Monday, November 14, 2005

Why Do They Sound So Foolish?

Quick comment in the midst of another really busy day. I read something today that I believe really has a lot of merit.

It makes me say, again, that I really don't understand how everyone ignores all this guff about what was said back then. It seems so strange that most politicians agreed that Iraq was doing all the nasty WMD building. They AGREED. Even the international community agreed with the assessment.

But what really gets me is that the UN has all these things that they wanted Saddam to do to prove that they could remove the sanctions and he ignored them.

I am reminded of the cases of a NYC cop shooting a perp and then they cannot find the perp's gun. What if this perp had a gun the last time he stood in front of you, and this time, he says to you, "I got a gun, but I am not showing it to you, and I won't let you search me." Do you turn your back on him?

Okay, that was sloppy. But this is not. It goes on and on to show you that there was a consensus in the case against Saddam, and it was on the table, but hidden in the debris of Clinton's departure. Berger and his mob were all saying that he had the capability, the willingness to make the WMD. Then all (ours, intl community, Hans Blix, etc) the intelligence says, 'well our best guess is that he's got them'. And they go further to say things that basically say, ' well here is the part of the gun that can only be from this type of gun; sadly the rest of the gun was moved'.

Why do people forget it. Just to hate bush? I read somewhere today a blog that likens Bush haters to children.

Sure, the claims about Scooter libby don't sit well, and the linking to Al Quaeda are weak. I am not saying Bush's crew are a bunch of angels. I just think it is time for the critics to get a bit of reality in their lives. For example, if the US went to Iraq without the Al Quaeda comment, do you think the Al Quaeda bullies would not have gone there?

(I cannot wait for the comments that I am sure to get from someone not of this planet. )

And the point about the anti - war left that is basically helping to hurt mores soldiers. The Vietnamese relished this type of internal weakness. Courtesy of Neverdock : ' Here is what General Vo Nguyen Giap had to say about the meida's assistance to him in Vietnam.

"Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp." '

Pretty blunt but I feel pretty blunt right now. But acutely aware of the huge amount of ignorance and pandering.


Anonymous said...

Now a word from the reality based community:

The senators did NOT have the same info as the white house. That's because the bits of the NIE that cast doubt on the administrations claims were all classified. So, only those ranking members obn the Senate Intelligence Committee saw any of the doubts, and couldn't talk about it since it was classified.

Money quote: "On October 1, 2002, Tenet produced a declassified NIE. But Graham (Republican!) and Durbin were outraged to find that it omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war.

Also, as far as Bush aDerangement Syndrome, here's a piece of history:

My point being that disliking the opposition's President is normal, but does not mean it's OK to compare his detractors to children. Let's take the tone up a level here.


rod said...

Dan, I love ya, man, but you really need to lay off the Kool-Aid.

Let's begin with one absolutely unarguable point - the Bush administration thugs lied without shame and without restraint when it came time to sell their dirty little war. Aluminum tubes, relationships with al Qaeda, mobile biochemical labs; all of these and more were outright lies - not mistakes, not exaggerations, but full-on red-eyed lies. They knew it was bullshit when they said it, but they said it anyway. Furthermore, whenever anyone in the intel community called them on it, the facts were hidden. Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson, and dozens - maybe hundreds; we'll never know - of anonymous intelligence experts and analysts were telling Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith (aka, "the dumbest fucking man on the planet," according to Tommy Franks) that the intel didn't show what they said it showed, but the war party simply made sure that none of these objections got heard until it was too late. They lied, and now they're acting all pouty and whiny because the whole fucking world, including members of their own party, are calling them liars. Well, boo fucking hoo. Don't want to get called out for lying? Then stop fucking lying!

Second, I assume you're getting some good hash there in your town, because that's the only logical explanation for writing something so totally counterfactual as "the UN has all these things that they wanted Saddam to do to prove that they could remove the sanctions and he ignored them." What??? Listen - Hussein was a fucking bastard of the highest order - a fact which was abundantly clear to everyone with half a brain back in '84, when Little Donny Rumsfeld gave him a sloppy blowjob and a few tons of VX, courtesy of the Reagan administration, while the proto-neocons complained that anyone who actually mentioned that Hussein was a fucking bastard of the highest order was some kind of cryptoterrorist on the Iranian payroll. But that notwithstanding, Hussein did everything that the UN demanded he do in the runup to this war. He allowed inspectors unfettered access to everyone and everything they asked, even when the inspectors (at the behest of the US of A) kept moving the goalposts. Still, we kept saying that it wasn't enough, because deep down Hussein was a liar who couldn't be trusted. Well, guess what - Hussein was actually telling the truth, while the Bush thugs were lying like rugs. Congratulations are due to the administration here, for achieving the remarkable goal of making one of our time's worst dictators look good. Nice work.

But the silliest thing you wrote, by a wide margin, was this: "And the point about the anti - war left that is basically helping to hurt mores soldiers." Okay, first of all, Viet Nam was a long time ago. Get over it. It's time to move on to our next humiliating defeat, rather than reliving our last humiliating defeat. But here's the thing - if someone grabs you by the shoulders and places you square in front of a homicidal nut, and I yell "Jesus! Someone get Dan out of the way of that homicidal nut!", I'm not the one who is endangering you. It was the guy who shoved you in front of the gun barrel who did that, not me. Well, right now we have ~150,000 men and women who have been grabbed by the shoulders and placed in front of the barrels of guns held by homicidal nuts in Iraq (note that, until we got there, these particular homicidal nuts were a danger to no one, thanks to the effective if unacceptably ruthless control exerted by the Ba'athist regime). I'll be damned if I'm gonna take the blame for their current state of danger just because I stand up and say "get those soldiers out of the way of those homicidal nuts!" Fuck that, with vigor. If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the assholes who put those soldiers in harm's way for nothing, absolutely nothing, other than to justify their pathological need to lie. It's not on me, and know that I sleep well.

Oh, and by the way - we're gonna miss you at Founders' Day this year.

Anonymous said...

Also, while it may seem like it, Rod and I are not synchronizing our responses, lol! I'm guessing that we both check your blog in the AM, work ourselves into a good, frothy, apoplectic rage, and then, after a lunch of tofu, bean sprouts and local, organic sunflower seeds grown by lesbian farmers (what else would anti-war Democrats eat, right?) figure it's time to respond.

I think you're going to have to start blacklisting us from posting, or they are going to kick you out of the conservatives club over there.

rod said...

Nah, they'll keep us around, as pets.

Also, I should point out that I had a roast beef sandwich and a Milky Way for lunch. I think liberal, but eat conservative.

Finally, Dan - here's a different perspective than the one you offered above, regarding dissent during wartime:

"As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."

Who was this traitor who would encourage disloyal speech? None other than Robert A. Taft, conservative Senator from the state of Ohio and once known as "Mr. Republican," speaking less than two weeks after Pearl Harbor.

Anonymous said...

More on what they knew, when they knew it, and how the info was NOT disseminated to the Senators.


Javaricho said...

I am not so sure that Saddam complied with all the UN resolutions except at the last minute. After all he did a pretty good job at raiding the piggy bank on the oil for food deal. Along with the help of it seems some pretty senior guys at the UN.

I always thought the problem was that we did not get rid of him the last time when we had the chance.

Stay on the beer dan it helps you see better.

Anonymous said...


I agree that Saddam may not have complied with ALL UN resolutions, and I agree the whole Oil for Food plan was suspect (i.e. ripe for corruption and possibly counterproductive) from the get go. However, Israel has not complied with several UN resolutions and we didn't invade them. My point being, were the aforementioned breeches sufficient for a casus belli? I think not. The Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq as part of the neoconservative agenda. And then they lied/exaggerated/trumped up the justification for that end.


Anonymous said...

Sorry, Dan, but I saw this today, re: the Democratic quotes Bush is using in his current stump speech:

"George Bush, making a not-unlike-Nixon trip to Asia, stopped in Alaska to say: "Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, 'There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.' Another senior Democrat leader said, 'The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.' Here's another quote from a senior Democrat leader: 'Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion.' They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now."

Since Bush dared not speak the names of the Democrats in question or offer any context for their quotes, hey, why not do some good bloggy work here?

The first quote is from Senator Jay Rockefeller, which is the closest to a money quote in the whole thing. Rockefeller said this in the mini-debate over the Iraq War Resolution on October 10, 2002, which Rockefeller voted to approve. Also in the speech is Rockefeller's belief that war with Iraq would lead to greater terrorist threats against the U.S. And he was played for a sucker by the administration when he said, "Preventing a war with Saddam Hussein -- whether now or later -- must be our top priority, and I believe this resolution will strengthen the president’s hand to resolve this crisis peacefully. By my vote, I say to the United Nations and our allies that America is united in our resolve to deal with Saddam Hussein, and that the U.N. must act to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction. By my vote, I say to Saddam Hussein, 'Disarm, or the United States will be forced to act.'"

But that wish for the U.N. to stay involved and for the administration to try for peace doesn't stop the Rockefeller line from showing up on every nutzoid right wing blog and website claiming that Democrats wanted 'em some warrin', too. But Rockefeller has now unequivocally said that he was wrong back then, that he wouldn't have voted for the war if he had seen all the intelligence (and let's be clear here: saying that the Congress saw "the same" intelligence the President saw is not the same as saying the Congress saw all the intelligence the President had access to. It's like seeing your best friend's wife in a thong and your best friend insists that you've seen his wife naked. No, you may have seen her ass, but there's so, so much more that's been hidden. You've both seen the same ass, not the same body).

The second quote is from Senator Carl Levin, who was not really beatin' the Iraq war drums when he said, on CNN's Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer on December 16, 2001, in answer to Blitzer's question about whether or not Saddam Hussein was a terrorist: "I agree, but exactly the way Senator Kyl put it. The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as he is in power. But that does not mean he is the next target. And the commitment to do that, it seems to me, could be disruptive of our alliance that still has work to do in Afghanistan. And a lot will depend on what the facts are in various places as to what terrorist groups are doing, and as to whether or not we have facts as to whether or not the Iraqis have been involved in the terrorist attack of September 11, or whether or not Saddam is getting a weapon of mass destruction and is close to it. So facts will determine what our next targets are."

The third quote is from Senator Harry Reid who was being interviewed by Judy Woodruff on CNN's Inside Politics on September 18, 2002. Reid was asked about Democrats and their approach to the upcoming "quick vote" on a resolution to give the President authority to go to war. Woodruff wondered,"Are Democrats apparently all just jumping on this bandwagon? Or there is going to be a real debate, the kind that the American people deserve on this"

Reid responded, "As you know when his father went into Iraq, we had a very good debate. Some said one of the best debates in the last 40 years in Congress. We're going to have a debate. But I think we have to acknowledge what's gone on in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion. He's now trying to get the international community to join. Secretary Powell is basically living in New York, working with international community. And we have made progress...Right now, we're kind of speaking in a vacuum. The Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership, House, and Senate met with the president today. They talked in some generalities, but even today, I don't think the administration knows what they want to do. To get to -- to be very direct and specific, if we wanted to invade Iraq, it's going to take months to get that ready, not days, or weeks. So this isn't anything that's going to happen tomorrow. I think we should get this resolution out of the way. Maybe it would help the administration focus on the domestic policy if we did that."

Then, Reid added, cutely, now, in retrospect, "Oh, I don't think you're going to see blank check. And I don't think the president will ask for a blank check."

So there it is: one quote from a Senator who now says he's wrong, one from a Senator who said war in Iraq would disrupt the effort in Afghanistan, and one from a Senator who believed that the administration had no plan and was going to take it's time and that there would be a great and mighty debate. Now, tell us again, oh, shiny and wonderful Bush administration, how were you not manipulating these people?"


Anonymous said...

Hmm, USA problem is, that they loosing war in Iraq. Two years after invasion is highway between Baghdad and airport unsecure and people are killed every day...

Heloise said...

We captured one of the top ten tyrants of the past quarter century in a hidey-hole looking like the madman he is, freed a nation in subservience and fear, helped to build back Bagdad's infrastructure and reversed the death of the arabian marshland. We should declare victory with the job done, turn the country over to the Shiites and Sunnis to fight over and let the Kurds take care of Kurdistan and the oil that will pay us back.