The notion that George W. Bush made us hated around the world is scapegoat drivel. Anti-Americanism has been alive, kicking and screaming in the world long before his administration ever took power, and will continue long after his departure….
From Time last month:
When President Obama visits Turkey early next month, some observers are expecting he will use the occasion to deliver on his promise to deliver a major foreign policy speech from a Muslim nation in his first 100 days. But indications are that he will not give the speech in Turkey. The White House and State Department have not yet decided on the location for the speech, which is meant to undo some of the damage done to America’s image in the Muslim world during the George W. Bush Administration.
Liberal propaganda and a complicit media that fueled and indulged Middle East paranoia, conspiracy, and European anti-Americanism is what damaged America’s image and credibility in the Muslim world during the “reign” of “King” George (who stepped down from the “throne” after 8 years of “imperialism” and “unconstitutional” overreach of executive authority).
President Obama’s speech was delivered in Turkey. As reported by the BBC:
Mr Obama devoted much of his speech to calling for a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, admitting that “the trust that binds us has been strained”.
“Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam,” he stated.
“In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”
He said: “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them.”
“And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship,” he said.
“There is an old Turkish proverb: ‘You cannot put out fire with flames.'”
How is this a departure from George W. Bush? How is the diplomatic tone any different? The extended hand of friendship and alliance? Of mutual interests?
Mona Charen summarizes former President Bush’s respect and rhetoric toward Muslims rather nicely:
George W. Bush was never disrespectful to the Muslim world. He was extraordinarily careful to telegraph his respect for the Muslim faith — some thought to a fault. (“Why is it,” asked one wag, “that the only people who say Islam is religion of peace are Christians?”) Bush made the Feast of Eid, which marks the end of Ramadan, an annual White House celebration with prominent Muslim guests. He arguably saved more Muslim lives through the African AIDS initiative than any other world leader could claim. Mrs. Bush made improving the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan her special project. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when this was not an obvious move, he visited the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., to telegraph to the nation that anger toward American Muslims would be a misplaced response to the atrocity.
This caricature of Bush as a heedless militarist and xenophobe — which no one is doing more to promote than the current president — is a libel.
And despite the post-war hardships, he’s essentially liberated 50 million Muslims and set them on the path toward democracy.
Rather than set the record straight and defend the previous American president, our current one indulges, perpetuates, and gives validation to the wrongful misperception that America (especially under the leadership of Bush for 8 years) has been arrogant and at war against Muslims.
America has spent blood and treasure in the defense of Muslims. (You’re welcome). And that’s the reality that President Obama should be stressing if he wants to repair America’s image abroad.
For all his concession/compromising/appeasement/blame America first apologist diplomatic rhetoric, what did President Obama gain from it, on behalf of America? Mona Charen:
But as former Ambassador John Bolton reminds us, during the glory days of the Clinton administration, French President Francois Mitterrand said this: “We are at war with America– a permanent war … a war without death. They are very hard, the Americans. They are voracious. They want undivided power over the world.” Compared with that, the most stinging rebuke to come out of the Bush administration — Rumsfeld’s swipe about “old Europe” — seems downright polite.
There’s nothing wrong with pleasant atmospherics, of course. And if Barack and Michelle Obama wowed the crowds in London and Prague, that’s nice. But what you might have missed in all the hyperventilating in the media about the new incarnation of Jack and Jackie was that President Obama was rebuffed by Europe. He had asked them to pass stimulus bills like the one the Democrats passed in the U.S. Germany’s Angela Merkel and the others turned that down flat. European nations have even graver problems with promised social safety net programs than we do, and they sensibly decided that further indebting themselves would aggravate rather than alleviate their troubles.
President Obama further requested that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. He wasn’t subtle about it either. “Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone,” he said. “This is a joint problem and it requires a joint effort.” Adoring crowds notwithstanding, they refused that request as well. Oh, wait. That’s not quite true. According to Fox News, “Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12.”
Funny how President #44 tries to distance himself from being President #43; yet can’t help but follow in #43’s footsteps when it comes to imitating all the things that President Bush got right:
After a week spent assuring the world that he is antithesis of his widely despised predecessor, President Barack Obama ended his first presidential overseas trip by doing a George Bush. In style, substance and photo-ops, Obama’s unannounced stopover in Baghdad was straight out of the Bush playbook.
So pathetically amusing.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
imitation is the sincerest form of flatery. obama really has no clue, even with all of the clinton retreads. funny, we haven’t heard a whole lot about hillary, intersting…
You mean Obama bowing to the Saudi King didn’t repair our relations with the Muslim world? What’s next? Obama and the Dems toss out the Constitution and enact Sharia Law? Will the muzzies love us then?
Hey Mike:
My apologies in advance for being off topic, but I was reading your profile here on FA and noticed that you are into photography. Where would be a good place (either here or on Mike’s America) to ask you about that. Photography is one of my hobbies as well so I’m interested to know what you like to photograph.
Just Curious
Ron
Mike
I meant to say a good place to discuss photography seeing as I already asked you about it here.
Ron
The “liberal media” had nothing to do with the dramatic decline in respect for the United States over 8 years of the Bush administration, in countries ranging from Germany (76% to 38%) to Turkey (62% to 12%). This is well documented. No American President in history ever presided over such a monstrous decline in our national reputation around the world. Some people (e.g. the French) have always had a beef with the USA, but the numbers got much worse over the past 8 years. I gave a reference recently on another thread. Simply saying that some people have always disliked and distrusted the USA doesn’t do anything to change the reality of how much worse it got during the last 8 years. And Bush squandered the pro-American goodwill which existed after 9/11, when, France’s LeMond newspaper headlined “we are all Americans now.”
We could argue over whether the “achievements” of the Bush administration were worth the public relations disaster, but numbers don’t lie and the disaster was real.
The one area of the world were America’s numbers went up was the one area in the world where President Bush unambiguously did the right things — Africa.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Mike’s America: they will never love us, we are evil in their eyes and the level of hate that comes from some of those nations makes my mind spin. i have never hated in that manner, and it is childish to assume that by offering a hand of friendship all will be well. we are talking about decades if not years of believing our nation and its beliefs are unholy, nothing will solve that in a few weeks let alone a few years.
I didn’t realise Dubya was the first leader in history to drop by to visit troops and organise a photo-op.
@ Larry – Wow the Germans hate us? The country of Adidas hates us. The same Adidas that is currently running commericals asking everyone to show their love for the Former Soviet Union. I personally am shocked. We should immediately embrace Marxism and move Lenin’s body to the Capital Rotunda. Then we can adopt every UN resolution brought against Israel so the Muslims will love us too. Or we could tell them to kiss our a$$es. See, although we live in a global community, one country could shut its borders and provide everything needed to be completely self sufficient. That would be US. We’d have to drill for our own oil, toss up a few nuke reactors, but we could do it. And without the US consumer, the rest of the countries would crash.
The oft repeated mantra that the world, and especially the Europeans, loved us until George W. Bush came along and then they hated us is one of the most pernicious misrepresentations that has been promoted by a corrupt media and the Left. Not to put some kind of historical perspective around the oft-cited opinion polls is to propagate a lie and one reason I no longer read the NYT. This message has certainly had an effect on favorability ratings for Bush.
Any baby boomer should remember the Vietnam War, and any baby boomer who lived in Europe at that time should know the truth about European reaction. The Vietnam War killed 59,000+ Americans and millions of Vietnamese. The numbers vary widely depending on source, but they are always large. (I am not commenting here on whether Vietnam was right or wrong, only that it happened). In the same time period you had the assassinations of three major American political figures: JFK, RFK and MLK. You had racial unrest culminating in riots in major American cities. You had American students shot by the National Guard, etc. Is anyone seriously going to tell me that the world looked at us and thought, “gosh, that place must be paradise on earth.”
But, there were differences. The European generation, saved from Fascism and Nazism by Americans many of whom paid the ultimate price, was still alive. The Warsaw pact was a real threat and it was NOT European resolve and military might that kept it at bay. The Soviet Union was still a major political power with a repressive system it wanted to export. Hollywood had not become an anti-American propaganda machine. The Arab/Muslim world, funded by money from an industry they had no role in inventing or developing, had not yet become a world public relations force. The Internet had not become a factor in real time delivery of information and images easily distorted and massaged. Europe had not yet become complacent, accustomed to material comfort and enamored of confrontation avoidance. The news media worldwide had not yet become solidly Leftist leaning and indifferent to any concept of journalistic balance or integrity. (Actually I think they have succeeded in turning “journalist integrity” into an oxymoron.) All of that has changed today.
Just to show how distorted this narrative has become, let me give an example. I live in Tokyo and a few weeks back I saw a debate on the BBC on whether GWB was the worst president ever. I think the question is absurd and I never watch the BBC, but I stayed with this because on the one side you had Karl Rove and William Kristol arguing against the proposition. On the Left you had Jacob Wiesberg and Simon Jenkins, a Journalist for the Guardian. The debate was not so entertaining. Kristol and Rove presented facts and accomplishments. The Left kept repeating over and over how America was no longer loved. The interesting part however was when the Jenkins was asked to compare the Vietnam and Iraq wars. He actually answered that Vietnam was a ”well-managed” war, unlike Iraq. A ‘well-managed” war? What parallel universe does this man live in. Did he miss the part where our helicopter was taking off and abandoned Vietnamese were trying to hang on to the struts. This left-wing idiocy is what passes for journalism. However, it is effective. And these people have a platform from which to preach. And, I am sure that many in the audience, with no frame of reference, accepted the proposition.
I read somewhere that Goebbels said that for propaganda to be effective you make the message simple and say it over and over. Of course, it helps if you have a compliant press and entertainment media to help. ”The world loved us before Bush” is devoid of any balance and historical perspective, but it is simplistic and it has been effective.
Obama is going to learn that for all his feel-good talk, there are divergent interests between the U.S. and Europe and that reality will hinder him just as it did Bush. Conservatives need to be aware that there is a worldwide propaganda war going on and we are not doing well.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
What do you mean by “well documented”? It’s well documented that the NYTimes published 32 front page stories covering abu Ghraib. Do you think what actually happened at abu Ghraib created the American ill-will and rise in jihadis? Or do you think it was the amount of media attention and focus? The hysteria and over-exaggeration? Haditha? The false story regarding a koran being flushed at Gitmo resulted in anti-American protests and…what was it? 17 deaths? When the Duelfer Report was released with a litany of things that confirmed many of the justifications the Bush Administration used in pushing for the case for war, what did the media report upon: “No wmd” and amounted it to “nothing found”. Bullshit. Part of the failure was on the CIA for not putting out a bullet list; but the other factor was definitely in a lazy, incurious media with an agenda. Same thing happened with what was reported upon (or more importantly what wasn’t reported upon) regarding the findings of the Senate Select Committee investigations into pre-war intell and the Iraqi Perspectives Report.
“Bush lied”. Prove it, Larry. If you can’t do so, then why is it that the popular impression and world opinion we are left with, is that “Bush lied”? It’s because of media misreporting and anti-American propaganda.
Why doesn’t the world know more about this, under Bush? Or this? Why does the Muslim world think Bush was waging a war on Islam? Perhaps the media should do a better job at accurately reporting what it is that Bush said and did, rather than always spinning away and feeding into the disgusting anti-American and anti-Bush mythperceptions.
Again, who shoulders much of the blame? Anything that Bush actually did, or the misperception of what he did?
And why is this, Larry? Anything that Bush actually did, or the misperception of what he did?
Why aren’t the French raked over the coals for the reasons why they opposed the U.S.-led invasion? It certainly wasn’t out of altruistic concern over the lives of Iraqi innocents getting killed.
And who shoulders much of the blame? Anything that Bush actually did, or the misperception of what he did?
The goodwill was illusionary and temporal at best. Please. There were already voices quietly gleeful that America suffered “a bloody nose”. Don’t fool yourself on that notion that Bush squandered American good-will.
@GaffaUK:
Did you not read the rest of the passage?
Nobody claimed that anti-Americanism was new or that we can get rid of it completely – that would be as silly as believing we can rid the world of all terror by declaring a war on it. The libtard plan, however, is that diplomacy and dialogue can marginalize it (or is Turkey one of those countries that there’s no sense in talking to either?).
Truth be told, I don’t much give a hoot how we’re perceived in the world as long as it doesn’t interfere with our national interests; of course it generally does, and fatally so (see Ahmadinejad vs. Rafsanjani). It is strange to see you guys gloat over anti-Americanism now that the other guy’s in charge – another core value?
Oh … I hadn’t realized you were deranged.
@Wordsmith
Hmmm – I wonder if Churchill advertised his visits to the troops during WWII?
Wordsmith wrote:
Leaders bear the responsibility for leadership. Your post would have us believe that the New York Times owns the biggest megaphone in the world. Wrong. That would be owned by the President of the United States.
Following the release of the Duelfer Report, President Bush had unlimited opportunities to try and make the point that the findings in the report justified the actions of his administration in “pushing the case for war” (Wordsmith’s phrase; not mine). Not once did the President take the opportunity to do so. What he did do — four different times, including during his final media “exit interview” — was to state that his administration’s misimpression that Saddam had WMD was owing to “bad intelligence.”
Why is it that the only ones promoting the theory that Saddam had WMD (or even active WMD “programs”) afterall are conservative pundits? Why not the 43rd President of the United States and Commander in Chief of US forces who were in harm’s way? Bush had every motivation to convince America and the rest of the world that the Iraq invasion was justified. He certainly did try to justify it, ex post facto. His retrospective justification, which he maintained to the end, was that Saddam was an “evil dictator” and that his war “brought freedom to the Iraqi people.” But this wasn’t the justification for the invasion, going in.
Do you recall Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN? Did he talk about what an “evil dictator” Saddam was and how the Iraqi people needed to be liberated from his dictatorial rule? No, it was all about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and how they threatened global security. This was the justification for the war. And so, on the subject of why the war was justified, the public statements of the President and Commander in Chief of the United States after the Duelfer report agreed entirely with the assessment of the mainstream media. The weapons of mass destruction (and WMD “programs”) which were offered as the justification for the war did not exist and were the imaginary figments of “bad intelligence” (President’s own words).
At any time of his choosing, the President could have announced a prime time news address to confirm that the justification for the Iraq War offered prior to the invasion was confirmed by findings after the invasion. This would have been covered by every network and the President’s words would have been printed on the front page of the New York Times. But he did not make such an address.
Another article of faith on this blog is that Saddam moved the ephemeral WMD to Syria for safe keeping, in the run up to war. Why did the President allow this to happen? Why would the Syrians take this risk? That no one would notice heavy truck convoys leaving Iraq and that US intelligence wouldn’t find out that those convoys contained WMD? In that case, the WMD would have been blown to bits and the Syrians certainly knew that the US would declare war against Syria, along with against Iraq. This was before we had any difficulty with the Iraq occupation. This was at a time when there was a lot of media speculation that Syria was next on Dick Cheney’s list. And Syria is supposed to accept Saddam’s weapons for “safe keeping?” And, if Syria did this, then why did Bush let the Syrians get away with this? And why did the President never once mention this as even a remote possibility?
The point that I’m making is that you guys love to use the MSM as the scapegoat for everything which is wrong in the world. You make it seem as if the MSM controls the news and controls public opinion. You are so wrong. The MSM lives and dies on its own credibility (this is why Dan Rather now lives in exile on HDNet), and the voice of the New York Times is a vocally-powered megaphone compared to the President’s Gigawatt amplifier and electronic speaker component system. If George W Bush failed because he was outshouted by the New York Times, then he was one piss poor leader.
“Bush lied.” I never said that. Straw man. I don’t have to prove it, because I never said it.
But I’ll tell you what Bush did do. He misled the American people. He gave many speeches in the 6 month run up to war. In every single speech, he juxtaposed the words “Saddam Hussein” and “Iraq” and “9/11” dozens of times. In every single speech. I remember listening to all those speeches and feeling enraged, because it was so obvious what he was trying to do. Without directly saying so, he was creating the impression that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were complicit in the events of 9/11. At the time of the invasion, something like 75% of Americans reported on public opinion polls that they belleved that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. These numbers remained well North of 50% for years after the Iraq invasion. I remember hearing an interview with a brother/sister pair who were in Army basic training. They were explaining why they both enlisted. It was because they “want(ed) to go to Iraq pay them back for what they did to us on 9/11.” This was scary on several levels, but the primary point is how pervasive the idea was that Saddam Hussein, Iraq, and 9/11 were somehow intimately related. Bush never came right out and said this; so, technically, he didn’t lie. But he did mislead.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@GaffaUK:
http://www.battlefield-site.co.uk/winston_churchill_03.jpg
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Antiques-collectables/Militaria/WWII-earlier/auction-208606920.htm
GaffaUK,
It took about 30 seconds to find two photos of Churchill with troops and if you think the man did not understand the value of publicizing morale building opportunities, I really have to wonder what that UK is doing on your pseudonym.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
There is a lot in your post that is nothing more than the usual liberal script so lets start with something you seem to have come up with on your own:
“That no one would notice heavy truck convoys leaving Iraq and that US intelligence wouldn’t find out that those convoys contained WMD? In that case, the WMD would have been blown to bits and the Syrians certainly knew that the US would declare war against Syria, along with against [sic] Iraq.”
As someone that has been in military intelligence for the better part of sixteen years, I can tell you that knowing, with certainty, the contents of a truck is just not possible. Do you bomb the trucks because you suspect they may contain nerve agent or biological agents and risk the potential for mass casualties in the downwind hazard areas or do you bomb the trucks only to find out that you’ve laid waste to a column of civilians seeking refuge in a neighboring country? Consider the potential outcomes of your profoundly reckless notions, Larry, and balance that with the unfounded certainty with which you assert them. You sound silly but also scary because it reveals a frightening ignorance of the subject matter. You sound intellectually dishonest too because for all your mention of the intelligence failures surrounding Iraq (and I’ll add 9-11), you some how conjure the notion that intelligence would provide an air tight cordon around Iraq. You can’t have it both ways, Larry, and I’m not going to even bother with your expectation that the United States would “declare war” against Syria. As a liberal, you may miss FDR more than you should, but as a soldier, I wish we would return to the day when a declaration of war was sought and given when needed rather than Congressional ambiguities designed to provide wiggle room when the going gets tough, like the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” authorizing the President to “use any means necessary”.
In addition to exploring the Joint Resolution, you might also consider investing some of your time in learning about the Iraq Liberation Act. President Clinton signed the Act into law in October 1998 and thus made “regime change” an official US policy. He also began bombing Iraq less than two months later in Operation Desert Fox, for which I was called off of leave, and among other things, the President cited Iraq’s WMD programs and history of aggression as his reasons.
Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, and George W. Bush, were no strangers to the Intelligence Community’s estimate of Iraq and WMDs. Take a look at this CNN text of President Clinton’s own words on the matter:
//Consider just some of the facts:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.
For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam’s son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. //
Please read the entire text: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
If you read that and understand that the intelligence provided to these men and the danger it depicted had not changed, how can you honestly expect, in the aftermath of 9-11, that a President would not consider the danger posed by Hussein and act to end the threat?
Here is a laundry list from Madeline Albright to Nancy Pelosi, who saw the threat posed by Saddam Hussein: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Which of them will you denounce as you have done to President Bush? I suspect that this all comes down to nothing more than sour grapes over the 2000 election but do you think that Al Gore would have dismissed the intelligence? Gore may be haughty and conceited but he was right when he said, “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proved impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Larry, he said that on 23 Sept 2002, less than six months prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Your condemnation of President Bush is not objective, it is not helpful, it is partisan, and most of all, it is dishonest.
Well, this has turned into a lively discussion. Let me support one more proposition put forward by Wordsmith and that has to do with the idea of goodwill that the world supposedly had for us after 9/11. I am going to base my position on a specific incident that happened to me. That may seem reaching a bit too far, generalizing from on specific encounter. On the other hand, persons with pretty large megaphones like Tom Friedman for the NYT do it all the time. They speak to a few people somewhere on the planet, form an opinion from the conversation, and suddenly it is the word of God.
On the morning of 9/11 I took a flight from La Guardia to Chicago. I was in the air at exactly the same time the first plane hit the towers. I knew nothing about it until I landed in Chicago and heard a report on the radio during the drive back from the airport.
A few months later I was in Sydney, Australia staying at one of the business hotels – maybe a Marriott or Hyatt, I don’t remember. I took dinner late and the hotel restaurant was empty except for one other table. Naturally, they seated me close by so it was impossible not to overhear the neighboring conversation.
The other table was occupied by three persons: a thirtyish so couple that appeared to be Australian and an older, professorial type that seemed British. The older fellow was clearing being deferred to and holding forth on a number of topics. Suddenly, he turned to a topic that got my interest. He had been to New York City shortly after 9/11. He recounted how in a taxi ride the driver had turned to him and asked, “How could they have done that to us?’
I remember very well what he then said. In his most British and professorial tone he told the younger couple, “WELL THEY DID SORT OF DESERVE DIDN”T THEY”.
I was so angry, I wanted to go over and beat him senseless. I could have been killed that morning and this fool was essentially saying that would have been deserved. I travel often and hate to intrude on the conversation of others that I do not know, but this called for something. I turned to the table and said, “excuse me, we did NOT deserve that.”
Of course, at that point the SOB started to talk about all of the friends he had in NYC, blah, blah, blah. I got my check went to my room. My point in this story is, based on my personal experience, don’t sell me the “goodwill” crap. Plenty of our supposed friends were not unhappy it happened. It’s lonely at the top.
John,
I’m glad you acknowledge the inherently anecdotal nature of your experience. I disagree with your analogy to Thomas Friedman, however. Whatever you think of Mr. Friedman, and I don’t always agree with him, I think he talks to a few more people and does a bit more research than your dining room experience represents.
There are arrogant fools in every country and at every level of society. You just had the misfortune of sitting in the same dining room with two of them. Good for you for setting them straight.
tfhr:
I thank you for sharing insights, based on your experience in military intelligence.
You make a great point of saying how much a potential threat the Clinton administration considered Saddam Hussein to be. There is no disagreement over this. But Clinton didn’t invade Iraq, did he? Clinton handled Saddam the same way that multiple American Presidents handled the Soviet Union. He contained Saddam, with sanctions, no fly zones, and international inspection regimes. There was no emergency which required war, in March of 2003. The inspectors were on the ground, doing their job. Ultimately, the best available evidence indicates that Clinton’s containment was successful. There was no nuclear weapons program. There was no biological weapons program. There was no active chemical weapons program. Again, the best evidence are the words which came out of the mouth of the President of the United States. Saddam Hussein did not have the WMD or WMD programs which were used to justify the war. The President was misled by “bad intelligence” (his own words, said on four separate occasions, including during his Presidential exit interview).
You totally ignore the central point of my post:
If Saddam Hussein really did have WMD or WMD programs, why didn’t the President explain this to the American people and to the people of the world? Why did he completely go along with the interpretation of the MSM that Saddam really didn’t have WMD afterall?
If there is any credible evidence at all that Saddam shipped WMD to Syria for safekeeping in the run up to war, why didn’t the President explain this to the American people and the people of the world?
You said the following:
Number one, I didn’t “condemn” President Bush; I merely described what he did. If I did not describe accurately what he did, kindly correct me. If I’m wrong, I’ll concede this and thank you for correcting my misstatement, as I thanked you for teaching me about the limitations of military intelligence (i.e. that it was possible for Saddam and the Syrians to be 100% assured that the contents of their long convoy of heavy trucks would be reliably concealed).
Number two, I am a real person, with a real name, and a real reputation. You have called me (and “most of all”!) “dishonest.” I will accept your right to have the opinion that I’m not objective, partisan, and not helpful, but I will not stand for being called dishonest by anyone, and certainly not by someone writing behind the cover of a pseudonym.
What, precisely, did I say — on any post I’ve ever written, on this blog or anywhere on the Internet, which was “dishonest?” Either put up or shut up.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@JohnM:
You showed great restraint. I lived in the UK for a number of years during which I learned that there are people that absolutely hate the United States and there are those that adore Americans. Both camps will cite a variety of reasons and there are plenty of people that fill the middle ground as well as the folks that are just plain indifferent. I’ve lived in other countries and found that the range is broad with regard to like or dislike but one common thread is the politics of envy.
We see envy played on in our domestic politics so it should come as no surprise that it is put to use abroad and it is often done so with the intent of targeting us directly or indirectly for domestic or international consumption. Add to that the real or perceived grievances that many hold and it becomes second nature for Americans traveling or living abroad to work at blending in with the locals as much as possible or at least to avoid the outward appearance of the stereotypical American traveler.
All that said, I applaud you for resisting the temptation to grind the man’s face into the table.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: It’s nice to see you recognize someone’s experience. Let’s hope this is not a one time affair.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Your opinion, totally unsupported by the facts.
Do you agree or disagree that the Iraqi regime was actively engaging in the support of terror prior to our invasion in 2003?
The inspectors were on the ground playing cat and mouse, hide and seek games with the Iraqi regime.
Remember, it was the responsibility of the regime to produce the prohibited items or produce proof that those items had been destroyed.
The regime refused to do either, choosing instead to play games that ultimately lead to the invasion.
You selectively left that part off because those facts don’t fit your template.
You really and truly need to read the reports from Blix, Duelfer, and others before you run yourself out on a limb like that.
You really should read up on what has been found in Iraq since the invasion occurred. I have addressed you on this point before and you simply dismissed me.
Handle it how you will this time, but remember that there is evidence out there which flies in the face of your repeated assertions to the contrary.
No, unfortunately, you won’t.
You’ve proven time and again that you’ll play little word games and parse semantics to the point of “is…is” hair splitting without ever once admitting you are wrong.
That’s your track record here.
Some may not know that about you.
Some of us, however, do.
Is that a scab that you really want to scratch off Larry?
Is it really?
Perhaps you need to be reminded of our conversations regarding Adam Smith and his views on progressive income taxes.
Smith said in his own words that progressive income taxes were “absurd and destructive.”
Yet, even after being corrected you continued to purvey the myth that Smith favored progressive income taxes.
Perhaps you need to be reminded that you have repeatedly tried to convince us that Obama’s plans and policies are not Socialist or Marxist even though we have repeatedly demonstrated that is exactly what they are.
Yes, you engage in deception and the purveyance of myth on a regular basis here.
When called on it, and proven wrong, no, you don’t man up and admit your error.
You choose instead to weasel and parse.
Some choose to let it pass by without comment.
Others, not so much.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I agree, and I noted that the CIA failed to put out a bullet list of points regarding the Duelfer Report. One of the biggest failures of the Administration was in not adequately defending itself and communicating what it was doing. Instead of challenging misconceptions and correcting the record, it just “moved on”.
If you go back, so much of the language and justifications were centered around issues related to wmd, but not actually on wmd possession. That accounted for part of it, and certainly the one that became overemphasized in the drum up to war for public support, but there were no “lies” about what we knew and thought we knew, based upon the intell we had at the time (and incidentally where the CIA got it wrong on wmd, it also got it wrong on Iraq-al Qaeda links, but in the opposite direction; i.e., the links were downplayed). Independent investigations including the Silberman-Robb Report, the Bulter Report, and the SSCI Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence exonerates the Administration of any political manipulation of intelligence.
Actually, it was part of the justification. But you’re right, it wasn’t emphasized before the war because we shouldn’t be putting troops in harms way unless it’s tied in to America’s national security interests. All those favorite places libs like to mention about (why not Darfur, Tibet, etc.) as alternative humanitarian interest targets weren’t in violation of UN cease-fire agreements with the potential of passing wmd into the hands of terrorists who have had a long-standing relationship with said country. After the invasion, the Administration wrongfully decided to simply “move on” to the next phase, which was securing Iraq, and not defend the original justifications when it became clear that and embarrassing that wmd stockpiles weren’t found (and we were expecting to find them). Go back to even the Mission Accmplished speech, and freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people was talked about. Go back to the war resolution passed by Congress, and it mentions the “brutal repression of its civilian population” as one of the causes for justification.
This is from the New Yorker, before the war:
Larry:
Look at the actual text of Powell’s speech which offered a broader rationale for war than wmd stockpile possession, and which did mention the tyranny of Saddam: “Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein’s dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors.” It wasn’t all about the “slam dunk” of finding wmd as it was that Saddam’s threat to the world extended to issues that we know today were correct- his history, his intent, and his capabilities. Powell’s speech didn’t include just the slam dunk bad intell of the CIA. And there are items in it that haven’t been disproven.
Larry,
I’m neither conceding nor pushing the debate regarding whether or not Saddam had wmd (nor the distinctions between what was said regarding nuclear, chemical, and biological) but whether the whole justification was built around Saddam having wmd stockpiles at the time. There was emphasis placed upon stopping him before his intent to have those weapons fully materialized, as well as enforcement of UN mandates in order to eliminate the threat Saddam posed to the world, which relates back to 9/11 and Saddam’s ties to terrorism.
The media you so love to defend distorts Bush as implying Saddam posed an imminent threat when what he actually said was how we had to stop Saddam before the threat became imminent.
Douglas Feith is one who did not favor the over-emphasis on wmd possession for the sake of drumming up public support. The Administration actually felt they had unilateral and multilateral legal justification even in the absence of the wmd possession rationale.
The focus on wmd was a PR move that went badly. But the actual debate in the war room centered a lot around things other than possession; and much was about prevention of possession.
Larry,
I’m agnostic on the “wmds went to Syria” theory. I’ll leave that to others to argue.
I think you misunderstand my beliefs regarding the media and are lumping me in with others who do scapegoat the media for everything that doesn’t fit their partisan beliefs.
In a nutshell, however, I do find that the media as a whole did much political damage to Bush and that some are based upon intentional bias and agenda-driven; others are more subtle; some has to do with negativity sells- “if it bleeds, it leads” where abu Ghraib can get 32 frontpage news stories while the heroism and names of soldiers barely make it to page A18.
Based on the bulk of media coverage, what is the overall impression people are left with regarding Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? Did Joe Wilson lie?
What amazes me is that you can deny that there is an overall bias from the left in MSM. What of Pew Research and other studies that indicate the bias is there? They are numerous.
Do you deny that there is bias in the MSM tilted to the left?
Larry, your charge of strawman is a strawman. You’re far too smart not to comprehend what is meant by the insertion of “Bush lied”. What was our conversation on? Whether or not media played a part in driving home anti-Americanism by (mis)reporting what Bush was doing rather than reporting fairly and accurately. Hence the inclusion of “Bush lied”, as an overarching meme/theme in the media coverage. I didn’t say YOU said it. But the general public has been (mis)led to that impression by the greater bulk of the media.
Larry, please read my post, then get back to me, ‘kay? K.
-wordsmith/Flopping Aces, USA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim comment #19:
Larry, you’re seeing things in 20/20 hindsight. Based upon what we knew at the time, Saddam did pose a threat that had to be dealt with before the threat became imminent. If the threat is imminent, then we would have acted too late.
The fear that he “might” have wmd was real before the invasion. And that was the crux: we didn’t know. But history of intent, possession, usage, secrecy, behavior as though he had them, all pointed to Saddam as a threat to global security. And in the wake of 9/11, unlike the Clinton years, we just could no longer afford the risk of wmd falling into the hands of terrorist proxies. The burden of proof, which people seem to conveniently forget on your side, was on Saddam to produce his innocence, as mandated by the original cease-fire agreements (not a peace treaty, and Saddam always behaved as though he were still at war with us, even if America seemed to forget) and subsequent UN resolutions.
If I may analogize your point,
if a suspect threatens and behave as though he has a gun, refuses to obey orders to put his hands up, gets hurt/shot in the process of arresting him…and it’s later shown that he didn’t have the gun, was he at fault or the police for him being shot/harmed? Had he complied, none of the misfortune of his injury would have occurred.
An imperfect analogy, but do you get my point?
Even in the absence of wmd stockpile findings, it can be argued that the Administration made a decision based upon what we knew or thought we knew at the time.
And if Saddam were in power today, people might be singing a totally different tune about “Bush’s failure to disarm Saddam”, in the same spirit that some whine about Iran and North Korea today (both on Bush’s hit list known as “the Axis of Evil”).
@trizzlor:
Please elaborate on that.
@GaffaUK:
The Times piece was referencing American presidents.
Wordsmith, have you seen this post Randal Hoven did last year?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/who_lied_about_iraq.html
Not that it would add to anything you have provided for us, his explanation of the Authorization and other information he provides in this post is handy.
Yeah, I remember that. Thanks for the reminder and linking to it. It is handy. Would love to hear Larry’s take on it.
Word –
Thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response.
Firstly, I have never denied that there is a liberal bias in the MSM. I have spoken as to the reasons for this bias, citing, as an example, an acquaintance who was a reporter for the San Diego Union Tribune and who later became a producer for NPR. This person has a dazzling intellect and work ethic — were he a Republican, he’d have been a successful financier, lawyer, or businessman. But he went instead into journalism, which is notoriously low pay, until you get to the highest levels, in the same way basketball coaching is low pay. It’s something that you don’t do for the money. It’s the same reason why there is a liberal bias, not only among social and political scientists, but also among scientists, doctors, and engineers who work in academia, as opposed to the private sector. People that want to “make a difference” in medical research (as opposed to making money from medical research), or medicine, or engineering are disproportionately liberal. So the answer to the liberal bias in journalism is to convince more conservative young people to go into journalism.
The media is biased because people are biased. I’m biased. So are you and so is John Stewart and so is Sean Hannity. I do think that most reporters (and news media, such as NPR and the MSM Sunday morning interview and commentary shows) try to play it straight. I’m sure that George Stephanopolous is just as liberal now as when he worked for Clinton, but he does a good job of playing it straight in his interviews and with his questions. But, overall, I’ll agree with you. There is a “liberal bias” in the media. For reasons noted above, not because of some grand conspiracy, funded by Soros.
But the President has the tools to get his message out. You agree with me that the President under discussion did not use those tools as effectively as he could have and should have.
With regard to the issue of Bush creating the impression that Saddam was complicit in 9/11, I did read your earlier treatise on this. It was a very impressive legal brief. But what you did was do go back and pull out isolated statements. So Cheney gave a specific answer to a Russert interview in September, 2001. No, he said, Saddam wasn’t involved in 9/11. But then, one year later, September, 2002, Cheney was equivocating. Maybe he was involved, after all, was Cheney’s take home message at that time.
And I do clearly remember things regarding Bush’s various speeches and answers to questions, in the entire period from September, 2002 through March, 2003. Each and every time, he juxtaposed the words “Saddam Hussein” and “9/11,” over and over and over. My rage at the time was real. I’d tell my wife, “can’t people see through this guy? Don’t they understand what he’s trying to do? He’s trying to get us all to believe that Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11, and that’s why we’ve got to go in and take him out.” This is not some after the fact, retrospective finger pointing. This is how I felt at the time, based on what he was saying. In fact it was precisely because of this that I became convinced that the true rationale for war was to control the Middle Eastern oil spigot and protect Israel in the process. It’s why I predicted, pre-invasion in March 2003, that no WMD would be found.
With respect to Powell mentioning in passing that Saddam was a bad guy and other pre-war references to Saddam being a bad guy, this is not the way the war was sold to anyone — it was pre-war window dressing which became the post-war raison d’etre. With respect to the “why not Darfur, Tibet,” etc. arguments, this is part of a legal brief, but the arguments could be extended to “why not North Korea?” North Korea has sold every weapons system it ever produced to whomever would pay for it. They were a far more credible threat with respect to placing WMD in the hands of terrorists than Saddam ever was.
I do think that the central issue has to be one of leadership and taking on the responsibilities of leadership. The writers on FA want to give Bush a pass, by blaming his problems on the MSM. But great Presidents control the message; they don’t allow the MSM to distort their message. Roosevelt and Kennedy and Reagan were great at this. So was Clinton. Ford and Carter weren’t so good at this. Neither were the Bushes. And they suffered for it. Eisenhower wasn’t so good at it, but he was a national hero, which allowed him to compensate.
In summary, the media don’t determine the success of a Presidency. The President determines the success of his Presidency.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Word, I just replied to your #23. Went to spam. Maybe you can dig it out.
Several more posts appeared since then; I need to get some stuff done here at work, but I’ll try and reply tonight.
– Larry W/HB
I’ll dig it out.
Yeah, lots to reply to. I have things to get done myself, so won’t pipe in (if I can help myself) until maybe tonight.
Too slow….someone beat me to it. 🙂
Later, kiddies.
“Leaders bear the responsibility for leadership.”
Unless it is our current *ahem* “leader” who goes out of his way to tell anyone and everyone who will listen all about what he “inherited”. The man has not announced one policy that does not start with something along the lines of, “Well, you know, uh with what I uh inherited, uh….” Or “even though uh, the last 8 years uh, wasn’t all that great, uh….”
Larry W, I’m not sure why you were all a’rage about Bush and 911. I heard all the same news, same speeches, and listened to the same politicians spin and media talking heads roundtable and never once came away with the impression that Saddam had anything to do with 911. Perhaps you should have expanded your listening venues. Or better yet, listened to the speech, then turned off the TV before some know it all media head or Congressmen came on to innundate you with what Bush was *really* saying…
INRE the WMD argument, I’m glad Missy linked the American Thinker article that compounds things I’ve been saying for years… save one. It was never *just* about WMDs, and Congress knew that. Only a few of the 23 “whereas” statements in the AUMF had to do with WMDs.
Why WMDs became the rallying cry was it was the central issue to take to the UNSC in the wake of 17 broken resolutions. You want an int’l face? You need an int’l issue… and not the American policy of regime change put into place by Clinton with the Iraqi Freedom Act.
When you compounded the increased terror activity at the levels of 911 atop this int’l distrust of a heinous leader, Saddam, you had something to carry to the UN… not that they’d listen. They are so cowardly they refuse to label Darfu “genocide” since that term requires more action than they are willing to commit to.
But all intel substantiated the quest to remove Saddam’s advanced warfare from the reach of the terrorist groups he was known to associate with. And this was ultimately proved by the Harmony/ISG documents seized in 2003. One need only examine Saddam’s orders to fight US troops in Somalia, his close working relationship with al Zawahiri (then with EIJ), and Zawahiri’s relationship with Bin Laden, who trained the Somalian troops that multilated US soldiers under command of CIC Clinton. There is but a hair’s breadth of distance and coincidence… and our intel was well aware of both Bin Laden’s and Saddam’s part.
And no… Saddam was not contained by weapons inspectors. They were booted out in 1998, and by the time Saddam let a few come back in, they were controlled and provided a carefully staged floor show.
Instead the teeth of your argument is that the POTUS bully pulpit should rise above the media voices… using Reagan, Kennedy and Roosevelt as success stories. In one way, I agree. The Bush mouthpieces were losers until Tony Snow. He always had a PR department that stunk.
But may I remind you that during Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan eras, news for most American households was pretty much confined to three or four major broadcast stations, three times a day, 30 to 60 minutes at best. It wasn’t until the end of the 90s that 7 out of 10 American households had cable service.
With the rise of 24/7 news, increased and affordable infrastructure, came reduced research and a scramble to fill time with any and every piece of news *first*.
At the turn of the century, the POTUS goes to his bully pulpit, speaks the quotes Wordsmith has again provided, and is then dissected and mutilated by partisan pols and media roundtables telling the public “what he was saying”. 30 minutes devoted to a speech, and 24/7 mischaracterization of that speech.
Also remember that Iraq was in the run up to the 2004 Presidential election… there wasn’t anything he could say that wasn’t pounced upon by over 500 Congressional members dashing to the nearest microphone with the party talking points, compounded by untold more liberal leaning TV news mouthpieces doing the same story, hour after hour.
In short, this is just not Roosevelt’s, Kennedy’s or Reagan’s communication technology. The bully pulpit can be easily overwhelmed by sheer volume of opposition. Which is why Obama fared so well, and the rest fared so ill during the campaign.
My mom often says to me that the world is going to hell and a handbasket with all the bad news. I have to remind her that it’s entirely possible this stuff has been going on for decades, but you can’t cover it all in three half hour news segments a day. We just didn’t have the ability to hear about all of it. Then she too remembers how slim the news was, and what it was like to listen to a speech without having it “interpreted” for you for the next 24 hours straight.
One other point Larry.
Regarding the connection between 9/11 and the Iraqi regime, study up on what US District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr. had to say on the matter.
He ruled that there was a connection and ordered Iraq to pay damages to the Plaintiffs (victim’s families).
Of course that set of facts won’t fit your template, so I’m quite confident that you’ll find some reason to poo-poo Hizzoner’s judicial opinion as well.
@tfhr
Oh dear – read the posts. Clearly I’m referring to advertising his visits beforehand. Not afterwards!
@Wordsmith
So US presidents can only be influenced by former Presidents?
@GaffaUK:
What?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry it looks like you’ve taken a real beating here from the others but since you asked me to provide evidence of you dishonesty, I don’t want to disappoint you. Please follow along:
1. “In every single speech, he juxtaposed the words “Saddam Hussein” and “Iraq” and “9/11″ dozens of times.” Are you implying that President Bush attributed 9-11 to Hussein? If you are, then “put up or shut up”, as you would say, but your use of “juxtaposed” is an effort to suggest linkage when Bush did nothing of the sort. You are being dishonest unless you can show us where George W. Bush attributes 9-11 to Iraq or Saddam Hussein but you’ve already stated, “Without directly saying so, he was creating the impression that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were complicit in the events of 9/11.” So you admit, he didn’t say it once let alone in “every single speech”, but somehow, despite his oft maligned public speaking talents, through his evil genius, George W. Bush has managed to convince you and everyone else that this is what he meant. You’re reading your partisan script not an actual quote, Larry, and yes, doing so in the absence of facts to back up your slanderous claim has been dishonest but still, very helpful to those abroad and at home that intend to do us harm.
2. “Do you recall Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN? Did he talk about what an “evil dictator” Saddam was and how the Iraqi people needed to be liberated from his dictatorial rule? No, it was all about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and how they threatened global security. This was the justification for the war.”
Powell said many things and his comments were not limited to violations of Resolution 1441, you just seem to overlook his remarks that go beyond the WMD context.
But would you care to argue that Saddam did not intend to resume his programs? Your opinion would run counter to the finding of the Iraq Survey Group which concluded that Iraq intended to resume production if sanctions were ended. You mentioned the Clinton Administration’s “containment” of Iraq but you seem to have forgotten how the “Oil for Food” program was abused by both Saddam and a cast of kleptocrats and international criminals to enrich themselves and skirt restrictions all truly paid for with suffering by the Iraqi populace. The clock was running down on the program and so were the restrictions holding up Saddam’s weapons programs.
You will certainly recognize this Powell comment:
“Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has used such weapons. And Saddam Hussein has no compunction about using them again, against his neighbors and against his own people”.
and probably this:
“We also have sources who tell us that, since the 1980s, Saddam’s regime has been experimenting on human beings to perfect its biological or chemical weapons”.
but do you remember this as well:
“A source said that 1,600 death row prisoners were transferred in 1995 to a special unit for such experiments. An eye witness saw prisoners tied down to beds, experiments conducted on them, blood oozing around the victim’s mouths and autopsies performed to confirm the effects on the prisoners. Saddam Hussein’s humanity — INHUMANITY HAS NO LIMITS”. (hey Larry, what do you think Colin Powell meant by this?)
I don’t know, Larry, you’re an avowed liberal so maybe Powell’s remarks about “blood oozing around the victim’s mouths and autopsies performed to confirm the effects [of chemicals]’ just sound like socialized medicine to you but I believe it does cross the “evil dictator” threshold you were talking about.
I strongly suggest that you take the time to read the CNN text of Secretary Powell’s remarks to the UN, http://tinyurl.com/ck8oub , as you are in dire need of an alternative to your approved script.
If you do read the document pay close attention to Part IX in which Colin Powell spells out the Al Qaeda link with Iraq following their ouster from Afghanistan.
Powell said, “But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants”.
Powell provides important detail with this:
“In 2000 this [Iraqi] agent offered al Qaeda safe haven in the region. After we swept al Qaeda from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain [in Iraq] today.”
And again Powell points out that the offer was accepted:
“Last year, two suspected al Qaeda operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide. From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. ”
Correct me if I’m wrong but even though his primary interest was to explain the WMD threat, he has also laid out a clear picture of the threat posed by AQ in Iraq and it’s links to Saddam’s regime following our invasion of Afghanistan.
Getting away from Colin Powell but staying with your false claim (let’s just call it another lie) that WMDs were the only cause for war, you also have Hussein’s financial support for Palestinian suicide bombers which makes him a state sponsor of terrorism, his harboring of not only Zarqawi, but also Abu Nidal and Husayn al-Umari , the continued violation of 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions including agreements that were put in place to end the Gulf War, non-compliance with two more resolutions that required Iraq to return Kuwaiti prisoners and property, and not the least, the report by Max Van der Stoel, a former U.N. Human Rights Special Rapporteur, saying “Iraq had executed at least 1,500 people during the previous year for political reasons, and that Iraq had over 16,000 disappearances or persons unaccounted for, the world’s highest”. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/iraq.report/
3.”Why is it that the only ones promoting the theory that Saddam had WMD (or even active WMD “programs”) afterall are conservative pundits?” Seems dishonest of you to make this claim given President Clinton’s statements on the matter and if that isn’t enough, just go back and look at the litany of liberal lefties laboring over Saddam at the Snopes link. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Reading through your talking points is tedious but if you really think that going over each of your errant remarks and refuting your lies will help you, I will do it for you Larry. But from here, I’d say the best position you can hold onto is willful ignorance because the facts that refute your deliberate efforts to lie about Iraq and this country’s decision to go to war are plain for you to see.
Here is more in black and white:
The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Forces Against Iraq include the following points:
1. Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
3. Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
4. Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
5. Members of al-Qaeda were “known to be in Iraq.”
6. Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
7. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
8. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
9. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
This is the kicker:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2)enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf is your source for the document but the contents are easily found, as above, in Wikipedia if you don’t want to take the time to read the six page resolution. By the way, the resolution passed both houses and with a majority of Democrats supporting it in the Senate.
There it is Larry, now you know but the choice to remain willfully ignorant or dishonest by omitting facts or spreading distortions is still yours.
@tfhr:
I’d be honored to shake your hand, but, maybe we should ice it up first.
@Missy:
Thanks but a cold beer beats ice any day for the obvious reason: We can toast those still deployed and those that will take their place.
@GaffaUK #36:
Gaff, I think we’re misunderstanding each other’s point. What you said in blockquoting a paragraph from the Times article was,
I didn’t realise Dubya was the first leader in history to drop by to visit troops and organise a photo-op.
and my point of response to #7 and #13 is to show that the article isn’t talking about what other world leaders have done. The article’s claim that Obama is taking a page out of the Bush playbook is in regards to what past American presidents have done.
To: TFHR (#38)
I just spent the past hour composing a reply. In the process of going back and forth between links, I inadvertently closed my comment window. Every time I do this, I resolve to always write out responses in a text window on my own computer and then copy and paste when I’m finished. But I always backslide and end up back in my old ways. So I lost it all, and it’s now 1:33 AM and I’ve got to get up at 5:30 AM to fly across the country to visit my mom, who’s dying of lung cancer.
Our discussion on this topic (an academic debate over the history of the origins of the Iraq War) can surely wait to be concluded until I can find the time to do so. I’d like to go through your points in detail, and I hope that you’ll give me a couple to a few days’ leave to do so.
I must, however, strenuously object to your use of the words “dishonesty” and “lying.” You don’t have to look up the definitions of these words. You know what they mean. It is not inappropriate to say that a person is “intellectually dishonest.” This is a flaw in logic, but not a character flaw. It is not inappropriate to say that someone is simply wrong. I’ve been wrong many times, and when I’m proven wrong, I try to get myself to admit it and thank the person who corrected me. [note to Aye: we’ll get back to Adam Smith and also to Obama’s “Marxism” in due course]. “Dishonesty” and “lies” are, however, serious character flaws. They indicate a willful intention to deceive. A dishonest person knows the truth, but intentionally tries to promote what he knows to be a falsehood. I have been on this blog long enough to know that I’d be a fool to try and purvey a political lie. I’m not nearly as liberal as I’m portrayed by some of my opponents, but everything is relative. By FA standards, I’m a liberal, and I’ve embraced the label, as sort of an identity badge to indicate that I’m “different” than most FA discussants. The point is, though, that I know that I’m outnumbered 20 to one on this blog, and I’d never be foolish enough to try and purvey a lie pertaining to the things which I know you all hold near and dear.
It’s a real pleasure to debate with people who do recognize the concept of the honest difference of opinion and, while not eschewing clever sarcasm, are nonetheless able to avoid the personal invective. (I’ll not damn the ones whom I most respect by naming names; they don’t need or want the endorsement of someone considered to be a Lefty).
I’ll look forward to addressing TFHR’s #38, Aye’s #35, Aye’s #22 (preview: http://wirkman.net/wordpress/?p=609 ), and Missy’s #27. Will take awhile, but, as stated, this is old stuff, so it will keep.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Wordsmith
All I am saying is that leaders doing surprise stops to visits troops is nothing new – whether they are foreign leaders or US Presidents. And I notice the Time didn’t mention other former Presidents (in the plural) but only Bush. Check out Nixon doing a surprise stop to the troops in Vietnam. He promised change as well from Johnson policies – didn’t make his trip invalid though just because Johnson had made two surprise stops during his presidency in Vietnam.
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1969/07/31/BGY507140517/
With Obama banging on about change as much as he did during his campaign – you guys are generally right to jump on him when there are serious similarities on policy which are unjustified.
However there are some things which are just silly. And visiting troops I think is one of those. Are you expecting Obama now to everything differently – he should avoid doing the State of the Union address because Bush did it? Should he check what cereal he eats – in case Bush eats the same brand?
Gaffa,
It’s a fair point. I should admit, that a good number of my recent headline blurbs are done a bit “tongue-in-cheek” as I don’t see any similarities at all between Bush and Obama; but it is amusing that things that annoyed the libs, things that Bush was criticized for, is now being done by Obama (do you think Daily Kos ever noted this about Bush’s trips?).
Yes, I’d expect any U.S. president succeeding Bush to make such trips and am glad President Obama made the visit.
@tfhr:
So “Congress ‘lied’, people died”? 😉
@openid.aol.com/runnswim #19:
Sanctions were eroding; and they were not preventing illegal sales from countries like France, Germany, Russia, and China. As was pointed out, the Scam for Oil program enriched Saddam’s coffers while his people continued to suffer from sanctions. Sanctions that were much ballyhooed by human rights groups and Osama bin Laden who embraced Iraq’s claim that sanctions were responsible for over half a million Iraqi children deaths (rather than putting the burden of those deaths upon Saddam whose failure to disarm led to the sanctions in the first place). Because the rest of the civilized world tends to be compassionate as well as naive, the Food for Oil sham was set up.
It’s an opinion piece, but basically summarizing from the Duelfer Report and what has since been investigated on the Oil for Food Scandal:
In addition to what’s been said by others challenging your belief that UNSCOM and UNMOVIC were effectively doing their job, they should never have been playing cat-and-mouse games to begin with. Let’s not forget, either, that in 1991, IAEA was just days away from concluding that Iraq didn’t have a nuclear program…when they discovered that they did.
Saddam’s Iraq was never forthright; never came clean; never complied; practiced 12 years of deception…and why? Because the world let him; because he never took any threat by Clinton or the UN as credible. That led him into the mistaken belief that defying Bush would, at most, lead to something similar to what happened under Clinton. Saddam was prepared to weather a few aspirin factories being bombed, after which, a return to the status quo of defiance and continual search for circumventing the sanctions and acquiring wmd capabilities.
The @openid.aol.com/runnswim #29:
Careful…..Mata might accuse us of having a lovefest. 😉
Interesting comment you made regarding liberal bias. [lovefest] It’s a shame about your lost comment. I enjoy the challenges people like you, Gaffa, Dave Noble, blast can pose and impressed when you guys can endure some harsh attacks, and still come back here to FA for more. [/lovefest]
True, but neither I, you, John Stewart (other than stating he’s a registered independent), or Sean Hannity make a pretense of offering up the straight news. We all are offering up opinion/commentary on the news.
When people listen to us, they know where our perspective is coming from. There’s no surprise there. But your average joe is expecting to read the straight news on page 1A of the NYTimes. What happens when the straight news begins to sound more like the op-ed pages? What happens when journalism is passing itself off as non-partisan, and yet is anything but non-partisan?
It’s self-delusional back when Helen Thomas used to insist her bias never made it into her copy; or when journalists don’t see the point in revealing their political affiliation as relevant to the reader.
I agree. Tim Russert is another example. Someone who tilted left, yet did his best to do a professional job.
Agreed. I also think that sometimes conservatives are wrong in blaming a news story on liberal bias. It’s not always the case.
Yup. Failure to communicate wasn’t limited to simply Bush’s speaking abilities. They really dropped the ball here.
Not really. These “isolated statements” are many of the major ones that detractors often cite from. That’s why I listed them. Interesting of you to make that charge as well, since the phase II final SSC report on prewar intell focused only on something like five major speeches from the President and Administration officials that the Committee deemed important in influencing and shaping public opinion.
The reason why I focused so heavily on Cheney’s MtP appearances was because when I’d ask for proof from critics, “Where did Bush ever say Saddam had anything to do with 9/11?”, after they’d do a bit of research….not being able to find a single quote….what they usually come back with is some of what you said (he implied) as well as provide me with half-quotes and half-contexted excerpts from Cheney’s MtP interviews as though they were smoking guns.
As I noted in my post, what so many seem to fail to do, is retrace the timeline (the biggest failure of so many to do this is in piping on about “no wmds found” as evidence of “a lie”. That’s a stretch. The absence of evidence of wmd stockpiles does not equate to a lie but to a mistake. A lie is deliberate, passing off something as true that you know to be false. Bush did no such thing).
Going back to timelines and Cheney, do you not understand that the intell and research was constantly evolving? Cheney expressed as best he could without divulging classified information, what we knew or thought we knew at the time right after 9/11/2001. By 2002, his language changed, because the information he was receiving had evolved. I don’t understand what is so hard for people to understand about the fluid nature of intell-gathering.
Things that were later rejected by the Administration itself, was due to on-going research. But critics will sometimes point out later findings that contradicted earlier statements/beliefs as evidence that what they believed before must then constitute as a “lie”. No…it just means we have more current intell information than the one we had before (which might in itself be inaccurate, and at a later date rejected when more reliable info becomes known).
That’s fascinating. Because, like Mata, I never felt misled by the Administration’s claims, and understood perfectly, as I do today, why 9/11 and Iraq can fit into the same sentence and not equate to “SADDAM HAD A HAND IN THE EVENTS OF 9/11”.
And if we take timelines into account, of course there were speculations regarding possible ties. The Administration would have been remiss had it not examined those possible links. Based upon history and a few other circumstantial evidence, it was perfectly logical to speculate that Saddam might have played a role. But, as I think I had mentioned in my post on Saddam and 9/11, the Administration rejected putting that speculation forth as part of the justification for war, because the evidence just wasn’t solid enough to do so. They remain tantalizing, though.
His ties to the al-Qaeda network have not been disproven. The extent of cooperation and collaboration is still speculative, as far as I know. But there were clear ties, validated as recently as 2008 by the Iraqi Perspectives Report.
I just don’t get why it is so difficult for people to understand how Saddam being linked to the GWoT makes sense. You don’t have to agree with it; but it just seems obvious to me, given that Bush said this war was bigger than one man and one terror organization; and Saddam’s open flagrant support of state-sponsored exported terrorism was well-known, as was his love for all things wmd.
That’s interesting, given that the French were against invasion, even knowing (or more accurately in the belief) that Saddam probably was in possession of wmd.
I think Mata made a very insightful point regarding the difference in the information flow of today to that of yesteryear.
And I don’t quite get your Philly Stevish quip about “FA want to give Bush a pass” comment when a number of conservatives have been critical of Bush on a number of things (including communicating to the public the reasons for the war and correcting media distortions).
We’re only “giving him a pass”, if what we’re saying in his defense amounts to “a lie”. i.e., we don’t believe what we’re saying in defending his actions. Not a nice accusation, no?
Which is why I believe 100% that history will vindicate the good name of George W. Bush. There are few things that I ever say with absolute confidence, but this is one of those. History will clear up media myths and media-generated perceptions. And inclusive to what I mean by “media”, is all the pop cultural caricaturizations (Bush is stupid, Bush is evil, Bush lied, etc.) that has sunk into people’s subconscious. Anyone not following politics have mostly heard the caricature portrait of the president, and not the man himself. So their impression has been fueled by MSM distortions.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry,
My best wishes to you and your mom. We’ve been through that very same thing
with my own mother and we lucked out on early detection and successful surgery. We keep our fingers crossed.
As for your statements in previous comments on the justification for war with Iraq, I turn to your own words, “They indicate a willful intention to deceive”. I stand by that with regard to your views on the subject, as expressed here in this thread.
We can return to this discussion any time you like but I hope that it will occur in step with an improvement in your mom’s health.
@Wordsmith:
RE: So “Congress ‘lied’, people died”?
Yup. It doesn’t seem to have caught on though we all know why. The bumper sticker factories should start gearing up for “Congress Lied: GM & Chrylser Died (any way)”, Congress Lied: Free Market Economy was Fried”, etc.
The possibilities are endless.
How insensitive of me! OT, I too echo tfhr’s sentiments in keeping your mom in my prayers.
(I’m not religious in case you didn’t know, but….you get the point).
Take care, and stay strong.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry,
I wish you safe travels and hope that your visit with your Mom is as good as it can possibly be.
Yes, there are many things in life that are much more important than our exchanges here on FA and all of this will indeed keep.
I look forward to your return to these pages when circumstances allow it.
Aye
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Sorry to hear your sad family news. I hope the trip isn’t too difficult for you.
I’m sure you won’t mind if I repeat what you said here:
“I’ve been wrong many times, and when I’m proven wrong, I try to get myself to admit it and thank the person who corrected me. ”
I’d just like to know when you have admitted being wrong? I can think of several topics where your points have been thoroughly debunked and yet you continue to repeat them.
Larry, allow me to add to others here that I am sorry with your Mom’s illness. It also sheds light on your emotional (as opposed to fiscal feasibility) views on cigarette taxes funding health care.
Certainly we are all finite carbon units, and each of us has our time coming to exit the planet. I’ve always thought it’s much easier on the one leaving than it is for us left behind, missing their presence. So I hope you relish every moment with your mom, even under this most difficult circumstances. And that, if there is a medical miracle to be had, it happens for you and your family.
Our thoughts are with you.