involved.
It's truly amazing that anyone is ever convicted of a crime in this country. Being a nation of such home spun philosophers and all.
"If Rumsfeld is going to be held as liar, for believing something that turned out to be incorrect, there’s not much hope of common ground.shooter242"
ReplyDeleteRumsfeld is a liar because he denied ever saying he knew where the WMD were. That was a lie. When you have been "impeached" and your credibility is nil, the jury of public opinion takes that into account and treats all your "testimony" as suspect. Rumsfeld is a liar, or a person with a very poor memory. In either case, not credible.
No takers on my 6:31 post?
ReplyDeleteSee above.
for the faux philosophers...
ReplyDeletenot credible = liar
>If Rumsfeld is going to be held as liar, for believing something that turned out to be incorrect, there’s not much hope of common ground.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just that he claimed to "know" where the WMD's were, but that he denied having said that when McGovern confronted him. I suppose it's just a matter of whether he now believes that he didn't say something that he in fact did, or is it a matter of belief whether he in fact said it in the first place?
People who don't have their heads up their ass will skip over these sophistries to the third, and greatest likelihood: that Rumsfeld lied the first time and was trying to skate on it when confronted on it in public, like any other run-of-the-mill liar with whom we have all had experience.
As far as the righties are concerned, the Instapunk (and I mean "punk" in the prison sense) is an amazing guy - that a moron like he could actually be a law professor. But when you think that his state has one of the lowest bars to pass, it's how he managed to get there.
ReplyDeleteAs to Charles Johnson, the man is a failure at being an L.A. heavy metal dude, and used to regularly be denied entry to The Rainbow on grounds of being an obvious dork and general loser. Need anyone say more? As to the rest of Little Green Hairballs, the site proves what happens when computers become so user-friendly that bipeds who lack frontal lobes and opposable thumbs can use them.
"2 percent is a landslide mandate."
ReplyDeleteThen again, it's quite possible that Rumsfeld, the entire administration in fact, are all convinced they are Napoleon Bonaparte, Ceasar, Queen Anne, Cleopatra, and would pass a polygraph if questioned. In which case...
ReplyDeleteA cartoon for shooter and those dazzled by his display of wit of wisdom.
ReplyDeleteYou can't believe something to be true when you know things that contradict it. For example, the tubes bit. The administration knew they couldn't be used in a nuclear program yet used it as a central piece of intelligence anyway.
ReplyDeleteIsn't Scott Ritter, like McGovern, a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity? If so, that the two "associate" would hardly be much of a surprise.
ReplyDeleteThe most convincing evidence that Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration lied about WMDs, is their complete and utter lack of concern at the failure to find any.
ReplyDeleteHell, has it even been clearly stated what specifically the intelligence failure was? Is it that the WMDs didn't exist, or that they did exist and have been moved/hidden/destroyed?
The collective shoulder-shrug of the right concerning the second worst intelligence failure in U.S. history is nothing short of stunning.
Put another way, they had Goddamned better be lying, otherwise they're the most criminally negligent pack of idiots to ever hold office and have done more to put WMDs into al Qaeda's hands than Saddam and bin Laden combined.
For another point, we already know that these guys will use lies to encourage a war. The 'Iraqi soldiers dumping children out of incubators to steal them' incident of the first gulf war was particularly egregrious.
ReplyDeleteLGF and Instapunkit are probably trying to pull what happened to Ben "the plagarist" Domenich....It must be very frustrating for them that Mr McGovern is merely a man who wants the Government to admit to its lies....Tsk tsk.
ReplyDeleteAnd then in the great right-wing tradition they decided they had nothing, so they just make sh*t up...how sad and pathetic. But then so are their fans.
I find it so peculiar -- why is it that opposing the Bush admin makes one an automatic "leftist?" These guys have reduced their ideology down to one basic point --- "Our team, right or wrong."
ReplyDeleteSo you can be a Marine, a former ambassador appointed by a Republican, a CIA operative --- damn, the entire CIA, according to some at Free Republic --- and if you dispute what Bush does you and everything about you is tarred "Left" or "liberal."
Now, I'm a proud liberal myself, but I find all this very amusing that suddenly I have many suppose fellow-liberals that would be very very surprised to hear themselves characterized that way.
And its even more funny to hear how they twist themselves into logical pretzels when Bush does something that is counter to conservative ideology.
OF course he's mad as a hatter. What else can they say? They sure as hell aren't going to point out that McGovern was the guy who gave Bush Sr his daily intel briefing
ReplyDelete"if you had 10 plausible reasons for doing something - nine of which were beyond serious rebuke and one of which was perhaps false- would you emphasize the one point which was perhaps false?"
ReplyDeleteThere were four major reasons given for invading Iraq:
1) Liberation of the Iraqi people
2) Flypaper.
3) Links to al Qaeda
4) WMDs
The first and second reasons flatly contradict each other, as anyone with a functioning brain could tell you. You don't liberate a people from a murderous, oppressive psychopath by inviting thousands of murderous, oppressive psychopaths into the country to turn their front yards into battlefields. That's just idiotic.
The third reason has shown to be somewhat true. Bin Laden worked with Iraqi intelligence in Sudan in the 90's. However, the ties are nothing compared to that of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and of couse, Sudan (about whom we did nothing while they butchered hundreds of thousands in Darfur over the course of two years)
But the bigger point here is that it is al Qaeda who declared war on us and attacked us on 9/11. Saddam's involvement is as nothing more than a gun runner; and as any decent republican will tell you, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" The "people" in this instance are al Qaeda. Shutting down Iraq is like shutting down an L.A. gunshop and expecting the Crips and the Bloods to start having tea parties.
Iraq was one of many source on which al Qaeda drew, and it was a very limited source at that. The enemy in this conflict is al Qaeda, not Iraq. The invasion has distracted from that.
The fourth reason has been a complete failure, and as I mentioned in my Anonymous 8:19pm comment, we're not sure as to the nature of that failure.
So to your specific point: if someone gave me four reasons to do something, two of which flatly contradict each other, and a third which distracts from the greater problem, I'd look pretty damned close at the fourth reason when it comes up snake-eyes.
The dry rot just goes deeper and deeper to the heart of this admin:
ReplyDeleteNow, corrupt contractors saucing up Agency officials and members of Congress to get contracts and free money. Hospitality suites where the saucing takes place. Hookers in the mix. It's going on for more than a decade, various members of the key committees in the mix. Goss, former member of one of those committees, appoints one of the key players in all this mess as the number three guy at CIA? The feds leaning hard on the limo company owner who probably knows all the details and already has a long rap sheet and can't afford another conviction?
At the risk of being called an anti-semite myself I must say I find it deliciously ironic when far right wing Republicans attack someone as being anti-jewish. Do you let them in your country clubs yet?
ReplyDeleteStamaknox,
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that polls don't equal election results, you are putting your finger on the heart of the problem, and it's a lot more serious than you realize.
You can actually go a step further and say that "votes don't equal election results" either. In fact, you can say that "elections don't equal democracy" as is certainly the case since 2000.
I don't know if you realize how right you are.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI find it so peculiar -- why is it that opposing the Bush admin makes one an automatic "leftist?" These guys have reduced their ideology down to one basic point --- "Our team, right or wrong."
It's:
Our team is the only team, wrong or crazy.
Stamaknox is right. In addition, while a majority of Americans appear to dislike Bush and the Republican controlled Congress, do they really have a viable alternative?
ReplyDeleteDemocrats are quickly allowing themselves to become just as political irrelevant as the Libertarians and Greens.
So yes, while most Americans disapprove of Bush and the Republican controlled Congress, when November comes around, are there going to be any real strong candidates against the Reps and Sens?
That's a rhetorical question that you each have to ask yourselves. Then ask yourself just how far you are willing to go to support that alternative candidate and ensure they win. If you're not willing to sacrifice, then they don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Plain and simple.
jj: Then ask yourself just how far you are willing to go to support that alternative candidate and ensure they win. If you're not willing to sacrifice, then they don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that by the time the elections come round, the stink emanating from this Goss story will be so bad most republicans willsimply stay away.
There's also the laugh factor: anyone voting republican will run the risk of being branded the village fool.
"There's also the laugh factor: anyone voting republican will run the risk of being branded the village fool."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that wasn't enough to stop them the last 3 times. I just hope that there is a stong opposing Democrat in each and every district and Senate race for 2006.
It's all about mind control. They don't know what game they are playing because they are conditions over years. But what they are doing is called information control and it is a huge mind control technique.
ReplyDeleteBy telling the cult that McGovern fits into their pre ordained "not a worthy American” glass bottle they effectively keep the cult from looking at what he actually said. Face it, they turned Kerry, a silver star recipient, into a traitor in a matter a few days; they can make the right mold to any thought they wish.
Mind control by information control - this is very common technique used by cults like the Moonies. If they show that someone is a neggo or anti-cult then the Moon followers can ignore any and all information that person presents no matter how accurate or important it may be. Doesn’t matter - the cults minds are closed, controlled.
The right has done this through years of demonizing any source of information which does not go along with their world view. This didn’t happen yesterday. They have been trained not to trust or even believe documented fact from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, BBC, The NYT, the LAtimes the list goes on and on.
Now you add to the mix this idea that the MSM isn't exposing these sickening smears, it reinforces their view that they are being persecuted and everyone who isn't on their side is a Bush hater and sub human out to destroy the nation. Cults see it the same way. The right is not insane they are very much cult like. It doesn’t matter that the real world knows it is Bush’s policies that are taking the world to hell, they just cast that off.. They must above all protect the cult of conservatism. The country can go to hell, the cult view must be #1.
They will come out of their shell if say, the NYT backs their view in an article, then will quote it and quote it - but only for that one report, it does not carry. Your credibility is only as good as your most recent support of the cult.
There is more to this and I am not saying they even have clue what they have allowed to happen to them. But think about it… they honor every word Rush tells them for instance. This is a man who has a history of spreading misinformation and propaganda, it is well documented. But instead of looking questioningly at what he says they absorb it into their cult world view. Even if one believes Rush, anyone not in the cult can tell that he never tells them both sides of anything and just skips altogether subjects which tell them they wrong.
When was the last time Rush discussed with his listeners the fact that Sun Myung Moon has funded their movement with billions of dollars swindled from widows in Japan? You think he will discuss that? Of course not. So the right just thinks it is being persecuted by U.S. Citizen George Soros who gives a paltry 20 million to liberal causes in one election cycle. Soros doesn’t even exert control over these groups, Moon BRAGS about using the Washington Times to “influence” America. Moon spends BILLIONS bringing the right to power in America but Soros is a horror and evil.
Rush has NO ONE who disagrees with him on his show and sure as hell won’t debate anyone other than an occasional culled listener selected by his screener and then Rush controls the volume to what they says. He is a closed shop propagandist but the cult follows. Like WMD, they still believe they were found. Many of them do. They think Bush is talking to them in code when he says there were no WMD. They think he is just saying that because the MSM makes him do it and they know in code that there were WMD.
Check this out – it shows by example how they have intentionally deceived but they do not care. The cult’s view is more important.
http://tinyurl.com/3vqcw
Georgetown Law School professor David Cole describes how Bill O'Reilly deliberately cut out a recorded statement from the head of the 9/11 Commission to mislead his audience about links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
___
Point is, Rush talks to them 3 hours a day, five days a week for the last 18 years.
Koresh did NOT talk to his cult that much. The Dravidians got less mind training that the right has been fed. Critical thinking is gone on the right, a sense of proportion is totally gone.
It is huge national security issue. Half the country is literally controlled. And worse they are creating much worse in their children who have no chance. Look at someone like Domemech or their other “young guns” … these are people reared on diet of lies. The country has a huge problem. Reality is not a part of half the countries world view. People who have given and given to this nation are cast off by fake patriots.
Sad.
I think Lawyers may actually be trained to be very short sighted. They can't see problems because for them it is like looking for elephants with microscopes. Being able to see the bigger picture requires a kind of systems level perspective which I think lawyers lack. Lawyers are not expected to consider the consequences of their actions, only to reduce the law to a verdict.
ReplyDeleteLets mention part of Al Neuharth comments. he is known for his generally Republican views:
ReplyDelete"President Abraham Lincoln was right when he said: 'You may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.'"
Bush is at or near the bottom. 34% approval represents mostly unshakeable far-right wingers. Like Bush, Vice President Cheney and company, they are in denial. 24% in the polls, who still approved of President Richard Nixon before he resigned in disgrace, were obviously also in denial.
Those who have switched from Pro-Bush to against-Bush finally realized that they were suckered by Bush and his buddies back then about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, his tie to terrorists and his threat to the USA and the crap about spreading freedom, the war paying for itself, the mission accomplished, the photo ops, and the list goes on.
By now many of the former pro-Bush's are realizing the rest of the Lies and the huge damages done to this country by this criminal Administration.
Even to those few idiots in denial, still standing on a burning boat, It becomes hard to believe that they have to pay so much at the pump, lose their job, fall more often into poverty and have higher costs in Health insurance and worse coverage. The arguments they bring up to support their belief becomes as pathetic as their stupidity.
You guys learned well from Rove. If someone says something you don't like, you trash him. Is that simple. The real sick people are you, NO frikkin doubt about that. Psychology 1 on 1.
"If Rumsfeld is going to be held as liar, for believing something that turned out to be incorrect, there’s not much hope of common ground.shooter242"
ReplyDeleteHis "incorrection" has led to the deaths of 2400+ US soldiers, and between 30,000 and 100,000 mainly innocent Iraqis.
What's it take to get a guy fired in this administration? I recall the massive RW case of the vapors that forced Les Aspin to resign due to the Mogadishu fiasco in 1993 (a situation, btw, inherited by the Clinton administration). Yet, an incorrection that has cost us close to $1 trillion dollars and so many lives, does not reach a threshold of outrage for the RW apologist?
Talk about moral relativism, no one quite does it like the sanctimonious and hyper-hypocritical Bushbots on the Right.
Okay, so the wingnuts don't think, they believe. Just look at any of Shooter's comments and they are rife with belief. Same with Instapooter. I don't recall a single supporting link in his post (I could be wrong) but Glenn's is peppered with links and supporting info.
ReplyDeleteSad to say that I remember, vaguely, the love it or leave it argument the first time. Just like bell bottoms, it boggles the mind that they made a comeback.
The anti-Semite is leveled constantly at Noam Chomsky, a Jew, because he is a fierce critic of the Likkud.
Just remember what Colbert said: the last 1/3 is usually backwash. Will the last wingnut in wingnuttia please turn out the light?
Thought you'd appreciate knowing just what a "nutcase" "lunatic" "leftist/radical" McGovern is. According to this post at TPM Cafe, McGovern was the person who gave the daily intel briefings to George H. W. Bush.
ReplyDeleteHow's that for nutcase certification?
Nip them in the bud Glenn. Good on ya.
ReplyDeleteThose who refuse to show proper deference to Dear Leader and all Party officials will be shot.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing -- Reynolds says "this reminds me of Matt Welch's old project of googling antiwar people to discover how many (quite a few) had been apologists for Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal efforts."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I remember. It was February 2002, before Iraq, after the fall of the Taliban. But Welch's project was to google signatories to a "free Slobodan" petition, pure and simple (I looked up a guy named Peter Gingold). There wasn't any "anti-war gotcha" angle to it; Welch was motivated by dislike/loathing for Milosevic, not to score points in the US culture/politics wars.
Upshot: Reynolds gets every single thing wrong in a 3 line post.
"The enemy in this conflict is al Qaeda, not Iraq. The invasion has distracted from that."
ReplyDeleteYou've obviously been getting your information from MSM rather than the pros who know what's going on. In fact Iraq has turned into a real quagmire -for al Qaeda. They've been decimated and their practice of killing innocent civilians has revealed them for what they are. They are being reduced in the minds of rational Muslims to the contemptible bastards that they are.
You won't read about this in MSM because it means Bush was right.
Iraqi forces are being built up to the extent that American troops will largely be out of Iraq in the next two couple years. A couple of divisions will remain to continue lending support to the Iraqi armed forces and to kill any remaining foreigh terrorists who want to commit suicide.
The losers in America will somehow try to portray the withdrawal as a defeat.
Terry Gain
Im an anglo-atheist who happens to find talk fo "Zionist" manipulations and such somewhat disturbing and a definite turn-off.
ReplyDeleteProblem is that I think some mainstream people have felt almost compelled to throw in a "Zionist" accusation simply to keep the support of the uber-radicals who never can seem to stay on message.
"Because clearly anyone that opposes certain Israeli policies hates the Jews"
ReplyDeleteYes, its true the "anti-semitism" label is thrown around.
It's also true that the majority of anti-semites takes pains to disguise their prejudice as legitimate "anti-zionism".
Given the 1000 year history of violence against Jews (and the relatively constant justifications for it) I think I can cut them a little slack if they are sometimes a bit jumpy on the trigger with that word.
If a white southerner cracked a metaphor about "lynching" his black opponent "at the polls" would you expect blacks to say "well,it was just a mataphor..."? Would even most whites excuse it as a harmless bit of rhetoric?
Well, when the "anti-zionist" rhetoric starts to resemble past rhetoric that resulted in real violence, I cant blame some people who being sensitive about too.
I would like to ask McGovern who said the following:
ReplyDelete" In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
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.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom? "
And who said this?
""Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the
world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons," "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability
of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The
international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume
cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance,"
If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S.
power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed,"
"We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspections
system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also
will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from
acting to gain domination in the region."
"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far
greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his
neighbors; he will make war on his own people,"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
??
the idea that belief equals knowledge doesn't pass the gut test. to believe i'm munching a mango, isn't the same as actually eating one.
ReplyDeletetrust your gut to discern what is or isn't true.
just say grow!
"His "incorrection" has led to the deaths of 2400+ US soldiers, and between 30,000 and 100,000 mainly innocent Iraqis. "anonymous
ReplyDelete---
More lies. According to UNICEF 50,000 Iraqi infants were dying every year b/c of sanctions (while this hero built palaces.)There were 332,000 bodies found in mass graves, another 300,000-600,00 killed during his genocidal reign of terror and 4 million exiled.
The liberation of Iraq has saved tens of thousands of lives even as it's being fought.
99% of those innocent Iraqis were killed by terrorists. The killing in Iraq has been going on since 1979- at a much higher rate than now. There are two major differences. Before April 2003 the people had no hope it would ever end. They now know it will end.
The second major difference is that before April 2003 the people doing the killing were the government.
The world owes a huge debt to those 2400 who fought and sacrificed their lives for the betterment of all but against the wishes of the world and now their colleagues who fight without the support of the countrymen whose interests they are defending.
They don't deserve this. I don't hear too many of them saying they have lost. They are in fact proud of what they have accomplished as well they should be. Why have you abandoned them for petty partisan politics?
Terry Gain
Nuf said,
ReplyDeleteSource? link?
You mean to say another 500 Sunnis signed up? Steady progress though not enough to satisfy the fast food crowd.
Fuck yeah? Do you mean ya? My how articulate and persuasive.
Terry Gain
"Talk about moral relativism, no one quite does it like the sanctimonious and hyper-hypocritical Bushbots on the Right."
ReplyDeleteGOD HELP US if large numbers of Bush opponents turn around and support some Liberal who tries the same kind of power-grab (for "liberal" reasons, of course).
I hope you really dont think this is a right-left thing so much as a 'True Believer'-Heretic thing.
Right or left, TBs will justify any atrocity in the name of their pet cause.
The Cynic Librarian said:
ReplyDelete"There's also the laugh factor: anyone voting republican will run the risk of being branded the village fool."
-----
It may work that way. If it does, look how bad it had to get in order for the Democrats to get into power by default. That's a big deal. And, again, it may not work that way. Why would anyone automatically think the corollary to the polls is a new party in office/ Congress?
Perhaps if the spinners on the Demo side, or anti-Bush side, can successfully intertwine corruption and the Republicans (or more to Glenn's post, the conservatives), the inference is a sound one. But that hasn't happened yet. Logic would say that in a two party system, the inference should be a sound one. Unless the public dislikes the Democrats just as much.
With these poll numbers, if the Democrats do not win back both Houses *by default*, it is a loss for the Demos. But, like James JJ says, we will have to see how strong each candidate is. Merely being in the "other party" will not be enough.
Pope Ratzo: You are, I take it, implying ... a conspiracy? Never have gone for those myself without very strong evidence meeting a really high burden of proof. I look at the 2000 Presidential election as an anomaly, of course.
When you parse together quotes out of context to build a straw man, Terry, remember to remove the double quotes.
ReplyDeleteStop smearing the man and defending bush and think.
You won't read about this in MSM because it means Bush was right.
ReplyDeleteTURN UP THE GAIN, TERRY!
TURN IT UP TO ELEVEN, MATE!
BUSH WAS RIGHT!~
Hey. What's wrong with you? The guy's saying that up is down because -- UP IS DOWN!!
ReplyDeleteWhat part of "Up is Down!" don't you GET??
Everybody Sing! Let's Hold Hands, too!
ReplyDeleteBush Was Right
Written by: Frank Highland
Freedom in Afghanistan, say goodbye Taliban
Free elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein locked up
Osama’s staying underground, Al Qaida now is finding out
America won’t turn and run once the fighting has begun
Libya turns over nukes, Lebanese want freedom, too
Syria is forced to leave, don’t you know that all this means
Chorus
Bush was right!
Bush was right!
Bush was right!
Democracy is on the way, hitting like a tidal wave
All over the middle east, dictators walk with shaky knees
Don’t know what they’re gonna do,
their worst nightmare is coming true
They fear the domino effect, they’re all wondering who’s next
Repeat Chorus
Ted Kennedy – wrong!
Cindy Sheehan – wrong!
France – wrong!
Zell Miller – right!
Economy is on the rise kicking into overdrive
Angry liberals can't believe it's cause of W's policies
Unemployment's staying down, Democrats are wondering how
Revenue is going up, can you say "Tax Cuts"
Repeat Chorus
Cheney was right, Condi was right,
Rummy was right, Blair was right
You were right, we were right, “The Right” was right and
Bush was right
Bush was right
That's just creepy. There are some wordsmiths in that 32% tidal pool of backwash.
ReplyDeleteBush IS Wrong
ReplyDeleteSatire son.
ReplyDeleteWingers can't spot satire with an arc light and a hint. It usually does bite them on the ass, their most prominent attribute.
Hey,
ReplyDeleteWho said this?
(Long list of public statements and and speeches made by founding fathers with refernces to "God" in them, often used by wingnut evangelists to falsely assert this is a Christian nation.)
Fuck yeah? Do you mean ya? My how articulate and persuasive.
ReplyDeleteYeah is the proper spelling, dumbshit. I know, I'm so articulate and persuasive.
Also, using human calculus to justify war is hardly compelling. In fact, it's almost always a strawman. E.g., we could certainly avoid billions of deaths over the next century if we just killed every Chinese today. That's a real moral victory there. This argument is absurd, of course.
Debating over the degree of murder callously overlooks the fact that it's still murder.
Still, I guess there's an argument over whether it's better that Bush kills them rather than Saddam. (White man's burden; kill them in order to save them; etc.)
So to employ a popular rhetorical trick: Terry, is it better when Bush kills people rather than when Saddam kills people?
Or put another way, is Bush a better man because he's killed fewer Iraqis?
Yesterday, Ray McGovern -- an American citizen with a 27-year career as a CIA analyst behind him -- stood up at a speech given by Donald Rumsfeld and aggressively questioned Rumsfeld on various statements Rumsfeld made regarding Iraq. McGovern specifically questioned Rumsfeld about this claim made in March, 2003: "We know where [the WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
ReplyDeleteQuestioned? That is a kind euphemism for calling Rumsfeld a liar without any evidence that he made any statement of fact knowing it was false. Specifically, McGovern stated: "Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?"
To start, exactly what evidence does McGovern have concerning the intelligence presented to Runsfeld. Somehow I never see any actual evidence coming from these war critics - none.
Next, who said Rumsfeld's statement concerning the location of Saddam's WMD was not true at the time?
A recently translated captured Iraqi ministry of defense order dated just before the war commands that "special ammunition" be moved to Al Mussayeb and other bases in the area. Special ammunition was the term Iraq used in earlier documents describing the chemical weapons used on the Kurds. Moreover, Al Mussayeb was described by Powell to the UN as one of the locations Saddam was storing chemical weapons.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616468/posts
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/04/iraq_document_o.html
Exactly who is lying?
You claim that the evidence does not prove that McGovern is your usual slandering Bush hating moonbat. Well, what did McGovern say previously?
Mr McGovern stated that the war "has nothing to do with democracy or freedom or defending "our way of life", it is to do with enriching the pockets of those who support this administration."
Looks like a traditional moonbat slander to me. Does he claim that the US also invaded to steal Iraq's oil? Oh, he did...
In June of 2005, Ray McGovern blamed Zionists for starting the War in Iraq:
The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Tell me how this is any different from al Qaeda propaganda lies? This man is traitorous filth giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a war.
Alex then put it to Mr McGovern that Congressman Ron Paul had recently been on the show and said that The Bush Administration was openly trying to set up a martial law police state in America. McGovern responded in the affirmative:
"Well it does seem that those who have his (Bush's) ear are hell bent on giving away or providing wider responsibilities to our military. Witness what they are talking about now with giving the military primary responsibility for catastrophes, for hurricanes and so forth. Our military has been built up as an instrument of power but has never existed with this kind of potency before, and so we all need to look at this because there are laws against using the military in law enforcement capacities and we need to get to our Congressmen and Senators and say "look enough of this stuff."
Paranoid moonbat. Have you seen the storm troopers rounding up the leftists in your neighborhood recently? Pssst. Keep this under your hat, but there are mass concentration camps of Democrats out here in Colorado. The government keeps them with the space aliens we captured during the 50s along with Agent Mulder...
Unreal.
"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."
This has gone beyond paranoid, this is pure moonbat lunacy or the rankest lying terrorist propaganda. Take your choice.
Al Qaeda is murdering hundreds of Iraqi civilians in a bombing campaign trying to start a civil war to kill tens of thousands more and this scumbag traitor is blaming the United States.
Glenn, how can you defend this bilge? You should be condemning this craziness in the strongest possible language.
Moreover, McGovern travelled to Iraq as part of what G.P. calls a "hate America freakshow" that included "pedophile" (not to mention former United States Marine officer and aide to General Norman Schwarzkopf) Scott Ritter, whose pre-war claims about Iraq (in stark contrast to Instapundit, among others) proved to be entirely true.
Which prewar claims of Ritter are those? There are so many. Are you referring to the 1998 claims when Ritter asserted that Iraq was hiding nerve gas and implied strongly that the US should invade Iraq?
http://www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/2002/000108.html
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2006/04/ritter-vs-ritter-tim-blair.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter.htm
Short list, (there's much more) of private communications telling you what the founders really thought of the church.
ReplyDeleteIn a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said,
Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.
The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:
Thomas Jefferson:
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short
Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible?
Dunghill.
John Adams:
Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Here's Thomas Paine:
I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).
Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).
It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.
Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.
The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.
Finally let's hear from James Madison:
What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:
Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
"Or put another way, is Bush a better man because he's killed fewer Iraqis" anonymous
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
Re-read my post. Fewer people have been killed than would have been killed if there had been no intervention. The intervention has saved lives. Best estimate I've seen is about 100,000 so far.
Terry Gain
Bart,
ReplyDeleteParanoid moonbat. Have you seen the storm troopers rounding up the leftists in your neighborhood recently? Pssst.
Grow up and stop being such a fascist tool.
"The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
Guess who said that.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteRe-read my post. Fewer people have been killed than would have been killed if there had been no intervention. The intervention has saved lives. Best estimate I've seen is about 100,000 so far.
Terry Gain
I'm sure there is paint drying some place. Why don't you go and find it so you can watch it? Follow your nose.
Ah winter time at Terry Gain's compound.
ReplyDeletehttp://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/129/1310/1600/DSCN1704.3.jpg
terry gain: Fewer people have been killed than would have been killed if there had been no intervention. The intervention has saved lives. Best estimate I've seen is about 100,000 so far.
ReplyDeleteAccording to a BBC article:
Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.
Glenn, how can you defend this bilge? You should be condemning this craziness in the strongest possible language.
ReplyDeleteGlenn has condemned you in the strongest possible language, Bart.
It seems to be resonating.
Terry at the winter compound. I html'd it for ya...
ReplyDeleteAnd the GWOT is now WWIII as per Dear Leader. I'm pissing in my pants because I'm laughing so hard at their fear (it's palpable and you can smell it) and desperation.
Watching Ray McGovern on Democracy Now! He's good.
bart: A recently translated captured Iraqi ministry of defense order dated just before the war commands that "special ammunition" be moved to Al Mussayeb and other bases in the area.
ReplyDeleteYou know that Juan Cole, who reads these documents in the original, has shown them to be worthless. You might consider the comment from a former intelligence officer in the comment section at Cole's site to reflect something closer to the truth about WMDs and Bush's lies:
Unless our intelligence services have ceased operations during the last twenty years, I doubt that we had no idea of the capabilities of the previous Iraqi regime. Blaming our intel is a blatant lie. Our government deliberately falsified the available intel to lure the average American idiot into supporting this ill-fated war.
Wolfgang P. May
Intelligence Operations Officer
4th US Armored Division in Goeppingen, Germany, 1966-68
Unreadlibrarian,
ReplyDeleteYour Lancet article was rushed to print by leftists - in order to disccredit Bush just prior to the 2004 elction- and was thoroughly debunked then.
The anti-liberation Iraq Body Count put the numbers in the low 30 Ks
Terry Gain
Reading Terry is like watching the same soap opera episode over and over again. Terry "laundry soap" Gain! Soap opera! I crack myself up! I'm almost as funny as Bush, or Colbert!
ReplyDeleteDon't you dare call me a leftist, Batman! I'm ambidextrous!
ReplyDeleteanon: Watching Ray McGovern on Democracy Now! He's good.
ReplyDeleteHe was on CNN too. His critique of Rumsfeld was devastating:
BLITZER: But Mr. McGovern, if that's what the CIA told him, if that's what George Tenet told him, we know where they are, and George Tenet is quoted by Bob Woodward as saying that this was a slam dunk, the weapons of mass destruction, if that's what Donald Rumsfeld and the president were told, they weren't necessarily lying, they were relying on bad information.
MCGOVERN: Well, that's QED, Wolf. That's what needs to be demonstrated. As you know, Secretary Rumsfeld set up his own little CIA within the Pentagon. It's there that he got this wonderful information about the procession of weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't from the CIA.
And I'd like to quote Hans Blix, who said that is what's very odd that there was 100 percent certitude that there were weapons of mass destruction and zero percent certitude about where they were. Only Donald Rumsfeld claimed that he knew where they were.
Thanks for HTMLing it for me my fellow anon. Sorry, I'm just a goofy moonbat who's hypertext-challenged.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy Now is so cool. It was on here in the belly of the beast for all of 2 weeks on public access until the freepers called up and demanded it ended. Now I just see the DCTV logo for an hour.
Jay C said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Just a friendly reminder:
When responding to a post of Glenn's in which he rakes over those who use intemperate language to excoriate critics of President Bush, SecDef Rumsfeld,or US policies in general, it might be a better idea to avoid larding your comment with such gems as:
"moonbat slander"
"traitorous filth"
"pure moonbat lunacy"
"scumbag traitor" , etc.
Given the lies and enemy propaganda this traitor was spewing, I was being restrained.
Oh yes, and including a URL to Free Republic in any purportedly serious comment is a surefire way to get the readers to skip over it completely (those that don't just skip after reading the heading "bart", that is).
The NYT and other publications seem to be reading the translations of the released captured Iraqi documents being posted at Free Republic and find no problems with the translation. Too bad they are only reporting on the translator and not the extremely interesting revelations from these documents. Doesn't fit in their template of the war.
I challenge you and the other posters to actually read what the Iraqis were saying about their ongoing WMD programs, their training of terrorists and development of IEDs back in 1998 and their ongoing links with al Qaeda.
Here is the link to the released documents themselves:
http://70.169.163.24/
Here is the link to Harmony Document List from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq.asp
Here are where all the translations performed to date by a Lebanese immigrant using the handle jveritas on Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=prewardocs
Ray Robison has had another arabic translator working on these documents as well:
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/
unanonymous Terry Gain: The report was based on statistically valid methods that have proven accurate over and over in many different contexts.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is something you can't understand, however: that the scientific method is not meant to skew facts in your favor but to get as close to reality as possible--not the lies that Rumsfeld and his death machine want you to.
Well, Terry is clearly getting all the Kool-Aid he needs through intensive doctor - shopping. Just like his idol, the Rush himself.
ReplyDeleteSo, please, ignore Terry and the rest of the wrongnutter trolls. Bush's approval ratings tanked again this week. You know that the trolls are getting desperate. Please do not feed them.
This is one blog where we definitely should not entertain trolls.
Democracy Now is so cool. It was on here in the belly of the beast for all of 2 weeks on public access until the freepers called up and demanded it ended. Now I just see the DCTV logo for an hour.
ReplyDelete1:37 AM
You should be able to watch the broadcasts on line, if you have broadband. And public access is just that, public access. Go down there and say you want to do your own program. That's what it's for, and tax dollars pay for it. You run Democracy Now.
Wow, cynic librarian, I just happened by from a C & L link. Do you always have such an active troll population?
ReplyDeleteThis is one blog where we definitely should not entertain trolls.
ReplyDelete1:41 AM
Why not? They entertain us. My SOP with trolls is never to deabte them or take them seriously. Ridicule and insult them. The time for meaningful debate ended some time ago. Debate undecideds and moderates. There is a point to that.
You should be able to watch the broadcasts on line, if you have broadband.
ReplyDeleteYup, that's how I get my Amy and Juan fix. But all those folks who don't have broadband, or cable...
I would love to run it myself but I work in the lab close to 80 hrs a week and Dallas is a scary place. Thankfully, only a few more months.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWow, cynic librarian, I just happened by from a C & L link. Do you always have such an active troll population?
1:42 AM
Level of trolling is directly proprotionate to the influence, popularity and factual accuracy and newsworthiness of the blog. If they fear it, they come to smear it.
Why not? They entertain us. My SOP with trolls is never to deabte them or take them seriously. Ridicule and insult them. The time for meaningful debate ended some time ago. Debate undecideds and moderates. There is a point to that.
ReplyDeleteI agree whole-heartedly. Mirth, nuance, Colbert are all beyond them.
On reading the comments of Mr. Gain, I warn readers of a saying they might remember from another place. I paraphrase: "what gain will you have if you Gain the world and lose your soul to the lies and deceit of a moreally bankrupt and deceitful political regime?"
ReplyDeleteLiberals? Perhaps, depending on your defintion of liberal. Die hard doctrinaire leftists? No, they are just as nutty as the rightwing extremists.
ReplyDeletePray tell. What is a "Die hard doctrinaire leftist"?
he cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeletebart: A recently translated captured Iraqi ministry of defense order dated just before the war commands that "special ammunition" be moved to Al Mussayeb and other bases in the area.
You know that Juan Cole, who reads these documents in the original, has shown them to be worthless.
Oh, I am very aware of Mr. Cole's "translations" (sic) of the arabic documents.
Christopher Hitchens just exposed one series of Cole's lies concerning his selective Iranian translations.
I personally exposed another set of lies by Cole when he claimed that a Feyedeen Saddam memorandum reporting that Zarqawi and al Qaeda were recruiting Iraqis in 2002 to fight our soldiers in Afghnanistan was really an APB by the Iraqi Intelligence Service (Mukharabt) to arrest Zarqawi.
The Feyedeen Saddam are a militia, not an intelligence agency, and has no relationship with the Mukharabat
Moreover, the CIA translated the document and there is no reference to arresting Zarqawi or even interfering with al Qaeda recruiting in Iraq.
Here is the link to Cole's post. I am the last reply to this post to which Cole declined to respond.
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/saddam-was-trying-to-capture-zarqawi.html
Juan Cole take poetic license with his "translations" to excuse arab mass murderers and terrorists.
There is no simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question of whether the Chicago defendants intended to incite a riot in Chicago in 1968. Abbie Hoffman said, "I don't know whether I'm innocent or I'm guilty." The reason for the confusion--as Norman Mailer pointed out--was that the alleged conspirators "understood that you didn't have to attack the fortress anymore." All they had to do was "surround it, make faces at the people inside and let them have nervous breakdowns and destroy themselves."
ReplyDeleteAnd to the fellow who had Democracy Now on PA before. Contact them, Democracy Now, and the nearest ACLU office in your state. You will get it back.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"The enemy in this conflict is al Qaeda, not Iraq. The invasion has distracted from that."
You've obviously been getting your information from MSM rather than the pros who know what's going on. In fact Iraq has turned into a real quagmire -for al Qaeda. They've been decimated and their practice of killing innocent civilians has revealed them for what they are. They are being reduced in the minds of rational Muslims to the contemptible bastards that they are.
You won't read about this in MSM because it means Bush was right.
Iraqi forces are being built up to the extent that American troops will largely be out of Iraq in the next two couple years. A couple of divisions will remain to continue lending support to the Iraqi armed forces and to kill any remaining foreigh terrorists who want to commit suicide.
The losers in America will somehow try to portray the withdrawal as a defeat.
Terry Gain
The "pros who know what's going on?" That's completely fucking absurd. Are these the same pros who don't know where bin Laden, Zawahiri, or a single WMD are? How about a few names?
Although again, a nice distraction from the lies of the administration. You never did account for the blatant contradictions and moral degeneracy of "Flypaper" and "Liberation" or the lack of concern at not turning up any WMDs. All of which point to fundamental deception and dishonesty.
I guess your sneering "No takers on my 6:31" only goes one way, huh?
And the only people who are painting an American withdrawal as a defeat are the administration and it's toadies.
anon: Wow, cynic librarian, I just happened by from a C & L link. Do you always have such an active troll population?
ReplyDeleteThey come in waves. I think they gather at troll places, gibber and jabber a while over something one might call strategy--perhaps they drink more kool-aid--and then show up en masse.
How would you know, Bart? Are you an expert in Arabic languages?
ReplyDeleteChristopher Hitchens just exposed one series of Cole's lies concerning his selective Iranian translations.
ReplyDeleteOh! Hitchens is now the expert in Arabic languages... umm-kay.
persian arabic semitic whuteva
ReplyDeletebart: On Cole and wannabe "hit-man" Hitchens, see the rebuttals made by Cole who has clearly skewered and countered Hitchens to the effect that Hitchens is an unbalanced, on the rocks, self-promoter who steals private emails and is in need of detoxification.
ReplyDeleteYou might also find Helena Cobban's defense of Cole contra Hitchens. Cobban has known both men for many years--Hitchens for 35 years. Her portrayal of the pitiful state in which Hitchens currently is in almost makes you want to cry, if the man weren't just so mean and ugly in the way that only loser-type drunks are.
PS You might also enjoy the satire on Slate magazine, who ran Hitchens' piece of tripe against Cole.
No More Farsi
ReplyDeleteIf Bush (and Bart) would only realize that the quickest way for them to discredit someone, (like Juan Cole) is to endorse them, they might be effective in their feeble attempts. The method they practice now only drives folks to assume that Cole must be right.
Cool, call the ACLU I shall. Thanks for the tip.
ReplyDeleteCL: What I've loved seeing is the cursed W'04 stickers slowly disappearing off the back of SUVs down here. Not to say they don't support him, just tacitly so.
They sure do seem to be hopped up on something. New flavor: Trollberry Punch?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteCool, call the ACLU I shall. Thanks for the tip.
Get active in your local Public Access if you can. Tax dollars pay for it, it's yours, too. Now you know why guys like Bart is against paying taxes for it. He's a fascist.
History of Public Access TV
ReplyDeletePCA-PAT
Bart and Terry are the voice (if not the face) of American fascism. Don't be squeamish about it. Call these fascists what they are.
ReplyDeletebart: [from an uncited source]The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
ReplyDeleteTo which bart retorts: Tell me how this is any different from al Qaeda propaganda lies? This man is traitorous filth giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a war.
It is different fromal-Qaeda in that it does not call for the destruction of the state of Israel, not does it call for killing unarmed and innocent Americans.
Your characterization is odd here though--are you really suggesting that if one critcizes Israel and the pro-Israel foreign policy that the US promotes, he is thereby a traitor?
I find this an amazing statement. Not only do US citizens, in your formulation here, have to remain loyal to the US but we must also swear to defend the state of Israel!
As to the substance of McGovern's comments, it is really not much different from what scholars Mearsheimer and Walt have recently suggested in their paper on the pro-Israel lobby and its stranglehold on US foreign policy.
This thesis is in fact one that many in Israel support. I wrote about it in a posting at my website. There I quote President Bush a propos the benefit of the Iraq war for Israel:
"If you're a supporter of Israel, I would strongly urge you to help other countries become democracies," President Bush declared Monday, in a major address defending American policy in Iraq and his wider vision for the region. "Israel's long-term survival depends upon the spread of democracy in the Middle East."
The Iraq Body Count project and the Lancet study measure two different things, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. IBC measures confirmed deaths, and will freely admit that they're undercounting. Many people just get buried without ever being covered by the Western media, or even taken to a morgue. The Lancet study measured the delta in death rates from the pre-invasion (sanction) level to post-invasion, and would count deaths by IED, aerial bombing, or cholera.
ReplyDeleteshooter - "You've been calling this war a quagmire for years" is not the best defense.
As for the "pros", Rummy planned to reduce US troops to 40,000 by fall of 2003. That hasn't gone according to plan.
Rummy's in Reagan's bind - either he was lying, or he was incompetent. Either the WMD weren't there, in which case he was wrong to have said he "knew" (and to have denied having said that, as well) -or- he managed to execute an invasion so incompetent it failed to secure even the tiniest smidgen of the WMD that triggered it.
Liberals? Perhaps, depending on your defintion of liberal. Die hard doctrinaire leftists? No, they are just as nutty as the rightwing extremists.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, they share the same flaw with Bush - they can't break out of their own world-view to see the world through the eyes of our (actual and potential) enemies. People who think that all the mid-east needs is a little social justice and they will forget all about the whole religion thing are no more correct than those who think that its all about Islam.
I'm not sure what a "Die hard doctrinaire leftist" really is. No one is. You sure as hell don't have a clue. I may be the closest thing to one you'll ever come across and you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Case in point. If a nuke landed here from an Islamic country, and I mean really, (not WMDs in Iraq), I'd have launched a retaliatory nuke strike before you had gotten your hand of Bart's dick.
Furthermore, I would have gone into Baghdad and done this all in GWI. Why pay for the same real estate twice? You think "Die hard doctrinaire leftists" don't make good generals? Tell it to Giap.
Bush I was a wuss. Junior is a pussy and an idiot.
FungiFromYuggoth: The Iraq Body Count project and the Lancet study measure two different things, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
ReplyDeleteFungi, does this refer to my comments or to Terry's?
Rumsfeld's had problems with reality before - remember his reaction to the looting in Iraq? Or his denial that there was a guerilla war going on?
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, I did a little searching and found that Rumsfeld admitted he screwed up: (he remembered it before he denied it) and admitted he should have said "Our intelligence tells us they're in that area."
How does it feel to defend Rumsfeld even after he's admitted he was wrong? Do you think you might have a problem?
cynic: mostly to Terry, but it's important for everyone to understand the difference.
ReplyDeleteIraq Body Count is measuring violent deaths that can be documented in two western sources; the Lancet study statistically measured deaths from all causes.
The IBC web site has a section that compares the different studies (and bemoans how frequently the media gets it wrong).
The manis losing touch with reality. If people on the Right really believe this shit, we are indeed in trouble folks.
ReplyDeleteAccording to yahoo, Bush said:
Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it [the brave behavior of Flight 93 passengers] was the first counter-attack to World War III.
anonymizer: How is thinking that the US is run by something out of the Elders of Zion NOT Anti-Semitic???!
ReplyDeleteWell, you beg the question. You have to prove, at least, that this anonmous someone--I assume you mean McGovern--says what you assert he does, ie, "thinking that the US is run by something out of the Elders of Zion."
Terry Gain,
ReplyDeleteEven though I haven't gotten to the end of the thread yet, I somehow knew you would pick at the typing bits and forget about the actual point. I do give you credit for pointing out your own. Why then imply that I made mine for some reason? No need.
So tell me daphne: if you had 10 plausible reasons for doing something - nine of which were beyond serious rebuke and one of which was perhaps false- would you emphasize the one point which was perhaps false?
No? Neither would I and neither would Bush or anyone else.
Let's see, equating typos is equal to presidential decisions? I think not -- and I hope I have misread your comments.
I don't suppose to know "what Bush would do" but you seem to be certain. Perhaps if you have only lived with him as your president, I'd see that. Evidence to the contrary is everywhere.
Now I am off topic, surely.
Let's see I've check this twice for typos -- have I made any that objectively negate my point?
Having read all 201 comments (so far), the first thing that comes to my mind is - anyone, especially you bushies, remember the title to this post? It is - "Time to smear the latest Bush critic"? I have to give thanx to you bushies for the "moonbat", "anti-Semite" & "scumbag traitor" perjoratives (among others), looks like you guys are doing a great job of confirming Glenn's point.
ReplyDeleteI've heard the Rumsfeld quote in which he supposes the Iraq war could have lasted "6 days, 6 weeks, or 6 months", although he deemed the 6 months option to be unlikely. I can see that as opinion although I disagree with his conclusion. But I've also heard the quote in which he claims the WMDs were found, "In Tikrit, Baghdad, points E, W, N & S" or something along those lines. If I read the fine print, yeah, I can see opinion there as well. Fine.
But then Mr. McGovern comes along, challenges Rumsfeld on that statement, then Mr. Rumsfeld denies having made the statement in the first place.
b*llsh*t
BTW, any of you bushies recall this line? - it's not about the sex, it's about the lying?
These days, bushies, I'm ashamed to share a country with you.
Attack the messenger? Let's see. The claim is Rumsfeld was lying, which means an intentional and deliberate falsehood. Of course he was not lying, he was just relying on the predominate assessment of the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community. This is not very hard. Every can remember the media reporting that coalition forces expected to encounter chemical weapons as they approached Baghdad, and that US troops actually wore cumbersome biohazard gear despite the desert conditions. I recall that this sentiment was was based on Iraqi radio intercepts about the impending use of chemical weapons. Unless this was all part of some elaborate ruse, I think its very safe to say that the US firmly believed that it would encouter WMDs as they approached Baghdad and Sunni areas. Wrong? Maybe. Lies? Please.
ReplyDeleteThe whole Bush-lied theme is interesting. That the overwhelming opinion of the CIA (a "slam-dunk"), the UN, foreign intelligence services, including the French, Russians and Iranians, and even the Iraqi officer corp is that Iraq had WMDs. The highest ranking Iraqi informant actually stated that Iraq had chemical weapons, and was seeking (albeit in a fumbling way, nuclear and biological weapons. Bipartisan opinion throughout the entire Clinton adminsitration was that Iraq had and was developing WMDs, which explains why Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq in 1998. In fact, there is not a single statement from Clinton or Tenet that Bush was "lying" or that Iraq did not have WMDs. Despite this overwhelming history what we see now is a quibbling at the edges in the true paranoid style.
Personally I think that the quality of the messenger speaks directly to the quality of the message. Certainly if the media wants to build McGovern up as an "ex-CIA analyst" (as if this should deeply impress us) who allegedly effectively stymied Rumsfeld with accurate criticism, his full background should be assessed.
Finally, if anyone bothered to catch McGovern on the Tucker Carlson show, where he again spouted off how the Iraq war was fought due to supposed Israeli/Zionist influence and manipulation, you would think twice about going to bat for him.
Hello everyone. I am a little tipsy. Sorry. Please excuse.
ReplyDeleteNo, bart, I am not an alkie. I only drink about three or four times a year, but this was one of them. Hold your fire, please.
Anyway, I cannot focus enough to read Glenn's new post, but I noticed two things. The oil crowd and the pro-Israel neo-cons.
Them's the ones, folks. Anyone who hasn't realized that by now isn't looking. The only question is which of the two is using the other, who's on top, or are they equal partners with equal input?
Leaving that aside to when I can think more clearly, I just wanted to say that I also noticed that our Glenn said the other Glenn, who I read once and realized was brain dead (oops, I hope that's not an insult because I was about to write that I am against insults---can a factual statement be an insult?--if not, I'm okay here) insulted the person who asked Rumsfeld some questions and then the fascist blogosphere launched into one of their politics of personal destruction rabies fits.
It's like avian flu but without the charm.
Today I got a phone call from a friend of mine (very nice, good person and I really like him) who is one of these pro-Israel above all people.
He lived there for a while and went there sixty times.
Anyway he calls me every day, but it's always something to do with Israel and how I should march in Washington about Dafur or something.
Every day I tell him the Likud party are warmongers, we're living in a fascist dictatorship here now, the neo-cons are delusional maniacs, we exchange further pleasantries, talk about oil futures (he's a stockbroker) and then hang up.
Today he called and said in a very excited way "Did you hear about Rumsfeld"
"No", I said.
He proceeded to tell me that some CIA guy had interviewed him and if was very amazing because the CIA, or former CIA guy asked Rummy some questions and Rummy totally fell apart and it was very shocking to see Rumsfeld disintegrate like that.
I said, "Yes, but what does this have to do with Israel?"
"Nothing", he said. "It just has to do with Rumsfeld who is obviously a liar, an evil man, and he is cracking up."
"Yes, but Rumsfeld is a neo-con person who is very Pro-Israel. I thought you liked Pro=Israel politicians", I said.
"I do", he said, "but this is bigger than that. I thought highly of Rumsfeld until I saw that interview. Now he scares me. I am very upset."
"So you think you might re-examine your views on the Iraqi war and our foreign policy?", I asked.
"For sure", he said.
I never thought anything would shake this person's complete support of the Bushco agenda, but that interview apparently did.
I bet that's why the Little Green Glenn Reynolds of this world launched into their disgusting politics of personal destruction mode.
Ha ha ha. I think the CIA guy must have
landed 31%? a 31%? good 31%? punch.
Anyway, I told my friend I would send him a copy of Glenn's book so he could learn the whole story of what is going on and he said he would read it.
Goodbye, everyone.
Hawks Looking For Newer and Bigger Enemies
ReplyDeleteAs if rallying fading public support for keeping more than 100,000 U.S. troops in a disintegrating Iraq and preparing the ground for a possible military attack on Iran were not enough, some influential hawks are now promoting a more confrontational stance against Russia and China, as well.
Dear Bill Kristol,
I am in a generous mood tonight so I would like to help you out. You forgot North Korea and Cuba. Nuke 'em all. In for a dime, in for a dollar. Think big. Good luck!
Cordially,
Big Fan of Delusional Neo-cons
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570_pf.html
ReplyDelete____________________
"Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon."
__________
Where is the proof that Israel wants to dominate/ conquer the mideast.
Israel might want to keep the west bank but conquer the mideast?
Why does Ray Mcgovern go around saying stuff that he has no proof of?
That tells us about Ray McGovern. He is a very questionable person, there is not much to the guy except slander and conspiracy theories.
CIA In Freefall... ---Huffington Post
ReplyDeleteWow, in all seriousness, this Administration is really imploding.
I wouldn't even be surprised to wake up one morning and read they've all packed their bags and skipped out of town in the middle of the night.
Look for them in Dubai.
Even Madelaine Albright said Washington D.C. has become "toxic" and she's glad she's in NYC instead of in Washington.
Looks like they're history.
Now I am getting really nervous. I am dreading what new clowns take their places.
I hope everyone will remember it's the policies which have to go on trial. Unless we can get rid of these policies and restore the Constitution, we'll be no better off than before.
Hey man, I was so glad to see that you r book is in the Amazon top 10 :-). This is a great blog, I know I don't participate in the discussions but I just have a small request, if the work of that aweful "Allahpundit" comes up again, could you refer to it by full name and not just as "Allah". Thankyou :-)
ReplyDeleteWhere is the proof that Israel wants to dominate/ conquer the mideast.
ReplyDeleteNeocons do. You've already had plenty of proof of that. Some of them happen to be both Israeli and American citizens. This one is also the dumbest fucking guy on the planet
.
Dual Disloyalty: Feith and the Occupations of Gaza and Iraq
Feith's radical Zionism (but to be fair to Feith's father, Betar, his father's group, is much, much more moderate that the extreme Likudnik ideas of Feith, and I don't believe it's fair to slur his father as a 'a founder of Likud', although he was a terrorist against the British and Arabs - at a time when being a terrorist was apparently a good thing! - in the Zionist underground in Palestine in the 1940's):
"Feith is such a radical that he won't even refer to the West Bank as the West Bank — he uses the biblical names Judea and Samaria. And he doesn't even like to say 'occupied territories,' even though they are. In fact, our own government officially refers to them as 'occupied' and freely uses the term 'West Bank.' Just look at the CIA map of Israel above, and you'll see that Gaza and the West Bank are separate from Israel, and each carries an asterisk.
But there's no asterisk attached to Feith's version of Israel. The son of a founder of Likud, he has pursued a radical Zionist policy at the expense of Israel's own Jews, a majority of whom don't favor the settlers."
Everyone knows that Israel has a great deal of influence over US foreign policy in the Mideast.
A great deal? Way too much.
Same with the Saudis.
jon said....
ReplyDeleteThat tells us about Ray McGovern. He is a very questionable person, there is not much to the guy except slander and conspiracy theories.
5:14 AM
Who's a questionable person?
Ray McGovern compared to Douglas Feith .....
Bwahahahahahahaaa!
Jon is a questionable person a likely runner-up for the Gen. Tommy Franks award. The dumbest fucking guy on the planet.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAttack the messenger? Let's see. The claim is Rumsfeld was lying, which means an intentional and deliberate falsehood. Of course he was not lying, he was just relying on the predominate ..... zzzzzzzzzzz
OK, OK.... it was a little white zionist neocon lie. Happy now?
What's really amazing is how you can spot all the freepers and little greensnotballs here. They are just not used to having their off-key singing pointed out to them. It's been so long since they have actually been in a choir that could carry an on key tune.
ReplyDeleteA great deal? Way too much.
ReplyDeleteMake that the same with the Saudis royal family.
"nutjob," a "moonbat," and a "certified nutcase"
ReplyDelete"Plaground epithets" indeed: given how puerile and stupid this criticism is let's call it "slow-boating", not too swift.
No, that just makes him a "self-hating Jew." Because clearly anyone that opposes certain Israeli policies hates the Jews, just like anyone that opposes certain U.S. policies is anti-American.
ReplyDeleteHow does the anti-semitism accusation always seem to creep up when people criticize the president? Bush being manipulated by Sharon? Get real. I'm a supporter of Israel who disagrees with a lot of Israeli policy decisions. I can see both sides of the conflict, and I think both camps are making bad decisions. Worse yet, I think our government is spurring it on in some ways. America controlled by Israel? Played for fools? Hardly. I think it's the other way around.
Paul says:
ReplyDeleteAnd they didn't say, "We think we know."
That's what makes it a clear-cut lie. No ifs, ands or buts.
So....Paul. You're absolutely sure about this? Don't want to change your mind? Final answer?
The problem with this, is that you are effectively criminalizing all unqualified assertions. That puts these folks below in the exact same category as Rumsfeld. I'm pretty sure these two wouldn't appreciate you doing that.
No ifs, ands, or buts. Heh.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
The problem with this, is that you are effectively criminalizing all unqualified assertions.
ReplyDeleteBwaahahahaha! Would that we could. Calling Rumsfeld a liar is now criminalizing all unqualified assertions. And his assertions were hardly unqualified.
Shooter, go back to bed. Wait until you've had your malt-o-meal.
Contrary to the accusation, I doubt many (or any) LGFers are here...I just went there for the first time yesterday to look at their commentary on the McGovern/Rumsfeld affair, and reading the comments section felt like reading transcripts of a group of autistics with tourettes syndrome.
ReplyDeleteThey seem incapable of expressing any thought beyond one or two sentence ejaculations...often mere sentence fragments. As well, they seem to express little more than reflexive reiterations of the current ad hominems...and some of them, on repeating their puerile non-thoughts seem to think they've made some great bon mot.
It was really a bit frightening to consider that they apparently represent a sizable portion of our fellow citizenry.
No wonder democracy in America is a dead letter.
From the Ted Kennedy quote. First paragraph of speech given at...
ReplyDeleteI'm honored to be here at the School of Advanced International Studies. Many of the most talented individuals in foreign policy have benefited immensely from your outstanding graduate program, and I welcome the opportunity to meet with you today.
I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted. But I begin with the strongest possible affirmation that good and decent people on all sides of this debate, who may in the end stand on opposing sides of this decision, are equally committed to our national security.
Let's look for Al Gore's, shall we?
Both Republicans, BTW. BTK and Bundy.
ReplyDeleteCheck Snopes Words of Mass Destruction for the Dem quotes these tools will dredge up.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder they never provide links.
What Al Gore said...
ReplyDeleteWe know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist groups. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan — with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.
Shooter should be banned AND awarded the Gen. Tommy Franks award, (The Frankie), for being the dumbest fucking guy on the planet.
Last grafs of Ted's speech...
ReplyDeleteLet me close by recalling the events of an autumn of danger four decades ago. When missiles were discovered in Cuba – missiles more threatening to us than anything Saddam has today – some in the highest councils of government urged an immediate and unilateral strike. Instead the United States took its case to the United Nations, won the endorsement of the Organization of American States, and brought along even our most skeptical allies. We imposed a blockade, demanded inspection, and insisted on the removal of the missiles.
When an earlier President outlined that choice to the American people and the world, he spoke of it in realistic terms – not with a sense that the first step would necessarily be the final step, but with a resolve that it must be tried.
As he said then, "Action is required…and these actions [now] may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of…war – but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced."
In 2002, we too can and must be both resolute and measured. In that way, the United States prevailed without war in the greatest confrontation of the Cold War. Now, on Iraq, let us build international support, try the United Nations, and pursue disarmament before we turn to armed conflict.
Shooter, step up and bend over. We'd like to have Bart adminster your Frankie.
James t said...
ReplyDeleteMaybe I fell into a coma at some point and woke back up without noticing, but I don't recall Gore or Kennedy bombing Iraq on the basis of those beliefs...
Welcome back. Quite a lot has happened while you were unconscious.....
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors”
- President William Jefferson Clinton 12/16/98
but I just have a small request, if the work of that aweful "Allahpundit" comes up again, could you refer to it by full name and not just as "Allah". Thankyou :-)
ReplyDeleteYes, Glenn. You don't want a fatwa issued for your decapitation now, do you?
Why did Clinton do that?
ReplyDeleteOn 6 October 1998, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, addressed that committee at a hearing on the subject of worldwide threats facing the U.S. His comments on Iraq included mention of a letter to President Clinton which he and other senators were circulating:
"As the Chairman has indicated, the situation in Iraq also poses a threat to international peace and security. Once again, Saddam Hussein has halted cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Without intrusive inspections, we will not be able to ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are destroyed in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions. Without those inspections, the Iraqi people will continue to suffer as a result of international economic sanctions.
And that is why, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Hutchison, I am circulating among our Senate colleagues a letter to President Clinton, urging him, in consultation with Congress, consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take effective actions, including if appropriate, the use of air strikes, to respond to the Iraqi threat."
(President Clinton did undertake the action urged in this statement a few months later by ordering the aforementioned Operation Desert Fox airstrikes.)
anonymous says:
ReplyDeleteCheck Snopes Words of Mass Destruction for the Dem quotes these tools will dredge up.
No wonder they never provide links.
Putting quotes in context !?!?! What a novel concept! Can I expect that you folks will be doing that in the future for quotes from the administration?
You are all especially amusing to me.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you act so surprised?
For years, and years Leftists have been pissing and moaning about the CIA, NSA, etc., and how much money we spend on defense and intelligence.
Then in the early 90's, Repubs, policy carried throughout the 1990's with Dems, cut back defense spending, cut back intelligence spending, hack apart our ability to collect HUMINT for decades, AND THEN ALL YOU MORONS WONDER WHY THE INTEL WAS BAD IN IRAQ? AND ALL YOU MORONS SIT HERE AND WONDER WHY WE ONLY SENT 150K TROOPS INTO IRAQ? It's your f$cking fault dipsticks.
All this sh$t about Israel? Give me a f$cking break. If you're stupid enough to believe the USA is acting solely on behalf of the Jews, there is no use in further discussion.
The Muslims and Arabs have given EVERYONE enough excuses to have their asses kicked.
Spare us your out of context and truncated quotes, Shooter. You've already won the Frankie, sharing it with Imam and Bart.
ReplyDeleteWords of Mass Destruction
Origins:
All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we've tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible.
Putting quotes in context !?!?! What a novel concept! Can I expect that you folks will be doing that in the future for quotes from the administration?
ReplyDeleteDon't be an ass, shooter. We will be jamming them down your throat and ramming them up your ass. That's the game you've chosen to play. Deal with it.
The Muslims and Arabs have given EVERYONE enough excuses to have their asses kicked.
As I was just telling shooter, so have you. Bend over, it's going to hurt you more than me.
Grabbing power is so much easier than holding on to it. I think we've learned some invaluable lessons at your expense. I wouldn't be surprised if we manage to keep that power through much of this century. Buh-bye!
ReplyDeleteAs I was just telling shooter, so have you. Bend over, it's going to hurt you more than me.
ReplyDeleteAwwwww, poor little Liberal. Someone says something you disagree with, so now it's time for homosexual references? How typical and predictable. Another message board tough guy who wants to do someone up the a$$?