Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

Friday, January 25, 2008

Bush Lied! Made False Statements. People Died! Assumed Room Temperature.


Resident liberal Markadelphia asked in a comment to The Church of the MSM and the New Reformation below:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/W...overview& id=945

How, then, does the "liberal" media tells this story? These are facts, Kevin, and if the media is relaying these facts of the study is that a liberal bias?
My response:
Mark, ask yourself how the Catholic Church reacted to allegations of priests abusing women and children. There's your answer.

These are facts, Kevin, and if the media is relaying these facts of the study is that a liberal bias?

Isn't this a story about the failure of the media to do its job? I expect it to vanish from the face of the earth quite rapidly.

It's not a question of the media's liberal bias. It's a matter of questioning the media's authority. That is NOT ALLOWED.

Oh, and the silence of the media on this topic will, doubtlessly, be blamed on said media's "right-wing bias." "See? See?!?"
I forgot the other tactic - plausible deniability. Take, for example, this piece from yesterday's CBS News:
Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam

Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.
Why on earth would Saddam not believe the U.S. would invade Iraq? Could it have been, say, eight years of Bill Clinton? The fact that Bush the Elder didn't do it? Constant assurances from France, Russia and China that they'd never give a green light to a UN Security Council resolution?

Inquiring minds want to know!

But the key here is that SADDAM ACTED AS THOUGH HE STILL HAD WMD.
Piro, in his first television interview, relays this and other revelations to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley this Sunday, Jan. 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Piro spent almost seven months debriefing Saddam in a plan based on winning his confidence by convincing him that Piro was an important envoy who answered to President Bush. This and being Saddam's sole provider of items like writing materials and toiletries made the toppled Iraqi president open up to Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic.

"He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack," says Piro. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." "He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" asks Pelley, "No, not initially," answers Piro.
You remember 1998, right? Operation Desert Fox? Where Clinton lied made false statements like:
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
And:
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.
And:
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Those lies false statements.

Continuing with the CBS piece:
Once the invasion was certain, says Piro, Saddam asked his generals if they could hold the invaders for two weeks. "And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war," Piro tells Pelley. But Piro isn't convinced that the insurgency was Saddam's plan. "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," says Piro.

Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "Saddam still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD. . .to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

It took nine months to finally capture Saddam, and he bragged that he changed his routine and security to elude capture. "What he wanted to really illustrate is. . .how he was able to outsmart us," says Piro. "He told me he changed. . .the way he traveled. He got rid of his normal vehicles. He got rid of the protective detail that he traveled with, really just to change his signature."
Yup. Bush lied told falsehoods. He said words like "certain" and "know" when he ought to have said "possible" and "believe."

Fucking murderer.

We'd have been far better off just dropping the sanctions against Iraq that were killing the children, and ending the "no-fly zones," bringing our airmen home. We could trust that Saddam wouldn't do anything untoward. He didn't have any WMDs.

I question the timing of the CBS story whitewash.

And that Center for Public Integrity report? I find it fascinating that not one Democrat got painted with the same brush:

UPDATE: The original JSKit/Echo comment thread is available here, thanks to John Hardin.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.