(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)
That Lie About Our Misleading President
09/21/2003
I'd offer a link, but I really shouldn't have to: you've seen all of the hints and allegations in the mainstream media — sometimes utilizing the weasely "some critics charge" trick — that the Bush administration somehow subliminally inserted the idea that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in September 11 into the public's belief system. Whispers among liberal pundits and online commentators have begun to call it The Big Lie. "Oh, yes," they say, "technically Bush has never declared a direct link, but how do you explain that 69% of the American people believe one to exist if not by the administration's rhetoric?"
Perhaps it's been a hypnotic suggestion conveyed in W.'s slight lisp. MSNBC, under the heading "DID BUSH ENCOURAGE MISCONCEPTION?," offers a more deceptively plausible explanation:
Bush's opponents say he encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link began soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.
I want to make sure that we all understand the proposed scenario in all its sublety: the American people were predisposed, based on history and a need for a "bad guy," to see Hussein's hand in the attack; by hinting with abandon at links between Hussein and al Qaeda, the administration encouraged the misconception that Hussein was linked to September 11.
Well, responses to a couple of posts in which John Cole took a look at some of what is being cited as "Bush's lies" broke my lethargy and inspired me to take a few minutes to find the actual Washington Post poll data. All I was looking for was a little wiggle room with the question's language and options. On this count, I did not come up empty handed: 37% of that 69% thought the 9-11 link only "somewhat likely," and the next choice down is "not very likely." I'd guess that an option somewhere between the two (perhaps "possibly") would have bled a portion of the "likely" votes.
But that wasn't all I found. The WaPo is good enough to supply data for this question dating back to September 13, 2001:
Y'know, it's a strange pathology that afflicts Bush Haters: they apparently believe that the President is so clever that he's manipulating people to believe lies, but that he's so inept that he somehow manages to make them believe the lies even less than they previously had. Or does that just indicate that he's even more clever... so much so, in fact, that he realized beforehand that the press would conveniently overlook the trend that 69% actually represents.
In a September 13, 2003, opinion column in the Washington Post titled "Sacrilegious Spinning," Ellen Goodman writes, "The emotional link -- bad guys do bad things, Saddam is bad, 9/11 is bad -- has become a successful political link." She subsequently asks:
When does the small, repeated exploitation of this belief become the big lie?
I'm wondering something similar myself.
Posted by Justin Katz @ 12:29 AM EST
24 comments
So the, your point would be that it's a good thing that our President didn't set the record straight?
And that we invaded a country based on misconceptions and pretenses that have all been proved wrong with hindsight?
"A senior official in Iraq's new science ministry says the country never revived its nuclear program after U.N. inspectors dismantled it in the 1990's.
Abbas Balasem, an official of the new U.S.-backed administration in Baghdad, said Tuesday Iraqi scientists had no way to re-start the program because the inspectors took away all the necessary resources.The former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix echoed those sentiments, telling Australian radio he believes Iraq destroyed almost all of the weapons of mass destruction it had in the summer of 1991 - a position Iraq constantly maintained."
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=50F5166C-1440-4027-A89BCF3DE6A2C74E
And the biologicals...
"Top American scientists assigned to the weapons hunt in Iraq found no evidence Saddam Hussein’s regime was making or stockpiling smallpox, The Associated Press has learned from senior military officers involved in the search."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/968663.asp
--
And this is the kind of leader you want?
Wah @ 09/22/2003 03:19 PM EST
Guess the lesson is not to try to bluff the US.
On September 11 or 12, 2001, Hussein's press statement celebrated the attacks. Hussein's somewhat more conciliatory personal statement can be found here
Throughout the 1990's, Hussein's government indicated that they still possessed chemical weapons.
Post-9/11, talk is no longer cheap.
john bragg @ 09/22/2003 03:35 PM EST
The point, Wah, is that the media, the Democrats, and their echoes in the citizenry are simply making up reasons to distrust the President. Any statement, statistic, question, mistatement, whatever is contorted to reflect poorly not only on the President, but on the military and the entire nation.
You encapsulate the most common problem in your very first sentence: that we have "no evidence" of a direct link means that there is, currently, no record to "set straight." The administration has confirmed a cooperation between Hussein and al Qaeda, so there is nothing unreasonable about assuming some contribution to an attack whose planning began in 1996, and it would be rash for the President to assert a non-link based on no evidence (wouldn't you say?). As it happens, I've already addressed the "no smallpox" report and (in the same post) offered a Butler to counter the Blix:
"Don't believe those who say they aren't there just because we haven't found them. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Butler told the crowd. "Iraq certainly did have weapons of mass destruction. Trust me. I held some in my own hands."
------------
John Bragg,
And let's not leave out the artwork that our troops discovered in Iraq.
Justin Katz @ 09/22/2003 03:49 PM EST
Without meaning to be pejorative, I think Wah's post typifies the sloppy, tendentious reasoning that is rife in the "anti-war," anti-Bush ranks.
There is no record "to set straight," because the record, like the reality, is/was murky. That's, uh, the point. Cheney's summary last week was perfect: there were definitely Iraq/al-Qaeda ties, but we don't know if there were Iraq-9/11 ties.
But there's nothing murky about the lazy or uninformed next few comments.
Let's see, Hans Blix believes Iraq destroyed its WMDs in the summer of 1991? That would include all those WMDs (programs, material, and weapons) completely unknown to UNSCOM at the outset, but discovered only through fortunate defections -- like the bio program and some of the chem program -- much later than summer 1991?
Perhaps like Ted Kennedy, Blix actually meant something completely different than what he very clearly and confidently said. Must be, since his views are contradicted by the well-known facts.
As to "misconceptions and pretenses," how about this one -- that "Iraqi scientists had no way to re-start the program because the inspectors took away all the necessary resources." Excuse me?
The only resources needed to re-start any of Iraq's weapons programs were money, and a decision to do it -- the very able scientists and engineers were, of course, still mostly there. As they would be, forever -- you can't "uninvent" human talent, in this case very considerable Iraqi human talent.
Let's see -- yep, Iraq certainly had/will have plenty of money -- it comes out of the ground there, in huge volumes. And yep -- they've still got the highly competent technical talent and organization, best in the region, to resume and surpass their previous WMD work. And, by the looks of it, political will has never been lacking under the Ba'ath leaderhip.
Bush and his team immediately recongized, with 9/11, that what was a dangerous and odious yet half-contained menace -- Iraq -- was, in the new situation, an intolerable threat. Precisely because it was only a matter of time, decision, and available money before they out from under sanctions and back in the WMD biz.
That's why they call this "pre-emption." It's a calculated risk -- the costs of bold pre-emptive action vs. the risks of inaction or indirect action.
It's not like sizing up competing home-equity loan offers. There aren't easily comparable terms and rates -- nor are there high-confidence intelligence means to determine which threats are "imminent" vs. those which are distant.
One can make the wrong call, but in this case, rightly so, the burden falls on the bad guys to avoid forcing us into that choice. Iraq's resume and resources amply justified the president deciding better safe than sorry.
These kinds of decisions take judgement, and leadership. And yes, to date, and initially to my surprise, Bush has shown he is exactly the kind of leader I want. Time will tell, but I'd guess a year from now the voters will agree.
IceCold @ 09/22/2003 04:37 PM EST
Justin,
I'm not sure if you're being "outrageous" (i.e., in a "Treason" sort of way) or don't understand how silly it is to say:
"Y'know, it's a strange pathology that afflicts Bush Haters: they apparently believe that the President is so clever that he's manipulating people to believe lies, but that he's so inept that he somehow manages to make them believe the lies even less than they previously had. Or does that just indicate that he's even more clever... so much so, in fact, that he realized beforehand that the press would conveniently overlook the trend that 69% actually represents."
You ascribe a "pathology" to people in your creation of an absurd straw man, when numerous explanations work to explain the numbers and the criticism. In particular, the explanation, and what most "Bush Haters" would probably agree with is that while on 9/13/01 78% assumed it was Iraq, over the intervening time, the administrations attempts to blur the connection have resulted in an artificial elevation of the number of people that believe Iraq was related to 9/11 despite contrary reports. And, in fact, the 69% is an artificial elevation of the results that occurred but for the administrations intervention. IOW, the numbers would be far lower if the administration hadn't mislead people into believing Iraq was connected to 9/11. You can disagree with that argument (as other "Bush Haters" might; I have no authority to speak for everyone that I assume you would call a "Bush Hater"), but at least present an accurate picture of the argument rather than creating a ludicrous strawman.
Indeed, the only way your statement could remain viable is if you believed that all "Bush Haters" think that everyone receives all their information about Iraq and 9/11 from the Admininstration and that every fluctuation in the poll numbers are directly linked to the statements made by the administration.
But of course, that's a straw man. No "Bush Hater" believes that Bush has total control of all sources of information. Rather, as most people must admit, statements of the administration carry a significant amount of weight. And when Dick Cheney says,
"Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know ..."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/966470.asp
people might think there is some kind of connection. They might think that despite the fact the FBI discredited the Atta-Prague connection.
-----------------
As for this:
"Don't believe those who say they aren't there just because we haven't found them. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Butler told the crowd. "Iraq certainly did have weapons of mass destruction. Trust me. I held some in my own hands."
All Butler has is evidence that Iraq had WMDs at _some point_. However, that evidence supports something that _no one_ disagrees with. We know Iraq _had_ WMDs. We know Butler could have held them. The issue is whether Iraq had them recently. He didn't say when he held "some", but Butler was head of UNSCOM until 1999. Blix was in Iraq 6 months ago and said most of the WMDs were destroyed in 1991. Believe who you want.
Anonymous_Blogger @ 09/22/2003 04:40 PM EST
Wah (isn't that the sound of a sore loser crying?), why do you presume it is the job of the President of the United States to correct every mis-belief of the American public? Now the loons aren't only lying about the President being a liar, they are complaining that he didn't do enough to point out that his detractors are liars. Is this high comedy or what?
Frank B. @ 09/22/2003 04:44 PM EST
"The point, Wah, is that the media, the Democrats, and their echoes in the citizenry are simply making up reasons to distrust the President."
Umm, I don't see people 'making up reasons' when they point out how the President's (and his circle's) predictions have been wrong on pretty much every point.
From the weapons, to the cakewalk, to the 'open arms'.
"You encapsulate the most common problem in your very first sentence: that we have "no evidence" of a direct link means that there is, currently, no record to "set straight." "
Okay, the largest and best funded intelligence agency in the world, working alongside most every other intelligence agency in the world, have found 'no evidence' of a connection.
The people who should know the most about this subject in the world all came out and said there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 (that would be Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rice).
And yet you refuse to accept this on the face of it. There is no arguing, since, despite having no evidence to support your position, you stick with it.
"The administration has confirmed a cooperation between Hussein and al Qaeda,"
A 'cooperation' between a secular Islamic sociopath and a fundamentalist organization that has called for the end of all secular Islamic regimes? Let me gues, your evidence is a hospital stay in a communist country where everyone gets 'free' medical service?
Or you have something else? A meeting in Germany that has been disavowed by pretty much everyone (including our governmnet)?
What is this 'cooperation'?
The artwork is taken out of context by LGF (imagine that LGF fanning flames of hate, who'da thunk it?).
"The plane‘s logo and coloring resembled that of Iraqi Airlines, said Getty Images News Service executive Brian Felber, based in New York."
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/911mural.htm
Tell me when it was done? Tell me who did it? You seem to know these answers, so please share them.
As to the no 9/11-Iraq direct connection. You remember the flag thing, don't you? And the statue...
""Marines say that the US flag draped over Saddam Hussein's statue was the flag that was flying over the Pentagon on 11 September 2001. It was later replaced with the Iraqi flag after the people shouted for it..""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2935641.stm
The guys who did that certainly knew why they were fighting. Count up the trash talking on painted barrels and missiles that include the string "9/11" and were used in Iraq, and then try and tell me that soldiers weren't ordered to kill because of an attack on us by them.
wah @ 09/22/2003 04:51 PM EST
"One can make the wrong call, but in this case, rightly so, the burden falls on the bad guys to avoid forcing us into that choice."
I'm going to start swinging my arms, and if you get hit, it's your own fault. [I start walking toward you]
Neo-con logic, in a nut-shell. And it should be in a nut-ward.
Sorry about the typos. A preview button would be dang handy.
wah @ 09/22/2003 04:56 PM EST
Pure artistry, Anonymous_Blogger.
First, I have not seen a single anti-Bush accusation that has mentioned the downward trend of public opinion on this question and, thereafter, opined that the number should be even lower. (As an aside, does anybody remember when a 9% drop in the President's popularity would have been characterized as "plummeting"?)
Second, we cannot compare public opinion to what we think public opinion should be if not for the act of somebody else. The plain fact is that there has been no "evidence to the contrary," that Hussein had no role; indeed, there has been evidence of a general cooperation between Hussein and al Qaeda.
Third, many of the statements "to the contrary" have come from the administration itself, as its officials have said "yes to connection, but nothing yet specifically on 9/11." If you look back at the WaPo poll, you'll see that another 13% of respondents (i.e., 82%) linked Saddam and al Qaeda. These numbers are in exact correlation to what the President has been saying.
It isn't a ludicrous strawman: I accurately characterize the content of much of this sort of "coverage" and commentary. (Hey, since they don't mention the trend, they are, at the very least, "misleading" the American public, no?)
But, of course, the term "Bush Hater" is meant to add a little levity. It oughtn't be taken to indicate, however, that I am unwilling or unable to field more subtle arguments.
Justin Katz @ 09/22/2003 05:03 PM EST
Wah, logic is logic, never "neo-con" or any other sort.
Your analogy does not match up with the last 20 years of actual history. Iraq was an innocent bystander, with no history of undeterrable belligerence, vast resources, and actual aggression? We were a bully just wading into the innocent, swinging our arms?
We're all open-minded on any arguments explaining why pre-emption should not be an option (among several) in a world of very imperfect intelligence and catastrophic potential for terror attacks. So far you haven't offered any such arguments.
IceCold @ 09/22/2003 05:23 PM EST
Wah,
I honestly don't know where to begin with you. You've swallowed the whole anti-Bush storyline that not only I, but also whole swaths of the blogosphere and alternative media have spent months debunking point by point. Take some time to poke around my blog if you want specifics, but the fact is that every datum on which such statements as yours are based has been shown false or deceptive.
WMD? It's a large country, in which one is apt to stumble across buried squadrons of airplanes. Literal tons of bio & chem weapons could be stored in relatively small areas. And we've been there what? Five months? If there were/are no weapons, why would Hussein have continued to act as if there were?
Cakewalk? What do you call the war, comparative to others?
Open arms? There are plenty of reports out there from people who've actually been in Iraq and are incredulous at the negative coverage. A Democrat Congressman has even suggested that the media is contributing to the deaths of our soldiers.
As for intelligence, I can't believe that you've got such an optimistic view of its capabilities. In your world, there could be no conceivable crime. There are many ways to keep a link quiet, y'know.
But the best part of your comment — the note on which I'm going to leave it, because it's too good to bury — is that, immediately after calling administration officials "people who should know the most about this subject in the world" to support your opinion, you dismiss those very same people with a bit of naive dogma about how fundamentalist terrorists and a secular dictator couldn't possibly work together.
Oy.
Justin Katz @ 09/22/2003 05:36 PM EST
"We're all open-minded on any arguments explaining why pre-emption should not be an option (among several) in a world of very imperfect intelligence and catastrophic potential for terror attacks."
Now you have some data. Pre-emption has led to more terror attacks, increased terrorist recruiting, and when done without something of a global mandate, divided nations that should otherwise be solid allies.
What good has it done? And note my previous links.
And this should be put in the context that I think the rest of the 'War on Terror' is going all right. We have been hunting down the individuals responsible for terrorist attacks. In Bali, they even got the holy grail of the War on Terror, a terrorist who realizes what fucknut he was, and how killing women and children, is in fact, a crime against Allah.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,210496,00.html
But Iraq was a big mistake if the idea is to reduce the number of people blinded by hatred, who then see the light in the eyes of those who wish to destroy us as a solution to their own problems (using any means available).
"Iraq was an innocent bystander, with no history of undeterrable belligerence, vast resources, and actual aggression?"
Iraq was not an innocent bystander, their belligerence had been effectively deterred (i.e. you invade, the world hands you your ass), but they still do have those vast resources. That 'actual' in front of agression, is a curious one. Is that to somehow differentiate between that and our (I'm a Texan and proud U.S. citizen) 'apparent' agression?
wah @ 09/22/2003 05:46 PM EST
Justin,
"I honestly don't know where to begin with you."
Ditto. But at least I'm offering backing for my position rather than a tired 'oh, we talked about that last week and decided we were right.'
From your supporting evidence on how nice things are in Iraq, nowadays.
"The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam."
To continue, he also says something I completely disagree with.
"During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly."
No, the bad and the ugly would have been coverage of where bombs lands, and what bodies look like after being too close to 2000 bombs. The good would be close-ups of troops draping flags on statues. I'll not even mention the Jessica Lynch story.
He finishes with something even more preposterous.
"We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops."
So what we need is people to boldly lie straight into the faces of these people to undo the harm our media is doing. Riiight.
"What do you call the war, comparative to others? (re:cakewalk)"
Umm, it's still going on. See the Rep.'s analogy to Vietnam.
"As for intelligence, I can't believe that you've got such an optimistic view of its capabilities."
Yes, especially after so many in the administration were so sure just exactly where those weapons were.
The thing about the intelligence is that is was quite ambiguous. There were reports on both sides, and both should have been given weight. The administration flat out ignored everything that didn't say what they wanted to. They made a decision based on that.
It was wrong.
"You dismiss those very same people with a bit of naive dogma about how fundamentalist terrorists and a secular dictator couldn't possibly work together."
on 9/11, you left that part out. And if we get to kill 3 times as many innocent people as were killed on 9/11 on suspicions, those suspicions should probably be stronger than the ideology they rely on.
It doesn't seem they were in this particular instance.
From my own pages...
"George W. Bush: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11," Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.
Condolezza Rice: "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11," Rice added.
Donald Rumsfeld: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say" Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda's suicidal hijackings, Rumsfeld said."
wah @ 09/22/2003 06:02 PM EST
Wah, would you prefer that we had not deposed Saddam, his sons, and the Baath party in Iraq? Is your preference based on the cost to the US in dollars and lives?
How compassionate of you.
Robert @ 09/22/2003 06:07 PM EST
I just want to see one of these quotes where Bush insinuated a connection between Iraq and 9/11. I consumed Iraq related news obsessively in the run up to the war and never thought Bush was insinuating anything.
Matt Miller @ 09/22/2003 06:17 PM EST
Matt,
"The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities."
If that's not insinuating Saddam = 9/11, I don't know what "to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way" means.
Robert, with his leading rhetorical...
"Wah, would you prefer that we had not deposed Saddam, his sons, and the Baath party in Iraq?"
No, I would not prefer that we had not deposed Saddam. It was the manner in which we pursued this goal that is my problem. It is the way in which we went about it that leaves much to be desired. It was the half-truths and accusations that had to be acted on before more data could be collected (you do remember how many of Saddam's missiles we destroy with those inspections 'that weren't working', dont' you? And how many of his WMD?).
"Is your preference based on the cost to the US in dollars and lives?"
My preference is based on helping to create a world where we have some means of dealing with these types of leaders without resorting to destabilizing violence and unilateral action. Ways that don't increase the use of terrorism. Ways that don't divide our country and our world. Ways that don't make us look like freakin' asshats.
How many lives in Africa could be saved for $87,000,000,000. Asia? Latin America? If you want to talk about the economics of relieving suffering and the efficient use of resources towards that goal, I don't think war and occupation are at the top of the list of 'best practices'.
wah @ 09/22/2003 06:43 PM EST
Wah,
By mentioning previous debunkings, I wasn't shrugging you off; really, you can look on the main page of my blog and find about a dozen detailed investigations of this sort of thing. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't realize that every quotation that you cite (for which I can find additional context) was made in close proximity to a statement that there have undoubtedly been links between Iraq and al Qaeda for at least a decade. (See here, for starters.)
Bush: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
Rumsfeld: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that. ... we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no."
In the case of Condi Rice, I'm not going to pay ABC $15 for a transcript, but even in the quotation that you offer, she's very specific: "direction or control."
There's much more, and you can find everything I've collected by going to my blog's main page and searching for "iraq" or "hussein."
Justin Katz @ 09/22/2003 07:29 PM EST
"I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't realize that every quotation that you cite (for which I can find additional context) was made in close proximity to a statement that there have undoubtedly been links between Iraq and al Qaeda for at least a decade."
Yes, I know they stuck to the talking points. However, when you start talking about historical ties to ... terrorists (that word depends on the decade, I guess) in Afghanistan, or even Hussein's Iraq, then the U.S. really has trouble getting up on a high horse and dictating who needs to die for talking to whom.
If the cutoff point is right after we stopped dealing with Saddam and the Mujahedeen, we come out smelling like roses (and, uh, you don't look at Latin or South America). If you extend the statute of limitations a bit, to say 30 years or so, the picture changes (i.e. in a nutshell why people will argue about politics forever). Which is the more accurate view of the world?
I noticed that the argument in your recent post rests (from the linked "here") on a weekly standard article (Hmm, guess my neo-con observation was rather close to home after all) and that is much too long to pull apart for you.
Good luck with the empire, but know that many of us here in this democracy think that is a foolish plan. It didn't work out so well for the Russians, or the Germans, or the Japanese, or the Chinese, or the Persians, or the English, or the Portuguese....
wah @ 09/22/2003 08:42 PM EST
A few days after 9/11, Bush made his State of the Union address, saying something to the effect that we will make no distinction between terrorists and the states that harbor them. Those aren't the words, but that's the sentiment, if I remember correctly.
This, I think is why we went after Iraq. Its support of terror was well known, the prior Administration had believed them a menace and in possession of WMD, the UN had declared it in material breach of its obligations regarding this issue, to say nothing of being violation of about 17 other resolutions. They were the big dog on the block militarily speaking, and the nastier elements of the Islamic world looked up to him as someone to take the piss out of the West.
In other words, Saddam and Iraq were low-hanging fruit, and they fit the clearly stated agenda of September 2001, and innumerable speeches since then.
I never heard the Administration link Saddam with 9/11. I'm not a big fan of Bush's, but I can't side with the "Bush lied!" crowd here.
Laurie K.
Laurie K. @ 09/23/2003 05:25 PM EST
But it worked pretty well for the Romans.
c matt @ 09/23/2003 05:32 PM EST
I didn't read the WaPo questions, but do they ask "Do you think the Bush Admin has established ties between Iraq and 9/11" or did it simply ask "Do you believe Iraq had ties to 9/11"? IF the latter, how could Bush be called a liar for what people think on their own?
It is pretty funny that liberals, who can't tell the truth to save their lives and are always "insinuating" things so they can backpedal later are now accusing others of doing exactly what they do all the time. And Al Gore invented the internet.
c matt @ 09/23/2003 05:37 PM EST
wah said: "Good luck with the empire, but know that many of us here in this democracy think that is a foolish plan. It didn't work out so well for the Russians, or the Germans, or the Japanese, or the Chinese, or the Persians, or the English, or the Portuguese...."
So do you mean to say that the poor devils who got gobbled up by said empires fared better? With the exception of the Germans and Japanese (who were imperialists rather than empire builders; I maintain that there is a difference between the two) all of the empires you mentioned lasted hundreds of years and by judgement of history were quite successful. This is what happens when you argue based on ideology rather than from facts. The outputs get skewed.
It is my opinion (note, I present this as a hypothesis, rather than an established fact; this is the basis of honest debating) that there will be no more empires. Nor is the US trying to establish an empire. It is trying to establish a world-wide free trade zone. This means destroying kleptocrats, religious zealots who believe that compound interest is Evil, and national-socialists who run death camps. Because if we don't destroy them, they'll destroy us.
The usual counter to my last assertion is that how could a group so small and weak overthrow a nation so strong. How many core followers did Hitler start out with? Lenin? Mussolini? And none of those three villians had allies armed with nukes (France and Pakistan)!
a dude @ 09/23/2003 06:53 PM EST
Said it before, will say it again:
The major disconnect between the left and the right seems to be the application of REASONED ANALYSIS to any argument.
I barely get through any leftist argument without a "gakking" sound in the back of my throat.
And I try. I truly, honestly, sincerely try to read their opinions. (I like the mental challenge of testing my beliefs against differing opinions held by others -- either to confirm my belief, or to change my opinion based on the facts of an argument.)
But, to date, I've always been brought up short in the first sentence or two of any "lefty" essay. When one witnesses 20 logical errors in an opening paragraph, it becomes an exercise in sacrifice (that is beyond me) to proceed further.
cj @ 09/26/2003 03:26 AM EST
"The thing about the intelligence is that is was quite ambiguous. There were reports on both sides, and both should have been given weight. The administration flat out ignored everything that didn't say what they wanted to. They made a decision based on that. "
How can you make that assertion? Are you in the administration? How do you know what they looked at and what they didn't? Are you basing this on what the result was? If so, then you need to take into account that after 9-11 the stakes were raised considerably. The threat level raised considerably. If they did nothing and it had turned out the other way, who would be screaming the loudest? Who would be screaming that the President had all of this intelligence and misread it????
It is really sounding like some people don't want to admit anything good from this administration... ever, no matter what happens.
Even if there is a poll showing that 2/3 of Iraqis think that their lives will be much better off in 5 years since Saddam has been removed from power.
I admit that I don't peruse the political news as much as some people do, but what is the difference in "wanting to send in troops to assist Liberia because of the slaughter of people" and "wanting to send in troops to assist Iraq because of the slaughter of people"? How about Rowanda and Somalia? Why is Iraq so different?
Intellegence can only be based on conclusions drawn from the information provided from various sources. You never find out if it is right until you follow through on it. Personally I'm glad that Bush made the decision to go into Iraq, it shows that he is taking our safety seriously. All of the intellegence that we had then pointed to Saddam having WMD. I don't know where they are, if they are buried in the sand, if they have been moved to another country or if Saddam purposely created the false image of having something that he was unable to that point of recreating. I don't know the answer to that, but if you are playing poker and you try to bluff with a high card hand and you lose all of your money...whose fault is it?
debbie @ 09/26/2003 10:37 AM EST