Above image found at the top of the Right-wing, Trump-supporting blog (first image).
ok, so I'd say president Obama made America better. Especially given the fact that the last guy crashed the economy and Obama reversed course, put us back on the right track and started growing the economy again (President Obama Is Handing a Strong Economy to His Successor. NYT 12/2/2016). #thankyouobama.
But if I did think that Obama made things WORSE, that's what I'd say. Also, according to one of the TOMs (1 of 4) "inauguration" is spelled "inorgaration". This idiot complains that "Andre Borchli" won't sing for Trump at his sham swearing-in (a sham because Trump cheated and will be an illegitimate president).
BTW, that Obama caused hatred, social unrest and racism by being Black, is, I think something the dumb-dumbs that voted for the KKK-endorsed Trump are responsible for. As for not helping minorities, not reducing crime and not reducing poverty, they're thinking of the Republican obstructionist Congress. Also, the foreign policy that lead to chaos, instability and terrorism? That would be the last president, gwb. You know, the guy who let OBL go (SWTD #33) and then invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 after lying about WMD (SWTD #312). Idiots.
The great deceiver? That's hilarious given how suckered by the Orange buffoon the #poorlyeducated#TrumpDupes are going to eventually realize they've been. Or not. They'll probably find someone else to blame, even though the Republicans have complete control.
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy ~ Donald J. Trump via Twitter, 11/6/2012.
It has been quite a long time, but I have returned. It is I, the Radical Right-Wing Terrorist Free Market Guy, a writer of guest commentaries for this blog. Although the last time I was published here was way back in 2011. My commentary then concerned how ObamaCare would be repealed. Because the Dems wrote it but didn't read it. So they had no idea how bad it was.
Now (finally) President Trump will repeal ObummerCare and replace it with something terrific. A free-market based solution that will provide healthcare for everyone at a fraction of the cost. Anyway, that isn't what I'm going to be writing about today. Today the subject is the Electoral College. An institution the crybaby losers who supported the losing candidate want to do away with.
According to J. Craig Scherf of Duluth MN (a Historical researcher), "the Founders intended to place a brake on popular opinion alone by the choice of electors who might deliberate on the choice of a chief executive".
Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration of Independence, but was in France when the Constitution was written) said "I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election... as the most dangerous blot on our constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit".
James Wilson, one of the authors of the Constitution, asked "Can we forget for whom we are forming a government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States?". James Madison, who was the primary author, must have overruled him. Thank God!
Because, as I recently discovered, winning the popular vote but losing the election is a thing only Democrats do. In recent history the fact that we don't elect our president via the popular vote has saved us from an Al Gore and (most recently) a Hillary Clinton presidency.
President Crooked Hillary Clinton? Obviously nobody would have wanted that. Except for a majority of the American electorate. But, as the researcher Scherf points out, the Electoral College is "merely one example of the numerous checks and balances throughout the Constitution that imprint it everywhere as a compact between states and as a representative democracy rather than a pure democracy based on population alone".
Hear, hear Mr. Scherf, I say. Especially since the Electoral College made George W. Bush and now Donald Trump president. Two of our greatest presidents. Despite Bush's presidency ending with a sharp economic downturn. And him getting us involved in unending wars in the Middle East by lying about Saddam having WMDs. Other than that, he was pretty awesome, I think.
As for President-elect Trump, all the signs point to him being a great president. Something the hate-filled Liberals will never admit. No matter that President Trump will likely bring back prosperity for all rich people. He said his mandate was to make America great again, and I believe he will.
If not? Well, he was elected by the Electoral College, so clearly the Founders would have said the popular opinion being that Crooked Hillary should be our next president is an opinion that the brakes needed to be put on. Rednecks and hicks want Trump. As well as some racists and bigots. And, obviously we don't want a break put on their opinions.
Which is that Trump (a man born incredibly wealthy - and also a egomaniac who decided to run for president to get revenge on Barack Obama for roasting him at the correspondent's dinner) is a man of the people who selflessly decided his country needed him. To save us from a charismatic tyrant who could manipulate the will of the people (something the Founders warned us about).
I'm talking about Crooked Hillary and NOT the rubes my man Donald manipulated by lying about building a wall Mexico would pay for and promising to take away their health care subsidies they don't want because they aren't freeloaders.
Soon Donald's fellow millionaires and billionaires will have the burden of over-taxation and overregulation lifted from their shoulders and they will be able to create 3 jobs for every man, woman and child who wants one (at substantially reduced wages once the minimum wage is eliminated).
And the country will rejoice that Donald J Trump is the president! Instead of president Hillary ruining the country and gay marrying Huma Abedin. And lezing it up in the White House (I've heard). Just to rub it in the face of America's hard working rubes. Christians who hate the sin of homsexuality because the Bible says it's wrong to chose to be gay.
And you KNOW madame President would have passed the TPP with the help of Congressional Republicans. Which is why I'm strongly in favor of keeping the Electoral College. Because no Republican has ever won the popular vote but lost the election. If it were the other way around, then yeah, I'd absolutely be for getting rid of it.
We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated ~ Donald Trump responding to the fact that (according to a national CNN/ORC poll) he "runs significantly stronger among less-educated, less-affluent voters".
*As determined by Yahoo which "broke down the results further". Trump's comments about the "poorly educated", made during his victory speech after winning the Nevada caucuses, received applause from the audience, btw.
"They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction – there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction"... is what Donald Trump said at the 6th gop debate on 2/13/2016. (See Video1 below).
Pretty definitive, right? Trump said bush lied about WMD. They KNEW there were none. So you might find it hard to believe that Donald would attempt to walk this back now. I mean, how could he?
What follows is an excerpt from an interview of Donald Trump by Anderson Cooper that aired on 2/18/2016. The clip of this interview posted to YouTube (see Video2 below) picks up with a question from one of Trump's idiot supporters who confronts him on the "gwb lied about WMD" Trump accusation. The idiot first says that Trump's assertion "really stung me", then the idiot asks if Trump would be willing to "rethink that" (translation: Please tell me what I want to hear so I can vote for you).
Donald Trump: Well, a lot of people agreed with what I said. I'm not talking about lying, I'm not talking about not lying. Nobody really knows why we went into Iraq. It was not Saddam who knocked down the World Trade Center. Anderson Cooper: What you said was "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, and there were none and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction". Donald Trump: Well, there were a lot of people who think that. Bottom line, there were no weapons of mass destruction. They said there were weapons of mass destruction - I was against the war when it started... Idiot supporter: You think the president of the United States, george w bush, lied to the American people... Donald Trump: Look, I'm not going to get your vote, but that's OK. Idiot supporter: I'm just giving you another shot at it. [Translation: It's OK for you to lie to me. PLEASE tell me what I want to hear]. Donald Trump: Let me tell you something, I'll tell you very simply; it may have been the worst decision - going into Iraq - it may have been the worst decision any president has made in the history of this country. That's how bad it is, OK. The migration that you see today, the destruction of Europe, with Angela Merkel allowing millions of people [Syrian MUSLIM refugees into Germany]. I have people from Germany; they want to leave Germany. ... Everything that's happening started with stupidly going into the war in Iraq. Now, Iraq: We have - and people talk about me with the [nuclear] button, I'm the one that doesn't want to do this. I'm the one from 2000 to 2003 who said "you shouldn't be doing it".
...we have spent 2 trillion dollars in Iraq and fighting Iraq. 2 trillion. 2 trillion. Thousands of lives, right? We have wounded warriors, who I love... We got nothing. We have nothing... Anderson Cooper: But to his question... do you believe he lied? Donald Trump: Do I know? I can tell you this - I don't [know] whether he lied or not. ... I will say this... Saddam Hussein overplayed his hand. ...Frankly I think the son, being loyal to the father, really wanted to go into Iraq. Even if it wasn't the right thing to do. ... I said don't go in. Everything I said turned out to be true. [bashes Obama over the Iran nuclear disarmament deal]. ... Barack Obama, as bad as he is, and he's bad, got us out the wrong way. He should have left people there. ... he gave a specific date to get out, as you know. [Note: specific date set by bush re SOFA, see footnote below]. Anderson Cooper: Just to his question... one more chance. You either believe he [gwb] lied, or did not lie? Are you willing to say... Donald Trump: I don't know what he did. I just know it was a terrible mistake. Anderson Cooper: Was it a mistake for you to say in the debate that he lied? Donald Trump: I'd have to see the exact word. Look, I don't know. I would probably say that something was going on. I don't know why he went in. Anderson Cooper: So you would not say - again - that George W. Bush lied. Donald Trump: I don't know. I can't tell you. I'd have to look at some documents [not sure about "documents" because the video ends mid-word].
Trump is pretending to not know what he said? How dumb does he think his supporters are? That's a rhetorical question, btw. Trump knows his "Trumpeteers" ARE that dumb. I'd be willing to bet that the idiot who was BEGGING to be lied to (with his question) will end up voting for Trump. Despite him being a duped loyal bush supporter (who was "stung" by Trump pointing out that bush lied about WMD).
I say the idiot will still vote for Trump because NOW Trump is saying he "doesn't know" if bush lied. It doesn't matter what he said before. In fact, Trump doesn't even remember, and neither should his "poorly educated" supporters.
My conclusion? Donald Trump is an opportunistic liar who will say whatever he thinks will benefit him at the time he says it. And his supporters are too dumb to realize that they're being played. So, while I might be "your average partisan stooge blogger whose entire existence is one mindless and gratuitous anti-Trump post after another" (according to this individual), I actually did give Trump credit for telling the truth about bush lying about Iraq having no WMD (in this post).
But I'm retracting my kudos. Because Trump retracted his "bush lied about WMD" comments (by pretending not to remember he made them). The ONLY reason the liar said what he did was to hurt the liar's brother (the first liar being Trump and the 2nd liar being gwb. And the liar's brother being Jeb!).
Although, as for Trump's supporters being solely "poorly educated", there is obviously more to it than that. Many of these people are White racists who see Trump as the only presidential candidate in their lifetime that speaks to them. As Chauncey DeVega points out in a 2/28/2016 Daily Kos article, Trump's appeal "has to do with white racism, xenophobia, and the fear of small minded people".
Even smart people can be small minded. Fact is, these crackers are so desperate to hear what Trump is telling them that they will overlook these inconsistencies. Like the idiot bush supporter who was "stung" when Trump said the former preznit bush lied about WMD. Now Trump says he doesn't know. And, if not good enough for the dude who asked the question, I'm positive that answer will be good enough for legions of Trumpeteers, many of whom are likely the kind of person who'd get offended by the suggestion that W got us into Iraq dishonestly.
And, in the General, they're likely be many Republicans who'll hold their nose and vote for Trump. Better than see Hillary or Bernie get elected. But I doubt it will be enough to get Trump to the White House. We'll see. Apparently Trump thinks he can do it, and so far he's been right. In regards to the tactics he's employing and the type of voter he's winning over using them. God help us if he's successful. But again, I doubt he can win. Maybe he'll get close?
Clearly Trump realizes that the American people are sick of war, and believe we should not have gotten mixed up in that quagmire to begin with. Which is why he's spinning this BS about him being opposed to the Iraq war from the get-go. However, back in 2002, during an interview with Howard Stern, when asked by the host "are you for invading Iraq", Trump said "yeah, I guess so".
So, Trump insists that he opposed the invasion before we went in on 3/20/2003, but the audio evidence (see Video3 below) says otherwise. Another inconsistency his supporters are willing to overlook, no doubt. He says he was against it then... now, and apparently that's good enough. Remember, Trump is the only candidate not the only candidate who is pandering to their anger. But Cruz and Rubio? They're Hispanic, for crying out loud! And, don't forget that Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father, and Rubio is an anchor baby (Marco Rubio Is An Anchor Baby and Not Eligible To Run For President).
Trump, on the other hand, is a REAL American (White guy) who promises he'll "make America great again"... by keeping out as many of the brown people as possible. With his wall (that Mexico will pay for) and with his ban on Muslims entering the country. Although, only until we can figure out "what's going on". Hmm... maybe the Trumpeteers think that what's going on is that those Muslims hate us and we should keep them out forever? And that's what The Donald is going to end up finding out?
Who knows. Trump has made it clear, however, that he's with them. More so than any candidate they've ever had the opportunity to vote for. Which is why he's getting endorsements from the likes of David Duke, who says that "voting against Trump is treason to your heritage".
So now Trump says that going into Iraq was just "terrible mistake". Which is a lie, even if many people believe it. I don't happen to be one of them, however. I am 100 percent convinced that when bush said Iraq had WMD he was lying and he knew it.
Which is what Trump originally said. But now it's a "mistake". So, kudos to Trump? Definitely withdrawn. The only purpose of him saying W lied was to hurt Jeb. And now that Jeb has dropped out? Well, it's time for a little revision that the bigoted Trumpeteers won't mind. Not too much or for too long, in any case (they'll still vote for him).
Footnote
[1] FactCheck.org: Question: Who's responsible for withdrawing all US combat troops from Iraq at the end of 2011? Answer: Bush signed an agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement, on 12/14/2008, that said: "All the US Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than 12/31/2011". However, some say that Obama should have renegotiated SOFA to allow the presence of some troops & that he failed in that respect. This doesn't make Trump correct, however. The date of withdrawal was set by bush, not Obama.
Video1: Trump "bitch slaps" Jeb at the 6th gop debate on 2/13/2016 by pointing out that his brother did NOT "keep us safe" (3:17).
Video2: Trump challenged on "Bush Lied" claim by idiot supporter and AC360. Trump refuses to acknowledge that he said gwb lied; now claims "I don't know". 2/18/2016 (5:56).
Video3: Donald Trump says he supports Iraq invasion in 2002 Howard Stern Interview (2:41).
See Also: Willis Hart Lies Re Trump Comments On Iraq War, Downplays, Spouts BS About Left Not Acknowledging Trump Truthtelling, Pats Self On Back (OST #113) 2/25/2016.
George W. Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda according to a 1/22/2008 study by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism. In total the Bush Admin made 935 false statements in run-up to war.
According to the gwb administration, the purpose of the vote on the Iraq War Resolution was to pressure the UN and Iraq into getting inspectors back into the country. At least that's what Hillary Clinton has said when defending her vote on the matter.
Hillary, before voting, asked "If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job". She was told that, YES, that was the goal. To show the UN and Iraq that the bush administration was serious, Congress needed to authorize war if the inspectors were not allowed back in (Hillary Clinton Never Supported the Bush/Cheney Invasion of Iraq).
Well, it worked. Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were allowed back into Iraq... and so bush, realizing that the threat worked, allowed the inspections to do their job and the UN to decide what to do if Iraq again balked and did not cooperate (as the UN charter stipulates).
No, wait... that isn't what happened at all. Saddam did drag his feet (as before) and not cooperate fully. Although the inspectors thought progress was still being made. None-the-less the bush administration (already having the Congressional authority it needed) launched an attack.
And the bush administration launched it's attack in spite of (1) telling members of Congress they were voting to get inspectors back in and that war would be a last resort, and (2) The UN charter saying "it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced".
bush, in deciding to go ahead with the invasion despite the UN not voting for war, violated articles 33 and 39 of the Charter (33 says disputes are to be resolved peacefully and 39 says that the UN "decides what measures shall be taken" when the resolutions it makes are violated).
Because UN charter does not allow individual countries to act unilaterally a number of UN and IAEA officials condemned the US invasion of Iraq. (Condemned it, or pointed out why it was unnecessary).
Six UN & IAEA Officials Who Either Condemned US Invasion of Iraq Or Confirmed It Was Unnecessary
1. Kofi Annan: The UN Secretary-general from 1/1/1997 to 12/31/2006 said (in regards to the bush invasion of Iraq) "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal". This, according to a statement made to the BBC in September 2004. According to spokesman Fred Eckhard this "has been the Secretary-General's longstanding view [because the UN charter] does not allow pre-emptive attacks".
2. Mohamed ElBaradei: The IAEA director from 1997 to 2009, in regards to bush's claim that Iraq had WMD and the invasion was needed to "disarm" Saddam, said, "deliberate deception [isn't] limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators" (this is a quote from his book Age of Deception).
3. Hans Blix: The former head of the IAEA (1981–1997) who was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and was in charge of looking for WMD in Iraq said that his inspectors "found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament". Iraq was not complying or having difficulty complying (because of misplaced stockpiles) but Mr. Blix was confident that everything would be resolved. The only thing that was needed was time ("a matter of months").
Furthermore Blix said that if "the inspections been allowed to continue, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's preemptive, unilateral actions have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere". (For The Record, Yes, George W. Bush Did Help Create ISIS).
Although, according to Blix, US President george w. bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair did not act in bad faith, but only exhibited "a severe lack of critical thinking".
4. David Kay: The Chief weapons inspector said "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them" when he resigned on 1/23/2004.
I should note, however that Kay defended the Bush administration, saying that even if Iraq did not have weapons stockpiles, this did not mean it wasn't dangerous. Was Iraq dangerous? Perhaps, but there are many countries with "dangerous" regimes, and the US isn't invading them all. That Kay also blamed "faulty intelligence gathering" for the prewar WMD conclusions (even though this is pure bullplop) explains why he defended the lying bush administration.
Although the conclusion of the Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq (that the bush Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent) wasn't released until 5/25/2007, so perhaps Kay's idiotic partisan statement is understandable? The US government had not yet confirmed that the bush administration blatantly lied. Even though the IAEA had.
But, and this is the important point, Kay knew Iraq had no WDM because he was one of those on the ground in Iraq who was looking for it (and did not find it). Thus confirming that the war was (if not illegal/based on a lie) unnecessary as per the bush administration reasons for waging it (to "disarm" Iraq).
5. Charles Dulfer: Dulfer, who replaced David Kay as Chief weapons inspector, said "it turns out that we were all wrong [and] I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed, militarized chemical weapons there".
6. Scott Ritter: A United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, while not a participant in the 2002 inspections, has remarked that "since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated". The nuclear program was eliminated and there was no evidence Iraq had retained chemical or biological weapons according to Ritter.
The Republican-identifying Ritter who says he voted for gwb was later (in 2001 and 2010) accused of "soliciting minors for sex on the Internet" (the 2001 charges were dismissed and the 2010 charges resulted in a conviction). For this reason Ritter's critics discount his statements re Iraq having WMD. Obviously the two aren't connected, but still the crime he was convicted of calls his character into question. He desired sex with minors, so he obviously lied about finding no WMD (so say his critics... see SWTD #232 point "5A" for more info concerning what one specific critic said when I brought up Ritter's name in a discussion re the illegality of gwb's Iraq invasion).
**End list of 6 UN and IAEA Officials Who Either Condemned US Invasion of Iraq Or Confirmed It Was Unnecessary**
In regards to ex-preznit bush saying (on 3/19/20013, in an address to the American people notifying them of the beginning of the illegal invasion of Iraq), "my fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger"... we knew/know bush was lying and he knows/knew he lied/was lying.
How do we know for certain that bush lied? Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked". Please note that this report was delivered on 3/7/2003 and bush ordered the invasion on 3/19/2003. So bush said "invade to disarm" AFTER the head of the IAEA told the world that the inspections worked and that Iraq was already disarmed!
A fact that the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, as well as everyone at the IAEA (listed above) confirms (despite Kay going along with the "faulty intel" BS). My conclusion is that bush CLEARLY lied. And it was a blatant bold-faced lie.
This is something our own government concluded with a bi-partisan majority report issued by the Senate (on 6/5/2008) that said "the [bush] Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent".
Yet the bush apologists continue to lie... both about bush lying about Iraq having WMD (it was an "intelligence failure", they say), as well as Iraq having WMD. Iraq really did have WMD these liars/dumbshits say! Wikileaks documents prove Saddam had WMD!
Sorry, but no. bush claimed that we needed to invade to "disarm" Saddam, not that we needed to invade to clean up old, forgotten, buried and degraded chemical weapons. Which is what was actually claimed, and this was NOT what bush hyped (in order to scare the American people into accepting war). According to Wired's Noah Shachtman "Saddam's toxic arsenal [was] largely destroyed after the Gulf War". (WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches).
What we found after the invasion was "remnants". Remnants are what the Wikileaks documents revealed were found in Iraq post invasion. Would the American people have agreed to war over "remnants"? We all know the answer to that question is NO. Which is why bush ignored what the IAEA was telling him about Iraq having no WMD and lied about "disarming" Saddam.
Wikipedia notes that "In a White House Iraq Group meeting, chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson proposes the use of a smoking gun/mushroom cloud metaphor to sell the American public on the supposed nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein".
The "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" metaphor was just one of the 935 false statements, (including 232 lies that bush himself disassembled) the administration used to SELL us the Iraq war. "Intelligence failure" my ass!
Video: Terrorist leader bush scares the shit out of Americans with BS about Iraq possessing nuclear weapons and using them to attack us. Clip from a 10/7/2002 TV address broadcast from Cincinnati's Museum Center at Union Terminal (0:07).
Notes [1] From an 8/28/2011 discussion on the blog of Willis Hart: When I pointed out that HRC said the gwb WH told her a YES vote wasn't a vote for war, but a vote to pressure Iraq to agree to "complete, unlimited inspections", Willis Hart responded by saying, "My God, wd, what do you expect her to say, I screwed up? You know as well as I do that, if the war had gone better, the lady would have been patting herself on the back till the cows came home. She (and Kerry and Biden) knew exactly what they were voting for".
As a result of John Ellis Bush (AKA Jeb Bush) being asked whether or not he would have done the same as his war criminal brother and invaded Iraq, the question of whether Iraq was a "mistake" or not has come up again. (Although Jeb lied, pretending to mishear the question as whether or not he'd invade at the time NOT knowing what we know now, when the question actually was would he have invaded knowing what we know now. He said he would have... and Hillary would have too. When Hillary would not have).
Problem is, that question is bullshit because it plays up the false narrative that the bush administration received faulty intelligence. The fact is that the bushies never received any intelligence that said what they so desperately wished to be true, which is that Saddam had WMD he might use. Perhaps on the US. With the proof being a mushroom cloud.
While there were some tidbits of info suggesting the bush version of the intel might be true (which turned out to be misleading bullplop propagaged by liars like Ahmed Chalabi, passed on with the goal of tricking the bush administration into toppling Saddam), the actual intelligence was clear that Iraq having WMD was doubtful.
And the IAEA produced a report saying so (the IAEA is the UN agency that sent a team of inspectors into Iraq to look for WMD and did not find any). They told the UN this, which is why the UN voted not to authorize the war.
So, despite the fact that we know now (and we knew then) that Iraq did not have WMD, the narrative now is that Iraq was a mistake (and we didn't know then). Although, for quite some time following Jeb's doofus brother leaving office, the narrative was that it was the right thing to do despite no WMD being found. bush said a number of times that he'd make the same decision again. Now the narrative is that it was a "mistake". Which is as far as they want to go, I believe.
Perhaps some day we'll get to the point where the American public largely accepts that gwb lied, same as they accept that LBJ lied us into Vietnam? Who knows. Obviously the bushies want to stop that truth from becoming widely accepted. Right now because it would not be good for Jeb to have to run with the electorate believing his brother lied (as opposed to having been a victim of bad intel).
Today [2/9/2015], The Wall Street Journal op-ed page has Republican judge Laurence Silberman fiercely insisting that the Bush administration did not lie, and that the claim it lied is itself a calumny. Silberman's argument is a simplistic one aimed at confusing those who have already forgotten the basic sequence of events. Silberman argues that a bipartisan commission, which he co-chaired, investigated the matter, and found that the Bush administration was victimized by faulty intelligence. (Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer).
Les Carpenter (AKA "rAtional nAtion") is one of those who, despite being a Libertarian and not a Republican, believes the false narrative currently being spun.
rAtional nAtion: Whether GWB knowingly lied or the intelligence was wrong I am not in a position to know; with certainty. Neither aRe you Dervish. Irrespective of this it was unwise to invade a foreign country that posed no threat to the USA. 5/14/2015 AT 06:55:00 PM EDT)
Actually, Les, I am in a position to know that bush lied. All one really needs to do is be aware of the facts, as the Daily Intelligencer points out in it's article (continued from above).
Silberman does not mention that the commission he chaired did not even investigate whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence. Senate Republicans refused to allow the commission to investigate this matter, fearing it would harm Bush's reelection prospects. Indeed, Silberman himself wrote in the report at the time, "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry".
This was a favorite line of pro-Bush spin. It is true that passing on faulty intelligence by mistake is not the same thing as misrepresenting intelligence. Bush's defenders habitually rebutted accusations of the latter by insisting that the former was true. In reality, both things happened - the administration suffered from honest intelligence failures, and it misled the public about the facts as it understood them.
The question of whether, in addition to being victimized by faulty intelligence, also misrepresented the intelligence it did have, was left to a second Senate report, called the "Phase II" report, which came out a few years later. That report, which was endorsed by two of the committee's seven Republicans and all its Democrats, concluded, "the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent". (Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer).
It is a "demonstrable fact that the Bush administration deliberately misled the public". Iraq was not a mistake, but a deliberate decision by the bush administration to lie to get the war it wanted. Case closed.
The only question that remains is... why does Les Carpenter of the Libertarian/Objectivist blog "rAtional nAtion uSA" say he doesn't know "Whether GWB knowingly lied". I suppose he might be telling the truth when he says he isn't in a "position" to know, which he wouldn't be only if he is deliberately avoiding reading anything that gives the accurate facts concerning this matter. Which he might be doing because he doesn't want to know the truth. Or he might be on board with the false narrative. Perhaps because he's a fan of Jeb and doesn't want his chances of winning the White House harmed.
Of course this is all conjecture, as Les, when I presented him with some of the facts, declined to respond again. Personally I think the reason for Les going along with this lie is because he wishes to protect the GOP. He does not care for Jeb as such (or any of the other potential candidates who are expected to declare), but he does dislike Hillary intensely and does not want to see her win. In his mind a Republican might be better than Hillary.
Although this does not jibe with Les' recent claim that he is "moving away from the right", but it's the best explanation I can come up with. Pure conjecture, in other words. Which Les and his yes manDennis Markshave indicated they loath.
Awhile ago an Anonymous commenter on this blog said "ever notice how RN never really says what he thinks? He likes to bait people, without stating his position". I agreed that I had noticed this. In fact, I continue to notice that he does this. He also loves to cry about "old bones" if inconsistencies are pointed out between past and current statements (by him or his toady Dennis).
For example, he frequently says he's an adherant of Ayn Rand's Objectivism (which views selfishness as a virtue), even though this does not jibe with his claim of supporting what he calls "Thomas Paine style benevolent capitalism" (which is not really a thing. What Les actually refers to is a mixed economy wherein capitalism and Socialism both exist and compliment each other. Which *I* am an adherent of). But Rand opposed Socialism, being something that encourages the "parasites and leeches" and is THEFT under this worldview.
But apparently "self interest" means whatever Les decides it means. And he's a fan of Rand even though Rand would consider him a collectivist pawn. So, what's my conjecture in regards to this? It's that Les does not explain himself because he can't (because he realizes he's a very bad Objectivist). That, or he's still having fun playing games with my delusional ass (actual quote: I've had fun playing games with your delusional ass).
More likely it's a combination of the two, and he's playing games with his readers concerning his perpetrating the good for Jeb (or at least not as bad for him) false "Iraq war mistake" narrative. Or maybe it's his ass that is delusional. I surely cannot say with any certainty. His clinging to Objectivism and Rand points to his being delusional, that's for certain. Especially in light of his support for the socialistic parasite-encouraging "benevolent capitalism" thievery.
As well as LOL-able claims of me "misquoting" him when I cut, paste and link to prior comments of his. Les said "Medicare as a model for universal healthcare, with some modifications (improvements to insure long term fiscal viability) may not be such a terribly bad idea" on another blog. I linked to this comment on his blog and that's when he (feigned) anger and the "misquoting" allegation occurred.
No doubt I'm misrepresenting him with this commentary. In his delusional mind, at least (Note: It is my opinion/conjecture that Les Carpenter is "deluded").
See also:George W. Bush didn't just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse by Paul Waldman. The Week, 5/20/2015. [What was "much worse"? That what the Bush admin launched in 2002... may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history... the theory on which the WH operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign].
Fifty years on we know the trigger for war with Vietnam was a fiction. Will it be another 50 before we know the truth about Iraq? ~ DD Guttenplan, writing for The Guardian in a 8/2/2014 piece titled "When Presidents Lie To Make A War".
Many "love letters" from a blogger named Willis Hart concerning yours truly on his idiotic Libertarian blog as of late. And by "love letters" I mean lies targeted at someone this blogger dislikes intensely.
But the disliking is mutual. Specifically due to the lies this dude spins, such as the following...
Willis Hart: wd is one of those people who claims to be against war, war crimes, and empire but who constantly spins for then when its his fellow's doing (the asshole even spun for LBJ and Vietnam which was quite possibly the most moronic war of them all). (7/30/2014 AT 9:40pm).
I never said a damn thing in support of the Vietnam war, you liar. And, yes, it was one of the most moronic wars of them all. Until preznit bush came along, that is. As for my "spinning" about LBJ, all I said was that "whether or not LBJ lied is, in my opinion, a tad more nebulous that the question of whether or not George W. bush lied in order to pressure Congress into allowing him to invade Iraq".
Initially I do not believe LBJ lied about what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, although I do believe he latched onto the initial reports of what happened and used that to justify the actions he (and Robert McNamara) wanted to take. And, then when he found out the initial reports were inaccurate? Then he did keep that info under wraps. So, yes, he did lie. Later.
That would be a little different than what bush did, which was to lie right away, even though he knew the truth from the get go concerning WMD that Iraq did not have. And THAT was the point I was trying to make to the Hartster. That the lies of bush were worse for this reason. That is even *if* Iraq having WMD was a good justification for invasion (which they did not, but assuming they did). I say no.
But Willis rewrites the discussion that took place on his as me "spinning" for LBJ and him holding firm to his principals (the a-hole says he's "intellectually honest" while I'm the MOST "intellectually dishonest" person he's ever encountered).
Willis Hart: And, yes, just like a lot of the conservatives did with Bush and Iraq. (7/30/2014 AT 9:41pm).
What is ironic about this comment is that Willis is one of those conservatives. In regards to the lying about WMD, Willis spun and Willis spun HARD.
Willis Hart: I recognize now that Sadam pretty much had to go. I just wish that President Bush hadn't de-Baathified the country and disbanded the military in that those 2 things really strengthened the Iranian bastards. (6/28/2013 AT 8:39pm).
Notice that he basically agrees that Iraq needed to be invaded and Saddam removed, but only starts disagreeing when it comes to the "de-baathification" and disbanding the military (things that happened AFTER we invaded). Previously he said he was against the war, but would absolutely not call bush a war criminal and insisted (wrongly) that bush never lied.
Willis Hart: you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero. (7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm).
But there MOST CERTAINLY IS a paper trail. And the George W bush most certainly lied.
First, the lie...
In remarks preceding the invasion by one day (6/21/2003), the former president said, "our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". (Wikipedia page: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, footnote #93).
And now the proof/paper trail that proves bush was lying...
The invasion of Iraq was ordered by ex-preznit bush on 3/20/2003 AFTER the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked".
Mr. ElBaradei's team conducted 247 inspections at 147 sites and found "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites". The IAEA report went on to say that "Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990... no longer had a centrifuge program, [and that] Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997". (Excerpt from a 5/23/2013 SWTD post titled "Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-President bush's WMD Lies").
The IAEA told bush via written report (PAPER TRAIL) that there was no WMD. Yet Willis defended the ex-preznit on this matter. While sticking his fingers in his ears and humming (figuratively) so he was didn't have to hear about any proof of bush lying. At one point he even said he was convinced that "Saddam had to go". Spinning? In my opinion... absolutely.
But now (apparently) the hypocrite has changed his mind? The following excerpt from a Willis post seems to suggest he has. In this instance he blogs about the Zimmermann Telegram.
Willis Hart: ...the fact that the American people bought this shit (a la the Maine, a la the Gulf of Tonkin, a la WMD, etc.)... (7/26/2014 AT 4:00pm).
Here Willis argues that the Zimmermann Telegram (a 1917 diplomatic proposal from Germany for Mexico to join the Central Powers, in the event of the United States entering World War I on the side of the Entente Powers) was used by president Woodrow Wilson as a rationale for US involvement in WWI. Willis says this is a lie comparable to The Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin and... wait for it... the LIE by bush concerning WMD that Iraq did not have!
Although, I should note that Willis does not call the idea that Mexico might go to war with us a "lie", he calls the telegram a "rationale". Indeed, the telegram was published and the public was angered, but Wilson did not suggest Mexico was going to attack us. The fact is that (in 1917) "as a direct consequence of the Zimmermann telegram" we recognized the government of Venustiano Carranza (who came to power via a 1914 revolution) "in order to ensure Mexican Neutrality in WWI".
Is publishing a telegram and then using public outrage to get us involved in WWI a "lie"? Surely not a deception on the same level as the other (actual) lies Willis mentions. Although I don't know if the situation with the Maine qualifies either. Seems to me to be another case where confusion about what happened was used by some to get the American public to accept war.
Of the bunch I would say that bush's declaration that we were invading to "disarm" Saddam is the CLEAREST cut example of a president outright and bold-faced lying. And with the commentary I quote above, Willis is (ostensibly) acknowledging the fact that bush did lie. If so, then I say Willis owes me an apology. Or at least an acknowledgment that he's retracting his previous statements like the one I quoted above regarding there being "no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public".
As well as other statements that are now at odds with his (apparent) new stance regarding bush lying about WMD. Statements like the following from 5/6/2012...
Willis Hart: And I don't even really dislike the guy [George W. bush]. I just wish that he had listened more to Powell and less to fellows like Wolfowitz and Perle. And in terms of his motivation, I don't know, I'm not a mind-reader like wd. In Thomas Ricks's book, "Fiasco" (which wasn't exactly a flattering read for Mr. Bush), he states that the regime change advocates were actually LOSING the debate early on and that it wasn't until 9/11 that guys like Perle and Wolfowitz finally started getting some traction.
If you were to force me to give an opinion on this, I would say that the decision to invade Iraq was probably more a function of group-think (I believe that this was Scott McClellan's assessment in his book, too) than it was the result of some sinister, diabolical cabal. I'm sure, though, that wd would disagree. (Link).
As well as this one from 8/1/2012...
Willis Hart: There was at least SOME ambiguity regarding WMD. (Link).
If Willis is retracting these earlier statements - then I think he needs to own up and show some intellectual honesty. Admit he was wrong instead of trying to paper over his past incorrectness by falsely painting himself as "consistent", which is something he PRIDES himself on... his SUPPOSED "consistency". I mean, back when I was making my case that bush lied (on Willis' blog - before he banned me) Willis responded by saying it was "almost as if he's got some sort of sick pathology about Bush".
I had a "sick pathology" in regards to the ex-preznit because I - well before Willis did - acknowledged the truth about bush's lying about WMD to scare the public into accepting an unnecessary war? F*ck you Willis. And f*ck you again for continuing to lie about my positions on these matters. I do not CLAIM to be "against war, war crimes, and empire" but "constantly spin" when "my fellow" is the guilty one. I'm against these things, PERIOD. No matter what party the president belongs to.
LBJ lied and kept us in, and escalated Vietnam, costing many American lives in a pointless war. bush lied about WMD and many innocent Iraqis were killed, many American soldiers were killed and maimed, and trillions of dollars were wasted (much of which went into the pockets of bush cronies. A fact I have YET to see Willis acknowledge!).
So, while it is good that Willis is now acknowledging the fact that bush lied about WMD - that he presents himself as "consistent" on this matter is utter BULLSHIT. And that he lies about my positions (to distract his readers from his inconsistencies on this topic?) is deplorable. And, so long as this lying about yours truly is celebrated on the blog of the lying Willis, I will NOT cease irritating him (downgraded from harassing him, I guess). So long as I notice Willis lying about me - and encouraging others to lie - the irritating will continue.
As for how long we might have to wait before it is know that bush lied us into Iraq? We knew the minute the falsehood about why he was invading Iraq escaped his lips. Although, for some of us, the getting to the point where the truth could be accepted took a little longer. And, it is, of course, not AT ALL widely accepted that bush intentionally deceived.
50 years before the truth concerning bush's WMD untruths are established fact? Perhaps. I suppose we have to wait for him to die first. Accepting uncomfortable truths seems to be easier if the truth to be accepted concerns someone who is no longer with us.
Video1: A clip from the documentary The Fog of War by Errol Morris. In this YouTube video Robert McNamara says "It was just confusion. And events afterward showed that our judgement that we had been attacked that day was wrong. It didn't happen". (3:33).
Video2: Official trailer from Errol Morris film The Unknown Known, a documentary focusing on Iraq war liar Donald Rumsfeld... bush's McNamara? (2:56).
There are heroes in evil as well as in good ~Francois de La Rochefoucauld (9/15/1613 to 3/17/1680) a noted French author of maxims and memoirs. His is a clear-eyed, worldly view of human conduct that indulges in neither condemnation nor sentimentality.
I think it's intensely loathsome and highly repellent. And, yes, I'm talking about the (now deceased) terrorist leader who financed the 9/11 attacks. That Osama is the one who Dennis Marks recently cited as being one of his heroes. I know for a fact that on 9/11/2001 Dennis was walking around with a huge grin on his face. It creeped out his coworkers and family members who all thought he must not be aware of what happened. But when they told him of the attacks in which thousands of innocents perished - that made Dennis smile even wider.
So, why was Dennis so delighted? It was because he recgonized that 9/11 was the new Pearl Harbor that PNAC had been dreaming of. The PNAC manifesto cited a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" just like this as being necessary to galvanize the public into going to war in the Middle East, and now just such an event had occurred. Dennis whooped and cheered when the twin towers fell - just as loud - if not louder than any of the terrorists. Although he cheered internally and silently, as he knew everybody else would be horrified if he did it externally and out loud. But the smiling he could not help.
That is why bin Laden is a hero to Dennis. Not because he wishes to emulate him, but due to the great gift he handed the Neocons, and to the Republican preznit, George W. bush. Dictionary.com reveals that a synonym of "hero" is either a "lead" or a "star". In regards to 9/11, Osama was most assuredly both. Even though it was KSM who planned the attacks, without the bin Laden money none of it would have been possible. And money, in the worldview of Mr. Marks, is the root of everything that is good.
And the attacks of 9/11 were very good, in the estimation of Dennis. The nation was clamoring for the blood of those behind the attacks, and for that reason legislation that gave the preznit unprecedented power to wage war on "the terrorists" sailed though Congress with but one NAY vote (SWTD #244). Given that vote, the preznit did not have to take it up with Congress when it was determined that bin Laden was behind the attacks and was currently holed-up in Afghanistan.
bush desperately wanted to go to war - in order to avenge his daddy, get political capital and steal tax payer money. Dick Cheney's old company Haliburton would benefit from some war contracts, given that it was on the verge of filing for bankruptcy. VP Dick said a war or two would make him extremely wealthy, given that he still held on to some Halliburton stock options. Many other bush cronies could benefit as well. And then, after bush rubbed their backs, surely they would rub his. And he could most certainly profit personally as well. Dick had Halliburton, and the bush family had The Carlyle Group.
Unfortunately there was a problem, which was that OBL was in Afghanistan and bush wanted to invade Iraq. There was no way bush could fool the public into going to war with the wrong country! But Rummy and Wolfie assured him, "we'll do Afghanistan first, and then Iraq". All was good until a second problem arose, which was that Afghanistan's Taliban rulers offered to hand over bin Laden to a neutral third country for prosecution if bush called off the dogs of war. How to deal with that problem? bush decided to make them an offer they couldn't accept.
Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, the Taliban's foreign minister, proposed that the US and Afghanistan should negotiate either "a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference". Wakil knew bush wanted war (and he was desperate to avoid it), but he couldn't just hand bin Laden over. Afghani culture demanded aabroh (a Pashtu word for "face-saving formula"). Without aabroh those who even considered capitulating to bush's demands would have been put to death.
But the ultimatum to turn over bin Laden to the United States military by bush was not in the least bit serious. Which is why he made it. bush KNEW the Taliban could not accept. The preznit was simply putting on a act before the invasion began, as he knew it would not be proper if he went to war without even giving the Taliban the option of turning over bin Laden.
Also, if one listens to Dennis, you might think, as he does, that "the Taliban and Al Qaeda were united at that time. In lockstep", but this is false. As noted by Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, "there had always been differences of opinion between the Arab fighters of al-Qaeda and [my] Taliban colleagues". Muttawakil remembers that the Taliban "condemned the attacks because the people targeted were defenseless civilians, women, children, Muslim and non-Muslim. But al Qaeda praised it".
bush knew the Taliban and al Qaeda were not in "lockstep", because, if they had been, he would have simply declared that the attack was sponsored or approved by the Taliban. Instead bush only accused them of "harboring" him. Proof positive that the claims of Dennis do not comport with reality. But Dennis knows, as bush knew, that bringing bin Laden to justice was never a goal of attacking Afghanistan. Because, if bin Laden had been taken into custody the American people would have considered the mission to have been accomplished. And then, what of bush's plans for regime change in Iraq?
No, that would not do. That is why Dennis ridicules the notion of the OIC supervising a trial of bin Laden - referring to it as a "kangaroo court" that would have patted him on the back - even though the Taliban suggested that the OIC only supervise. No offer would have been accepted. War was on the agenda, no matter what.
If an arrangement had been negotiated that brought bin Laden to justice - going into Iraq would have been impossible. That is why the offer was rejected before it was even considered, and that is why the bushies made sure bin Laden got away at Tora Bora. That was the second time that Dennis cheered for his hero, as well as sighing in relief.
After he let bin Laden escape bush decided the time was right to make his case to topple Saddam. So he told some more lies to the American people concerning (forged) documents that showed Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake uranium, aluminum tubes that could not be used in centrifuges, and mushroom clouds incinerating American cities (by way of nukes Saddam had no way of manufacturing).
In regards to bin Laden, bush said "I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you". Dennis heard those words and grinned from ear to ear. That night Dennis kissed the poster of the terrorist leader that was tacked to his bedroom wall and said a prayer to thank God bush was president on 9/11. Because Dennis knew, as Rudy Guliani did, that if Gore were president the US wouldn't have gone to war with two Muslim countries.
"Thank you, Osama... I love you" Dennis murmured as he drifted off to sleep. As he slept Dennis drempt of the incredible riches starting two unnecessary wars was going to yield for both the bush and Cheney families. In Dennis' dream the preznit spoke, imploring Shafiq bin Laden to "pass my thanks on to your brother". Then bushie added "no need for him to worry for his safety, however, as I surely have no intention of ever finding him". Shafiq smiled and replied, "Thank you, Mr. bush. We are defintely on the same page".
Dennis woke the next morning to find his undies were soiled due to an nocturnal emission that no doubt came about due to his dreaming of bush and Shafiq discussing how much wealthier each of their families were about to become. "Good times" Dennis remarked as he removed the sticky undergarment. Dennis' eyes then drifted to the bin Laden poster, and that is when he decided a date with Palmela Handerson was in order. Laying back in his bed Dennis finished the deed, screaming out "Osama!" as he climaxed.
Note: This commentary, which contains some speculation in regards to how dmarks views OBL, was written in response to the vile liar saying "there are some (WD sides with) who want such reform [of the Pentagon] not to save money, but to make the nation weak and strengthen our enemies such as his hero Bin Laden".
Frankly, given how much Dennis wanted OBL to escape, I find it much more likely that OBL is Dennis' hero. Hence this narrative, which is intended as satire, even though it could be closer to the truth than even I realize. As for OBL being my hero, I already identified that as a vile lie. I wanted him brought to justice ASAP, which the Taliban offer would have provided for, 10 freaking years earlier (SWTD #76).
And, the OIC could not have let Osama go, BTW, as their position would have only been supervisory, if they had been involved at all.
Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, Taliban's last foreign minister, told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview... "Even before the [9/11] attacks, our Islamic Emirate had tried through various proposals to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference [OIC]"... (Taliban offered bin Laden trial before 9/11 by Mujib Mashal. Al Jazzera, 9/11/2011).
Certainly we could have given it a shot - as opposed to selecting war as the first and only option. It wouldn't have been as if we were throwing away a chance to catch him, as WE DIDN'T CATCH HIM! On purpose, perhaps... (SWTD #33).
The Americans outplayed themselves, nobody outplayed them. They believed their own propaganda ~ Ahmed Chalabi (dob 10/30/1944) an Iraqi politician who was interim oil minister in Iraq in April–May 2005 and December–January 2006 and deputy prime minister from May 2005-May 2006. This quote is from an interview with McClatchy in Baghdad that took place sometime during the week of February 22, 2010.
What happens when one of the bush war criminals shows up on a progressive talk radio program to promulgate the lie that ex-president GWb made the "right" decision when he ordered the invasion of Iraq? Answer; he's treated respectfully by the nation's top rated Liberal talker (which he doesn't deserve, but what are you going to do?). What follows is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann radio program. Thom discusses the Iraq conflict with Douglas J. Feith, a politico who served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under President George W. bush (from July 2001 until August 2005).
Feith's official responsibilities included the formulation of defense planning guidance and forces policy, United States Department of Defense (DoD) relations with foreign countries, and DoD's role in U.S. Government interagency policymaking (source: Wikipedia). This interview from 3/3/2013 has been edited by me for brevity and clarity...
Thom Hartmann: Welcome back, Thom Hartmann here with you. ...you will recall, back in 2002 a very strong case was made for a war with Iraq against Saddam Hussein. One of the folks involved in making that case was Douglas Feith. [Currently] he is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and director at the Center for National Security Strategies. Author of the book War and Decision. Douglas Feith, welcome to the program.
Douglas Feith: Good to talk to you.
TH: Thanks for joining us. If I may, just to kind of start this thing out. Do you have any concerns or regrets regarding our nation having gone to war with Iraq?
DF: I think that the rational for the war was strong. Naturally one has regrets about various mistakes that got made. But, I think fundamentally the president made the right decision. That removing Saddam Hussein from power was important and valuable and that the risks of leaving him in power were very substantial.
TH: And, yet Saddam Hussein was the principal enemy of the Iranians. He had lost a million people and the Iranians had lost a million people in the war between Iraq and Iran. Saddam was our Sunni bulwark against that Shiite force. Former Congressman Bob Ney, who got taken down in the Jack Abramoff scandal... he's got a new book out. It's called Sideswiped. In his book, he talks about a conversation with Fouad al Zayat, who was basically an arms dealer who made airplanes, you know, weapons of war [Zayat denies being an arms dealer]. Zayat was meeting with Bob Ney in London to discuss Boeing and other contracts that had to do with Iran.
They were in the Ambassador Club dining room, a private club. And, if I could just share a couple of sentences with you, I'd like to get your take on this...
[Thom reading from Bob Ney's book] he said, Fouad turned to me and said something that is burned into my brain. He turned and pointed to two men who were sitting at the table near us and involved in an intense conversation. He said, "do you see those two men? Do you recognize them?" [Bob says] I knew one of them, to the left was King Hussein of Jordan's brother, the crown prince. But I didn't know the other guy. Fouad replies in a very calm but firm tone "that other man... this man will lie to your country. This man will catch the ear of your president. This man is a wanted criminal in Jordan, yet he sits with the King's brother here in London. This man is here in London carrying out one of the biggest schemes in modern history. This man will soon take your country into war in Iraq. His name is Ahmed Chalabi". [Thom finishes reading from Ney's book].
Do you think it's possible that you and all the other guys in the bush administration were conned by the Iranian government, through their agent Ahmed Chalabi, into taking out their principal enemy, Saddam Hussein on their behalf?
DF: No, I don't think that analysis is right. It's wrong in a number of respects. I don't think that the decision-making in the US government was driven by Chalabi or any one guy. I don't think that the United States was conned. It was not a con that Saddam Hussein was a very dangerous guy...
TH: [interrupts] Oh, come on! He was writing a romance novel. He had no weapons of mass destruction.
DF: [jumps in] It isn't true that he had no weapons of mass destruction. He not only had had weapons of mass destruction, but he had used them against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. He had used them against Iran. Saddam was the first person in history to use nerve gas on the battlefield.
TH: ...but the UN went in, and they took that stuff out. They destroyed it. The weapons inspectors said "it's not there anymore".
DF: No, that's not what the weapons inspectors said. I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the whole weapons of mass destruction issue. If your listeners are interested in the facts on this, what I would urge them to do is read the report of the Iraq Survey Group. They issued a three volume report, which is available on the internet, which explains the status of Iraq's WMD programs. Iraq was a country that had substantial weapons of mass destruction programs. The big mistake that was made by our intelligence services before the war was the belief that Saddam was maintaining chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.
[Douglas Feith brings up the war with Iran, the invasion of Kuwait and Iraq shooting at UN and US planes that were enforcing the no fly zone to argue against Thom's "Saddam was no threat to the United States" assessment].
DF: I think president bush made the right decision... but the argument that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to us, that we were not worried about him, that he didn't have WMD programs, that the whole thing was made up... is an argument that is not accurate. It's not based on the facts.
TH: OK. ... Mr. Feith, thank you for being on the program. [Thom ends interview giving Mr. Feith the last word... as he usually does... in order to make his guests feel they were treated fairly].
[End Thom Hartmann discussion with Douglas Feith]
The argument that "the whole thing was made up" is HIGHLY accurate. Notice that the liar Feith continually refers to "WMD programs" and not actual WMD. And he mentions the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report which he THINKS backs up his version of events. It does not. Following are some of the key points I have selected to rebut Mr. Feith's assertions...
Iraq Study Group key findings: [1] Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991. [2] Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG. [3] Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW [biological weapons] program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.
Feith hinges his whole case (and the justification for bush's illegal war) on the Iraq "could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks" portion of the report, but IGNORES the "ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course". The FACT remains that the IAEA weapons inspections worked and the Iraq war was completely unnecessary. Not only was it unnecessary, but it was based on a lie. The IAEA inspectors on the ground at the time told bush they were not finding any WMD (although they did ask for more time to complete their inspections).
bush ignored them and informed the American people that we were invading (in part) to "disarm" Saddam (see my post "Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-President bush's WMD Lies" for more details regarding how the ex prez lied us into war). The report issued by the ISG (the one referenced by Feith) confirms that Iraq had no WMD and that the sanctions worked (and bush LIED when he said the invasion was necessary to "disarm" Iraq).
It should be noted that the ISG report was issued on 9/30/2004 and that ex prez bush ordered the invasion on 3/20/2003. But the report only CONFIRMED what the inspectors had told bush BEFORE the invasion, which was that they were finding no WMD and that Saddam was (begrudgingly) cooperating. Sure, he fully intended to restart his WMD programs *if* we allowed him to do so (by not keeping the pressure on indefinitely), but surely that would have been less expensive (both in terms of the lives of our soldiers, the lives of innocent Iraqis and in terms of our "treasure").
A May 17 2003 poll of the American people confirms that "58 percent... say that considering its costs vs. its benefits the war in Iraq was not worth fighting..." bush, in lying to the American people (and the world) did NOT make the right decision as Feith suggests. Although many people are STILL not aware that bush lied when making his case for war. These people are still convinced that the intelligence was "wrong". Others, believe it or not, are convinced that bush "told the truth" and that WMD was actually found in Iraq.
These delusional fools are referring to the fact that "some misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found". Concerning these WMD, the ISG said "they were not the weapons which had been one of the main arguments for the invasion". Indeed they were not. bush scarred the American people with fantasies concerning mushroom clouds. bush and the other war criminals from his administration (including Feith) are liars who are still working to rewrite history.
As for the accusation that Ahmed Chalabi (working for Iran) duped us into the Iraq war... I've heard that one before (and believe it), although I think bush would have found other "evidence" if Chalabi hadn't happened along to HELP bush build a case for invasion. Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and counter terrorism expert said (concerning the intelligence that was provided to us by way of Chalabi) that "[it] isn't reliable at all... [and that] much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear (Chalabi's "intelligence" came to us via the Iraqi National Congress, which was "an umbrella Iraqi opposition group led by Ahmed Chalabi that was formed with the aid and direction of the United States government following the Gulf War, for the purpose of fomenting the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein").
This account is, however, is by way of someone who (in my opinion) has a great deal of believability; former Congressman Bob Ney (account according to his recently released book, "Sideswiped"). Yes, Mr. Ney could be described as a "disgraced" former Congressman, but I see no reason for him to lie. In fact, it is my opinion that he is trying to set things straight on this matter. That the identification of Chalabi came from an accused arms dealer (Fouad al Zayat) is of no consequence, IMO, as much of what he said turned out to be provably true. What Chalabi told our intelligence services DID catch the ear of our president. He was wanted man in Jordan (in regards to the Petra banking scandal), and his intelligence (via the INC) did help the bush administration build the case for war with Iraq.
Mr. Chalabi denies that he was an agent for Iran, but I don't believe him. Fact is, Chalabi and the bush administration had a falling out way back in 2004. The allegations then came from bush Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenant, and resulted in a raid by US forces of Chalabi's Baghdad home... although (apparently) no evidence has ever been produced that conclusively proves Chalabi was an Iranian agent. Or the evidence was covered up by bushies who didn't want it widely known that the administration ALLOWED itself to be duped.
For the record Mr. Chalabi is a Shiite Muslism (Saddam was a Sunni Muslim and Iran is largely Shiite). When Chalabi was feeding his lies to our intelligence agencies he thought he might end up as the leader of Iraq. And there is also the fact that the bush administration paid him nearly 33 million dollars so he'd tell them things they wanted to hear.
There were those, however, who knew beforehand that Chalabi was a liar and not to be trusted. Bob Ney confirms this in his recent book... further proof that the bush administration cherry picked intelligence that supported their case for regime change in Iraq. But "cherry picking" is FAR to generous a term to use when it comes to the duplicity employed by the bushies when it comes to their pre-war lies and their continuing lies TO THIS DAY (exemplified by Mr. Feith). That there are those who continue to believe that bush did not lie in regards to WMD he knew Iraq did not have leaves me completely flabbergasted. These individuals truly have their heads buried deeply in the proverbial sand.
THP podcast info: This segment of audio is from the 3/6/2013 Thom Hartmann Podcast... 0:14 to 9:32 of hour 2.
