Back Spin Zone

Bill O'Reilly apologizes for believing WMD tales and pledges to be "much more skeptical about the Bush administration."

Comments

[Will]

Yeah - and it only took half the internet and a book holding his feet to the fire to get him to back track on his own foolish posturing. O'Reilly is shill - forced kicking and screaming into intellectual honestly by critics who have the upper hand.

[Les]

He's still not being completely intellectually honest (is he even capable, I wonder). Blaming "bad intelligence" (while an important issue worthy of investigation) ignores the more serious problem of blatent dishonesty by higher-ups in the Bush administration.

[joe]

I will not type "If only the fuhrer knew."

I will not type "If only the fuhrer knew."

I will NOT type "If only the fuhrer knew."

Ah, crap.

[Puppet Master]

"I don't know why Tenet still has his job."

Probably for the same reason Bill "Born Again Yesterday" O'Reilly still has his.

[Dan]

I don't know why Tenet still has his job

Well if you start firing government officials just because they're grossly incompetent -- when will it end? 🙂

[joe]

Puppetmaster,

There are a lot of files at Langley.

The only way Tenet gets a pink slip is taped to the bottom of an overturned canoe.

[dhex]

damn you dan...that's like waving tenderloin in front of a starving man.

[roddy]

For the life of me, I can't understand the hubbub over WMD, both coming and going. We removed one of the great butchers of the modern era and will help a free-market democracy of a sort take root. This seems like a good thing. I'd like to have this done about five more times. To be fair, i don't understand much of Bill O'rReilly's continuing popularity, since he seems to have devolved into some egocentric, noddinly paranoid spin zone.

Like Brian Wilson, I guess I just wasn't made for these times.

[some guy]

Are you kidding? Sometimes I think a Wilsonian drug trip is the only way to make heads-or-tails of current American politics.

[ewilliam]

Well, Roddy, if you think it's our job to go around the globe "removing butchers" simply, it would seem, in the name of altruism, then when does it end? And who pays for each war? Will you send your children and your tax dollars to disappear in some foreign land, all over a non-threat?

Perhaps the principles of nonintervention that our forefathers adhered to may seem a bit "selfish" to you; but in this era, like the eras before it, the United States of America can nary afford to shell out countless dollars and lives in an attempt to be altruistic and save the world from "butchers".

Not to mention the fact that Iraq is a chaotic mess, as is Afghanistan and most of those countries Clinton intervened with. Shouldn't we perhaps get at least ONE attempt right before we think about "5 more", as you put it.

[dhex]

it is certainly easier to assume that our "leaders" are either part of a long-running dadaist conspiracy or have been pumping psychomimetics into the water for some time now.

[joe]

roddy, I don't want elected officials looking me in the face and lying to get what they want, no matter how strongly they feel about the cause. Especially about important matters like whether or not my family is about to get a face full of sarin.

It's just too dangerous to let them behave like that.

[Puddin' Head]

Here's what we do:

First, we build this big wall...

[Shooter]

How is Afghanistan a chaotic mess? The opium crops are finally unfettered which should finally give the farmers a chance to actually sell the crops they know they can grow and they know will sell. Of course, being unfettered, the price will go way down, and they'll be begging for opium subsidies in a few years, just like the good old days.

[roddy]

ewilliam, joe:

i hear you. Very clearly. You express yourselves well and I cant quibble over much about your remarks.

Its all definitely a screw-up on GWB's part. May well cost him a job, for all I know. He might even deserve more trouble from the legal end.

Would I send my kids and my tax dollars...well yes. no sweat. Not even a consideration. My tax dollars are already there. So are yours. I gather that's a good deal of your beef.

I would happily see my any of my 4 kids go. If I was in the game, age wise, i'd sign up. Im gonna ensure that in a few years, they're all selective serviced up.

I was around the WTC on 9-11. actually, i was walking in. i watched people fall. I went to about seven funderals and simply blew off a dozen more.

I want Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Quaida, Islamic Jihad and the PLO to go away. I want them to go away via the route of American induced coronary cessation. Bullet, bomb, grndae-no matter. That's that. If a ham sandwich can run on a platform wherein that could occur, i would throw my support to the jambon en pain party.

short of that, despite my libertarian induced repulsion at the means and methodology of both parties at this point, i will happily support the GOP because their platform offers the surest means to killing large amounts of terrorists.

at the very least, GWB has changed the cost-benefit construct of being one of these scumbags, no?

[Sam I Was]

The Battle of Iraq was merely one action in a bigger war, that of the war against terrorism (or the war against Islamic fundamentalism).

Iraq was not a "war" unto itself. This has been made quite clear not only by countless pundits, onlookers and average Americans who understand what's actually going on, but also by the presidential administration itself.

The "WMD" angle -- accurate or inaccurate, truth or lie -- was simply a small element in an ultimately irrelevant political process: shoring up a particular kind of international support at a particular point in time for a particular battle (Iraq) THAT WAS PART OF A BIGGER WAR. "Weapons of mass destruction" themselves have nothing to do with the Battle of Iraq.

Anyone who, in 2004, still fails to grasp the bigger picture -- instead getting tangled in arbitrary details about "WMDs" and such -- is stuck back in some Sept. 10 fantasy land. Stuck and blind.

That doesn't mean there are no legitimate arguments to be had about the war. Of course there are. But they would be arguments about war strategy in the macro perspective -- e.g., was Iraq the correct next step in the war, or should the next battle after Afghanistan have taken place somewhere else? Those are the kinds of questions we should be focusing on. Not ridiculous nitty-gritty details about stuff so-and-so-said-or-didn't-say during some goofy and ultimately irrelevant U.N. political process.

Obsessing over politics while a deep, important war is in progress seems so ... petty. But then, two years after Sept. 11, we're a country eager to obsess about Super Bowl halftime controversies and the personalities of cable talk-show hosts.

Which is all pretty frikkin depressing.

Let's sum this all up, one last time: War was declared on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Since that day, the war has included two military battles. One was in Afghanistan. The next was in Iraq. The war that began on Sept. 11 is going to continue, on both military and diplomatic fronts.

OK? Is there anybody who still doesn't get it? Unbelievable that it has to be spelled out for people who are otherwise reasonably intelligent.

[Strauss]

Shorter "Sam i Was" - President Bush may have lied to the American people but you gotta look at the BIG picture.

[Steve in CO]

War was declared on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

By Al Qaeda, right? By your logic, all Muslims that have antipathy toward the US and its foreign policy are legitimate targets. I guess that is one who suffers from bloodlust dreams of, a target rich environment. So, why not end this war by the quickest means possible? I suspect the US nuclear arsenal could kill and destroy much of the Muslim world.

:-/

[SteveInClearwater]

SAM: War was declared on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

SinC: Only in your opinion.

As for RODDY who assures that if he were of age, he would go, he should therefore be pulling out all the stops on his personal discretionary spending and forward as many funds as possible to the soldiers who are insufficiently supplied by the U.S. government. Put your money where your mouth is if killing random foreigners is your solution to world problems, at least until your four boys are properly trained to kill on your behalf. Just don't take offense if I and my family don't want to play Army with you and your family.

[Mark Anderson]

Sam I Was,
Bold letters aside, and trust me, bolding things really drives home the point, but is it possible to debate whether Iraq should be a target when our government does not tell the truth? But this has been going on since the Zimmerman Note and "otherwise reasonably intelligent" people are sick of being lied to. What you (and the rest of the neocon windbags) want is to do away with democracy and any kind of international law. You hate freedom and the ideals America stands for!

[thoreau]

Strauss-

It's alright for politicians to lie to the American people if it's just to get those wussy liberals to fall in line. Those who really care about liberty know that sometimes you have to deceive the citizens to protect liberty. I mean, we're talking about Islamo-fascist nutballs here. They lie all the time, so our Great Leader must do the same at times to defeat them. We need somebody in charge who will do whatever it takes and ignore any silly rules those wimpy liberals whine about.

"Paging Richard M. Nixon! Paging Richard M. Nixon!"

[some guy]

Sam,

I have to disagree about the so-called "WMD angle". It DOES matter if the information was accurate or inaccurate and it ESPECIALLY matters if the spiel given to the American public was the truth or a lie. Although I do not think the Bush administration was purposely and willingly lied to the American public, should it happen that was the case, then not only will Bush & Co. have proven themselves unfit to serve, but they will have also gambled away that very thing that you find so important: "shoring up a particular kind of international support at a particular point in time for a particular battle (Iraq) THAT WAS PART OF A BIGGER WAR". Not only will that part of the international community which went to Iraq with us turn away, but the American people will as well, making things only that much harder for the next President. joe is right (and, Christ, how often does anyone hear me say that?): you cannot let our elected officials get away with lying to us, out of expediency or otherwise. It's too dangerous.

[Andrew]

When will it end?

When it ends. The world is after all a finite place...and the list of regimes that stand athwart human progress is even more finite (their appeasers are an ultimately irrelevant nuisance...like Sweden, Switzerland and Spain/Portugal/Turkey in WWII).

The victories for the good guys, so far, are more or less imperfect-- Pakistan or Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya, don't look exactly the way we would prefer them to-- but are very likely irreversible. How does it look if Iran becomes the jewell in the crown of democtaic transformation?

This is money well-spent, sacrifices worth making, risks worth taking.

[roddy]

Steve in Clearwater--I don't seek to pick a fight with you. I hear your beef--am actually acknowledging it. I'm doing what i can, whether its toys for Iraq, support for the fallen heroes fund et al...you name it, I am trying to do what i can.

here's my beef with you--Im not talking about the indiscriminate slaughter of foreigners. You know that. Please get it right. Im talking about killing people wo have made it their life's mission to kill and thwart Americans and American interests. Sorry Steve--no tears for hamas, ok?

I guess it started with the lockerbie flight, when a couple of people I knew were killed. watching people I knew incincerated, and explaining to my daughter why her friends father did not come home, I chose to advocate this approach. there are costs to be certain.

My problem, not yours. I suppose it is selfish of me to exert my experience upon you. We have competing visions of how to protect ourselves, families and way of life.

[Steve in CO]

Sam I Was, Andrew, and Roddy,

So in your minds it makes perfect sense to kill thousands of innocent people in persuit of a symbolic ass-whooping? Innocent people whose children, brothers, and other relatives may or may not have had hatred for the US, but they well do now?

[thoreau]

Steve in CO-

If those dark-skinned towelheads don't appreciate what we did for them, then they're clearly unable to handle freedom. We Americans took some casualties too. Those Muhammed-worshipping camel jockeys should just be grateful that we liberated them.

Imagine, there are idiots in this world whose grief over the loss of a loved one would overshadow exuberance at being liberated and living under the rule of American puppets. If they can't appreciate it, we'll just have to turn the Middle East into radioactive glass.

There, that's my hawk impersonation!

[Sam I Was]

There's plenty of stuff to respond to here, and not a ton of time, but this one I can't let pass without comment:

Mark Anderson wrote: "What you (and the rest of the neocon windbags) want is to do away with democracy and any kind of international law. You hate freedom and the ideals America stands for!"

Leave your strawmen out in the corn field, and let me put my own words into my own mouth.

I don't wish to "do away with democracy." And while the concept of "international law" is a sprawling topic all its own, I'm not out to "do away with" it either.

Where you're most infuriatingly wrong, however, is your assertion that I "hate freedom" and American ideals.

I love freedom. It is the American ideal. I place it above all else. I'm probably not considered a "regular" around here, but anyone who's read my posts at Hit & Run can assure you I'm on liberty's side.

That is, in fact, the whole point here.

We were attacked on Sept. 11. A war commenced. Two battles have been fought. More battles are to come.

I'm not eager to be at war. The whole thing sucks, from Sept. 11 on down. But the war in which we're engaged, and in which we MUST be engaged, is about protecting freedom and American ideals.

It's certainly not about "hating" them.

Your post displays one of the clumsiest leaps in logic I've seen in a while ... and there are a whole lot of clumsy logic-leaps flying around these days. So: Either congratulations, or booooo.

[Andrew]

Steve in CO

Why be a wind-bag?

I have repeatedly given six good reasons for going to war in Iraq (WMD concerns were one...and I'll stick by it, as given.)

A Symbolic Ass-Whippin was NOT one.

But it COULD have been. TRUTH-- if you had to survive on an island with three other people, and someone stole your critical supplies during the night, you actually MIGHT beat the hell out of SOMEONE just to prove you would do it...that's just the way things are-- the Lockean State of Nature that serves as back-drop for any political discussion that isn't prattling.

Since there were also ALL KINDS of excellent reasons for abruptly depriving Saddam of his torture-palace, it was a plus that this other point could be served. It would not have been compelling enough to, say, attack Egypt...but everyone in the Egyptian regime is going to think a lot longer about all sorts of bullshit they may otherwise have been tempted to chance.

That is not a bad thing.

[Sam I Was]

Strauss wrote: "Shorter 'Sam i Was' - President Bush may have lied to the American people but you gotta look at the BIG picture."

In a convoluted sort of way, yes, that nails it.

A better "Shorter Sam I Was," however, would read like this:

"Saddam Hussein's possible weapons cache was bandied about as part of the sales pitch to get some other folks on board with the Battle of Iraq. But you gotta look at the big picture."

[Andrew]

Thoreau

are you pumping the theory that four or five thousand civilian deaths and several thousand more soldiers are supposed to add up to a nation of twenty-five billion embittered against America for a generation?

That and the (now irreversible) fact that an American GI's boot stained the sacred soil of the Arab Nation?

Oh, my Gosh...what have we gotten into?

[thoreau]

Andrew-

I guess I'm saying that we shouldn't expect them to be falling over themselves in gratitude. As heinous as Saddam was, as brutal and inhumane, as [insert all other necessary assurances here so readers convince themselves that I'm not a Saddam apologist], we shouldn't be surprised if they remain skeptical until they actually experience representative democracy, the blessings of the free market, and a free and open society. Until then, we shouldn't be shocked if some people see us as invaders.

[Andrew]

Thoreau

Do you follow the fashionable practice among the campus Left, of dimissing and marginalizing Afghans and Iraqis who are grateful? Don't they count? How would you feel when a family member returned from prison?

By any estimate, Iraqis who work for the Coalition outnumber jihadis, I have seen interviews with Baghdad cab-drivers who say Sistani is full of shit, surveys indicate more Iraqis want us to stay for years than leave at once.

I doubt a German or Japanese alive in '45 hadn't lost a known relative in the air-raids. Only a professor would assume there was only one way for them to feel about this. It is patronising...assuming other people are dumber than you are.

[late for the boom]

This can be sumed up in a few short words, 'the ends justify the means, as long as there is a republican in office'

Amazing how in just 8 years the republican position changes. I remember all of you republican neo-cons busting Clintons ass when he attacked Kosovo. But NOW that Bush is doing it, its OK.

Amazing, simply amazing... and you guys wonder why we question your credibility...

[late for the boom]

Let me correct myself, when he attacked those who attacked Kosovo... would hate to be accused of not knowing the facts....

/rolls eyes

[thoreau]

I don't dismiss or marginalize those who are grateful. I'm glad that they exist, and I don't doubt their existence. I just don't doubt the existence of people who are angry either.

As to whether people would still be grateful to the US after losing a loved one as collateral damage (or perhaps even intentional damage, if the loved one was a conscript forced to serve a hated regime): I don't know how they'd react. I'd imagine their reactions run the gamut. I don't say this in the sense of "Oh, some are too stupid to rise above their emotions." Far from it.

Although I've never had a loved one die as collateral damage from an invasion, I had an aunt die recently (less than a year ago, I still think of her from time to time) and my emotions were, well, complex. I don't want to go into the details of her death except to say it was a complicated situation that led up to it, and I was surprised/perplexed by some of my own emotions. Having experienced a death recently I have absolutely no clue whether I'd be able to put things in perspective if I lost a loved one to allied bombs. Hopefully I'd be able to blame the dictator for a loved one's death, but that logical thought doesn't always occur when somebody dies. Believe me, I know.

Maybe I should clarify one other point that got lost in my sarcasm (I'm starting to see the drawbacks of sarcasm...): Most Iraqis may be glad of what we've done. But if this doesn't yield a free and democratic society with a market economy, don't be shocked if many of them blame us. Yes, I realize that a free market and free and democratic society can't be imposed from the outside, that the majority of the work will have to be done internally. But if another despot arises out of this, we WILL be blamed, and not without at least some justification. Although I believe that freedom is primarily an internal responsibility, we are nonetheless involved.

So I'm not of the Kucinich-style "get the US out now!" crowd. Then again, I'm not of the style that's popular on Hit and Run, the ones who say "keep the rest of the world out." I don't claim to know what the right mix of US/Iraqi/neither-US-nor-Iraq involvement is, but I believe in balance. Most of the decision-making will have to be done by Iraqis, but we must also be involved, and we should get some others to join in. The whole point of keeping other countries involved in the process is, well, to prove that if something goes wrong it isn't solely due to the US. When I took my exam for my Masters I had to have a disinterested faculty member from outside my specialty participate in the committee. Same idea here.

The problem, of course, is that we will have to relinquish some power but accept some blame. That's the very sticky problem facing any outsider who gets involved in another country's affairs. Now, maybe it was indeed worthwhile to invade Iraq. Maybe invading Iraq served our national interest. Fine. But one of the trade-offs we have to accept is that in exchange for advancing our national (security) interests we'll have to deal with the tricky matter of relinquishing some control over what happens next while accepting some blame.

Nobody said life is fair.

[thoreau]

This can be sumed up in a few short words, 'the ends justify the means, as long as there is a republican in office'

Wrong. The real lesson is "Everything is justified if a Republican is doing it."

Glad to see Bush restored integrity to the Presidency.

[Andrew]

Boom

I backed the President in Bosnia and Kosovo. And in Haiti. So did the Republican candidate, Dole, if I recall correctly. Some Democrats didn't. Moynihan was crying on Sunday morning TV even as Marines were deploying into harm's way.

The Automatic Anti-War position is the all but reflex position of nearly all pundits who are NOT "neo-cons" (just as the STRADDLE is the corollary of it with Dem pols-- eg. Kerry).

Republicans were on both sides of Kosovo, but it is worth pointing out that Clinton wasn't acting after 9/11...and Clinton bombed the shit out of Iraq (not bad, either).

[thoreau]

Moynihan was crying on Sunday morning TV even as Marines were deploying into harm's way.

If Moynihan believed that the President erred in sending them there, didn't he have a patriotic duty to demand their immediate return home? Or would it have been more patriotic to say "I think this is a horrible idea but I'll cheer for it anyway"?

[Andrew]

Thoreau

I said in a previous post that there is a range across which a statesman might be expected to exercise some discretion.

Dead, Moynihan has become a sainted icon...but this wasn't one of his better moments. How the junta reacted to the situation could have cost the lives of Marines AND lots of Hatians. Why was it so important for Pat to cover his ass?

Who doubts his patriotism? But what about his judgement?

[thoreau]

OK, fair enough, it may be patriotic to say "bring them home" but it may be wiser to time the announcement. Fair enough.

[Les]

While there are valid arguments on both sides of regarding the invasion of Iraq, it's simply inarguable (especially now that the top-secret version of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate has been released) that senior members of the Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence on WMD's (and it can be argued that Cheney, Rice, and Powell lied outright).

If you support the war, why would it comfort you to have proven liars leading the U.S. during wartime? Only a Republican loyalist could lack the moral center to dismiss the implications of such blatent dishonesty (just as only Democratic loyalists could dismiss the implications of Clinton's actions).

Party loyalists really need their own 12-step program.

[Andrew]

Les

The reason anyone chooses the candidate they wish to elect, is that they believe him to be the best available choice. We don't have a Democratic candidate just yet, but the only one who would have given me pause (Lieberman) has dropped...as for Kerry-- his waffling about the central issue is a matter of public record.

We KNOW what the president wants to do about Iraq, and what he did do-- and I endorse it.

Kerry has a Secret Plan to make the French miraculously solve our problems.

[Strauss]

"We KNOW what the president wants to do about Iraq, and what he did do"

So they found WMD in Iraq while everyone was preoccupied with Janet's wardrobe failure and only you know about it, Andrew?

[Andrew]

Strauss

Bush toppled Saddam's regime...did you notice that?

Meantime, ps Kerry still trying to understand the language of the war resolution he voted for (what could be expected from a guy with a Yale degree, and two decades of experience in the Senate?), and his contribution to post-War planning is to vote against necessary appropriations.

His plan? To be announced...but it will involve lots of sexy UN and EU input.

[Robert Hutchinson]

"The ends justify the means" just doesn't cut it anymore, does it? No, now we have to say that, "Given the existence of some theoretical just ends--the exact nature of which can be named, and even discovered, weeks and months after the events in question have passed entirely--the means are justified."

Have enough faith in what men say about themselves, and you will walk among gods.

[Will]

roddy - I can't get behind the GOP... I just can't do it. But if I could I'd join you for the same reasons...

I don't oppose the war in Iraq for the same reason I don't oppose kicking in the teeth of rotten Islam-o-fascists anywhere they are around the globe.

I think it's s shame that Bush or any other president has to basically manafacture consent with half-truths, faulty info and white lies - when what we should be doing is standing up to the forces of superstitution and ignorance - with an honest dialog that basically says, "Yeah - these guys are the problem... they are stuck in the 12th century and we're going to drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century if it kills them..."

Sadly, our ties to right wing Israel taints our creditability some what in this matter...

[Les]

Andrew,

If you don't know that Kerry has hired liars as his most trusted aids, then how is he less qualified than Bush? I'm no big fan of Kerry's, but he's certainly not the priveleged, intellectually challenged man we have in office today.

Seriously, what has G.W. ever independently said or done that is impressive? He DID say, of his own accord, "bring 'em on" to a bunch of terrorists thousands of miles away from him, risking only the lives of the people who ACTUALLY toppled Sadaam's regime. I mean, come on, a guy would have to be pretty fucking stupid to say something like that, wouldn't he? Are the foreign policies of his hired liars so impressive that you'll stick with him no matter what?

[Andrew]

Just a thought for those bloggers on H&R who are apparently just getting introduced to the reality that public-policy makers market their prescriptions with something less than the scrupulous and pains-taking candor you have come to expect from, say, used computer vendors

probably you should let this new insight sink in for a while, and sit out the next couple of presidential cycles before you cast a vote for any Democrat or Republican running for much of anything

else you may discover to your horror (and incurable mortification) that someone you voted for (perhaps to punish the last guy who wasn't as straightforward as Jesus or Robert E. Lee) turned out not to be everything he represented himself to be,

thereby leaving you helpless to make your own assessment of how he might conduct himself in office-- with the years, you may learn to cope.

[Robert Hutchinson]

sit out the next couple of presidential cycles before you cast a vote for any Democrat or Republican running for much of anything

Already on it. But thanks.

[Andrew]

Les

I do believe in the war, and the foreign policy associated with it.

I do believe Bush will make a better president his second term, than anyone the Democrats could replace him with.

I do believe the Republican Party will choose a much more attractive and worthy candidate in 2008 (in any case), and I would prefer him to be running for an open seat with a friendly White House...rather than attempting to unseat an incumbent.

It's really pretty simple.

[Kevin Carson]

I expanded the above post into the following email to O'Reilly:

According to O'Reilly, it's just "bad intelligence"--all Tenet's fault, of course. To hear him, you'd never know Doug Feith or the OSP ever existed. O'Reilly is just repeating the talking points of Rumsfeld and Cheney, almost verbatim. They didn't lie us into war, oh no! They were just passive victims.

This is all pretty much what a PR consultant would have prescribed to Bush: "Look, worst-case, you could plausibly be accused of near-treason. There's no way you're getting out without at least some embarassment. Your best course is to plead guilty to the much lesser offense of not paying attention, take a slap on the wrist for minor incompetence, and blame all the really bad stuff on Tenet. If you're really smart, you'll get some media whore (this sounds right up O'Reilly's alley) to do the wrist-slapping. That way you get the appearance of being taken to the woodshed, and O'Reilly gets to look like a hard-hitting gadfly who doesn't play favorites."

I know damn well O'Reilly's not that stupid. As usual, when he pretends to be tough on "both sides," he's just feigning moral outrage against a straw man. And of course, the real culprit gets away clean, hiding behind the alleged incompetence of his subordinates three rungs down.

Every time I hear O'Reilly, I loathe him a little more.

[HH]

"Probably for the same reason Bill 'Born Again Yesterday' O'Reilly still has his."

Huh? O'Reilly brings in the biggest audience in cable news and one of the biggest audiences on cable period. Where's the mystery?

[HH]

"But Roddy, we KNOW what kind of intelligence the administration got and it was fairly accurate. They were told that some intelligence agents thought he had WMD's and some did not. They were told that most agents didn't think he had a working nuclear weapons program. They took this information and told the public that there was "no doubt" that Hussein had WMD's and a working nuclear weapons program."

And the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Congress got the same intel and made some of the same statements, including John Kerry. The idea that this is just an Administration thing is ludicrous on its face and ignorant of history.

[Les]

HH, I'm not so naive to think that Democrats are above lying through their teeth. They do it on a regular basis and have done so as often as Republicans. But it would be refreshing for Democrats and Republicans alike to admit that the people their parties have chosen to lead are liars.

That said, it's not really a valid argument to defend someone who's been caught lying by pointing your fingers at other liars. It does seem to be the defense of choice for loyalists on both sides.

[Strauss]

Andrew's dilemma -

"His plan? To be announced...but it will involve lots of sexy UN and EU input."

Why not assume that Kerry is just being as cunning & devious with his UN & EU realpolitik as you seem to believe the Bush administration has been with their WMD stories ? Maybe, behind Kerry's "less than scrupulous & candid" policy prescriptions lurks a machivellian plan to rid the world of dictators, crush the french & chinese & abolish the UN ? After all, its alright to say one thing and do something else & the only way to guess at what that something else might be is to read the weekly standard, National Review, & god knows what else or talk to you, personally.

[Strauss]

dl of raleigh
"We, France, Russia, the UN & most everyone thought Iraq
had WMD"

That's not what "Sam i was" and Andrew are saying. They believe the WMD story to be an elaborate smoke screen behind which the administration launched Operation Domino Topple. And if the American public didn't catch on to this simple tactic then its their own damn fault for being so stupid.

[Andrew]

Strauss

I did NOT say the administration doubted that Saddam had WMD...I think it is extremely unlikely the administration would have rested their case for war so heavily on the likelihood of finding WMD in the aftermath, if the administration had not actually expected to find it.

No president within his senses would have subjected himself to the risks involved in negotiating this difficult political moment--

Bush may be able to do it (will likely be able to, because most Americans will give him the benefit of the doubt as to his concerns and intentions...and because most Americans will be satisfied with a satisfactory outcome),

but this isn't the kind of risk even the most daring politician would have courted.

Bush is not an imbecile. He is decidedly mediocre and limited...but the strength of democracies is to do so much with ordinary clay-- only despotisms require extraordinary men.

A Democratic successor to Bush may (in the best event) simply continue Bush's foreign policy, but the election itself is bound to be seen as a referendum on the substance of the issue...and not on the case made for it, prior.

[joe]

I don't think giving the president of the US the benefit of the doubt when he implies that he has information he can't show you rises to quite the same level as bullshitting Congress and the public to get a force resolution.

[joe]

OK roddy, you're willing to give a pass to the sleazy, corrupt behavior of this White House in order to achieve the pragmatic benefit of getting your war on, because you believe that being able to do so is so very important to our well being. Got it.

Now let me ask you: don't you think the massive backlash, domestically and across the world, against Bush's dishonest warmongering is going to make people (Americans and our allies) LESS willing to take our word for it when we need to get a war on, and therefore make it more difficult for heroic Presidents to spill all that Arab blood you're so hot on?

[DanInAlabama]

My post isn?t about political parties, god knows there are crooks and liars in all political parties. The right isn?t always wrong, and the left isn?t always right. Nor do I wish to start a fight with anyone on this site. I only paraphrase another post to express my thoughts on the subject at hand.
If you live on an Island with three thousand other people and you tell the people on that Island that ?Billy? swiped your critical supplies then beat the crap out of Billy only to find that Billy didn?t take your critical supplies are you still justified in what you did simply because Billy was guilty of stealing ?in the past? and you thought he was thinking about stealing again?
If my father and his friends at one time helped a man acquire weapons, and that man then went on to harm his family with those weapons while my father and his friends stood by and did nothing - until he eventually pissed my father and friends off years later- who is to blame for the actions of the ?Bad Man?? My daddy and his friends, or the bad man? Do my daddy and his buddies bear any responsibility at all for the harm that befell the bad man?s family while they continued to supply the bad man weapons even ?after? he had harmed his own family?
To me the answer is they are all guilty. And yes it is that simple. Right and wrong are not that hard to figure out.
America is the greatest country on earth,,,, here comes the but,,, but if you think that animosity and hatred appear out of thin air you do not understand human nature nor do you know the history of what certain US factions with certain policies have been doing around this world for decades.
People do not hate America because of our Freedoms. On the contrary, they admire our freedoms and they admire the very ?Idea? of America, for America is the embodiment of an Idea. The Idea that all men are created equal and that liberty and justice is the providence of all men, and of all human beings.
What many people do hate is the actions of certain groups of people who claim to be Americans. These ?groups? are in reality the anti-thesis of everything America stands for, and these groups have caused untold misery to millions of people in many areas of this world for years.
When I say untold, I mean untold to the American people for the people who have suffered and died by the hands of these groups are very much aware of what these un-American groups, and their proxies, have done to them for generations.
When our leaders say ?these people hate us because they are jealous of our wealth, of our freedoms?, our leaders are wrong. What?s worse, they know they are wrong, for they, too, are very aware of why ?We? (actually ?They?) are hated.
Our leaders remind me of a friend of mine. She is very beautiful, but she is also overbearing, demanding and unreasonable. She has a hard time getting along with people and whenever someone dares to point out her flaws or resist her bullshit she claims ?They are jealous of me because I am beautiful.?
Wrong darling, they don?t like you because you?re a bitch!
Until Americans invest the time and effort to learn the real history of the ?Foreign Policies? of these groups, groups who pretend to be Americans but aren?t, or until our news services actually tell the American people the truth about the history and actions of these un-American groups, Americans will go on believing what we are told to believe: They hate us because ?They are Jealous.?
I have been to many countries in this world, and I have seen nothing but kindness from all peoples. Maybe it is the way I treat them, maybe they are just ?wimpy-assed liberal types?, but I have no doubt that if I approached them with an ?Attitude? they might, like any reasonable person, want to kick my ass.
It is not America, nor Americans that ?They? are opposed to. It is the actions of bad men who pretend to be Americans but are actually opposed to everything America represents and everything our fathers have fought and died for ? truth, justice, freedom, fair play, equality, Democracy and liberty.
America claims to be a Christian nation, well it is time to stop using that claim as an election year slogan and start using it as a basis for our behavior around the world. It will require confronting the past actions of bad men who have done bad things in our name. It will require courage from the American people to face facts. Not the facts they think they know, but the real facts, the ugly facts, and the truth of what these groups have done to human beings all over this beautiful world.
But most of all, it will take real courage from our so called Media ( I ain?t holding my breath ) to face facts, tell us the truth, and expose these criminals for what they actually are, killers and man men who are guilty of crimes against humanity and crimes against the very ?Idea? of America.

[roddy]

Joe--I beleive the administration was wrong on WMD because they had crappy intelligence and drew the wrong conclusions. In short, they were fatally mistaken. Mistaken along the lines of Clinton's destruction of the aspirin factory, but on a much grander scale. I beleive they will pay a price for this, politically and in respect to legacy.

I think that Saddam's removal was wonderful and that the world will be a much better place for it. With regard to allies--who cares? More specifically, what allies? Surely you don't believe the cold war alliances were alive and well? I dont think the cold war alliances were alive and well during the cold war. SInce WW II, mostly we led and mostly they followed.

We are the best hope for freedom and a just peace on earth. I sincerely wish this was differnt, that France and Germany would recognize the threat posed by Hizbollah and its ilk to global peace and do something material about it.

I argue that a free Iraq will begin the liberalization of the region from its failure obsessed, freedom hating totalinarianism. Surely this is a good thing to a libertarian, at some level?

About your cheap shot about Arab blood--grow up. Im not a fucking vampire and Im certain youre not a child. I am simply arguing that sharp and protracted engagement with organizations that are state sponsored--or are the state, in the case of Iran--is a better approach than looking the other way.

[Les]

"I beleive the administration was wrong on WMD because they had crappy intelligence and drew the wrong conclusions."

But Roddy, we KNOW what kind of intelligence the administration got and it was fairly accurate. They were told that some intelligence agents thought he had WMD's and some did not. They were told that most agents didn't think he had a working nuclear weapons program. They took this information and told the public that there was "no doubt" that Hussein had WMD's and a working nuclear weapons program.

You can describe that as "drawing the wrong conclusions," but I think it's obvious that they were lying outright.

That said, it's possible for the invasion of Iraq to have been a good thing and at the same time for those who orchestrated it and manufactured the public's consent for it to be lying scumbags. It's a complex world.

[roddy]

Les:
Well said. i agree with much of what you posit. My position is difficult to defend, to be certain.

[Les]

Well, keep defending it as long as you keep thinking about it, I figure. I usually learn things from the folks I disagree with here and it helps to refine my own arguments.

[Les]

Andrew,

That's pretty simple. If he's re-elected I can only hope he'll speak independently less often so that our enemies might be less aware that we've appointed a mental midget into the highest office in the land.

As far as "public-policy makers marketing their prescriptions with something less than scrupulous and pains-taking candor": the reason this is reality is because intelligent people like you accept it, maybe even expect it. If people shrug their shoulders when their leaders are dishonest, you can guarantee that they'll get dishonest leaders. Most of the populace expects so little in their leaders, it's no wonder they are of such limited caliber.

This is also because intelligent people like you have embraced the two-party system (which the two parties labor tirelessly to maintain) as the only feasible system. Democrats or Republicans. That's it. It's one of the only aspects of American life in which people are happy with less choice.

If, one election day, every American decided to vote for who they believed was truly qualified to lead the most powerful nation in the history of humanity, we'd not elect someone that everyone loves. But we probably wouldn't get stuck with scumbags like Clinton or child-like morons like Bush.

One can dream...

[Rick Barton]

Sam I Was at 5:24 PM:

"The Battle of Iraq was merely one action in a bigger war, that of the war against terrorism (or the war against Islamic fundamentalism)."

A war against Islamic fundamentalism is an absurd, racist, and self-destructive notion that not even our idiot government would countenance!

Sadam was murderous against Iraqi Islamic fundamentalists. If your silly simplifications were really the goals, our government would have armed him as they did in the Iraq/Iran conflict instead of making a needless war which has killed about 10,500 including 500 Americans.

There should not be a war on terrorism. Terror is not an enemy, it's a tactic, one that is mostly employed by weak as it was by the proto Israelis against the Brits. and the Palestinians against the Israeli government's occupation of their land.

A war on a tactic is by nature an open ended war and one with out cessation. The war on terror is nebulous enough to give the government a sort of carte blanche excuse for infringing on all manner of individual rights. And, if fighting any terrorist group is sanctionable, the US can be sucked into all kinds of wars not in our interest.

Also, if the government would reign in their hyper-interventionist foreign policy the evidence is that the risk of terrorist attacks would be reduced. Instead of a "War on Terror"; those who committed the 9/11 attack should be hunted down and killed so they can't do it again.

The government used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq, as Neo-con pressure groups have been advocating for years because they thought taking out Sadam would be beneficial for Israel:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

The WMD threat was a lie to scare people into acquiescing to an un-American pre-emptive attack to start this "elective" war.

OK? Is there anybody who still doesn't get it?

You Sam, you for sure.

[joe]

roddy,

I'm not a libertarian, I'm a liberal. I'm just here for the free nachos. But as a liberal, I'm all for things that will bring hope and prosperity to that part of the world. I just don't see that happening right now.

But your point about the weaknesses of our alliances makes my point for me. Most countries, even our Cold War allies, don't chant "best hope for peace and freedom" whenever we ask them for something, and immediately obey (except maybe Tony Blair, and he's toast). When France and Germany sent their troops to fight next to ours in Afghanistan, or when Spain sends its troops to board ships carrying weapons to terrorists, they decide whether or not to do so on a case by case basis. Don't you think proving ourselves untrustworthy is going to reduce their willingness to provide intelligence, arrest people, put troops under our command, and cut checks?

"Fool me one, shame...shame on you. A foo ma...can't get fooled again!"

[dj of raleigh]

First O'Reilly, and then Einstein and those scientists
who built the A-bomb thinking Germany was going to build one!
Should they apologize for thinking Hitler would get the bomb?
Germany didn't even come close to having a nuke.

I had a date with a girl with big breasts, BIG!
Turns out, what she had wasn't all breast at all.
Was I sorry, no! Was I disappointed, yes!
Did I stop, say sorry and go home? NO!
Did I do what I could, with what I had, where I was? YES!
Did I say I'd never go all the way again? NO!
The effort was still worthwhile, worth the journey.

We, France, Russia, the UN & most everyone thought Iraq
had WMD, were going to get them, and would use them,
in part, for they once had them, and did use them,
but now we can't find them, so where's the big deal?
Shouldn't we be glad Saddam didn't have them to use?

O'Reilly saying he's sorry is saying he thinks he is infallible,
and if he thinks he is going to be right from now on,
then he is a fool. Better to be fooled, than become one.

[Kevin Carson]

Bill O'Reilly is a disingenuous whore pretending to be a hard-hitting gadfly.

According to him, it's just "bad intelligence"--all Tenet's fault, of course. To hear O'Reilly, you'd never know Doug Feith or the OSP ever existed.

And I know damn well O'Reilly's not that fucking stupid. As usual, when he pretends to be tough on "both sides," he's just feigning moral outrage against a straw man. And of course, the real culprit gets away clean, hiding behind the alleged incompetence of his subordinates three rungs down.

As Joe suggested, it appeals to the tendency of conservatives to want to believe their Leader means well. "If only someone could tell the Little Father how wicked his ministers are, he'd dry the tears of the peasantry, restore the rule of righteousness, and all manner of things would be well."

Every time I hear O'Reilly, I loathe him a little more.

[Andrew]

Joe

Can you illustrate the "credibility" issue with anything other than hypotheticals?

The only members of congress to switch positions on the war are Democrats angling for the nomination...THEIR credibility is questionable.

Our relationship with England is closer than ever, and I personally don't think that is likely to change.

Every member of the Coalition has stayed in, and many have become more deeply committed.

Test votes in the UN have basically gone our way, and the UN leadership itself is doing everything we really want them to.

Law enforcement cooperation against terrorists continues as far as I know.

And the Weasels?

Chirac would be in jail, if he wasn't head of state in his country.

Putin would be dead, if he wasn't head of state in his country. (Being dead is something that happens to his critics and opponents.)

Schroeder gave Bush his personal word he wouldn't act the way he subsequently did...and broke faith publically.

Do we have a credibility problem with THESE guys?

The American people will have a chance soon to make their own assessment.

As for the future...in what foreseeable circumstance would you wish people to accept CIA estimates, and why?

As for the foreign policy of the US, the world understands our FP-- they know what we are trying to do, and broadly why. In some cases they oppose it...but that was true before the war: they already didn't believe, or (more likely) didn't care.

[DanNAlabama]

Here's what Molly has to say about the claim that "they were all wrong" so why blame the Bush Administration:
....David Kay said, "We were all wrong."
No, in fact, we weren't all wrong.
Bush said Sunday, "The international community thought he had weapons." Actually, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency both repeatedly told the administration there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs.
Before the war, Rumsfeld claimed not only that Iraq had WMD but that "we know where they are." U.N. inspectors began openly complaining that U.S. tips on WMD were "garbage upon garbage."
Hans Blix, head of the U.N. inspections team, had a crew of 250 people from 60 nations -- including about 100 U.N. inspectors -- on the ground in Iraq, and the United States thwarted efforts to double the size of his team. You may recall that during this period, the administration repeatedly dismissed the United Nations as incompetent and irrelevant.

[thoreau]

but if you think that animosity and hatred appear out of thin air you do not understand human nature nor do you know the history of what certain US factions with certain policies have been doing around this world for decades.
People do not hate America because of our Freedoms. On the contrary, they admire our freedoms and they admire the very ?Idea? of America, for America is the embodiment of an Idea

Dan in Alabama-

You have just violated orthodoxy. The notion that there could be any causal relationship between the actions of the US gov't and the actions of American enemies is nothing short of treason. Especially if you're suggesting that a policy of unchecked aggression might be a bad idea.

How dare you violate orthodoxy on a site devoted to free minds and free markets! Obviously you don't care about freedom! :=)

[JAG]

The list of Democrats, foreign government leaders and even UN officials who have stated at various times their certainty that Iraq possessed WMD is so easy to obtain (and extensive) that I won't waste anyone's time listing them here.
If Bush lied he did so with excellent and exhaustive company. Intelligence is never perfect and if gross errors or deliberate distortions were made they were made continuously by multiple governments' and administrations' intelligence services.
To claim, without proof, that now Bush and Bush alone is "lying" because he used the same intelligence that everyone else agreed on is utterly fantastic reasoning.
Disagree with going to war, fine.
But when so many "leaders" all agreed that WMDs existed and were a threat you can possibly assert they were all WRONG but how can you suggest that Bush is the ONLY one who "lied"?
I don't know whether Bush lied, exaggerated or was completely convinced of the validity of the intelligence he recieved. But there is no evidence he lied now anymore than Clinton lied about this matter in 1998.

[Fred]

Sheesh! Talk about bloviating. Can't you guys keep it short and entertaining? You aren't making national policy here.

[Kane Ian]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 218.185.66.194
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 09:43:20
A solved puzzle is just a picture.