patrick.net

Sorry - need something better than the hacks at MotherJones, Salon and Antiwar sources.

Just take the Occam's Razor approach. Why would Bush knowingly lie about WMD's to justify war and not have a plan to plant some warheads and barrels of Anthrax to cover up their tracks? Seriously, how hard would it be to sneak some stuff in when we had 100,000+ troops in the country? Do you really believe a group of people who are criminal enough to lie to start illegal wars didn't think a lack of WMD's would come back to bite them?

Also, you didn't address the video I posted earlier that quotes all those Democrats making the same claims about Iraq's WMD's BEFORE Bush was even elected. Are all those Democrats part of a "neocon" cabal and lying too?

Finally, they did find WMD's in Iraq for years after the liberation. Here is a story about one of the biggest finds. These chemical warheads were some of the listed WMD's we KNEW Iraq had, but were never provided to UN inspectors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=1&assetType=nyt_now

But I suppose you will choose to continue to ape ISIS propaganda to meet your ideological purposes while you do great harm to our country and Western civilization.

And the typical lazy response. Forget the sources--they clearly list the lies. Which ones do you think are incorrect and why?

socal2 says

Why would Bush knowingly lie about WMD's to justify war and not have a plan to plant some warheads and barrels of Anthrax to cover up their tracks? Seriously, how hard would it be to sneak some stuff in when we had 100,000+ troops in the country? Do you really believe a group of people who are criminal enough to lie to start illegal wars didn't think a lack of WMD's would come back to bite them?

I don't think anyone has ever claimed Bush to be a genius. And a conspiracy large enough to plant WMDs in a foreign country would be difficult to keep quiet. I imagine he figured he could claim faulty intelligence when the shit hit the fan--he'd be impeached when the public found out he planted WMDs.

socal2 says

Are all those Democrats part of a "neocon" cabal and lying too?

Iraq did have WMDs at some point in their history--they used chemical weapons against Iran. But, yes, some (a lot) of Dems followed the war cry lest they be labeled soft on terrorism.

socal2 says

Finally, they did find WMD's in Iraq for years after the liberation. Here is a story about one of the biggest finds. These chemical warheads were some of the listed WMD's we KNEW Iraq had, but were never provided to UN inspectors.

So, some Iraqi found a small stockpile of 20+ year old weapons and sold them to the US. I don't think that's what Bush was proclaiming and using as a basis for war. They couldn't be provided to the UN inspectors because someone had stolen them already.

tatupu70 says

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/

From that article:

"That’s a lie, and senior Bush officials did it often. There’s no better example of this than the aluminum tubes.
***
A number of intelligence agencies believed that the tubes were, in fact, made for uranium enrichment. There were, however, a number of dissenting views, including from the State Department and the intelligence arm of the Department of Energy, the agency responsible for maintaining the United States’ nuclear arsenal (i.e. the people who actually know this stuff). DOE determined that the tubes were completely impractical for use in uranium enrichment, and were probably intended for use in conventional rockets. The State Department came to a similar conclusion.

That falls pretty squarely in the “lie” category, to my judgment."

Do you see the problem with that judgment?

Perhaps this source might help:

"In his book, Courage and Consequence, Rove calls the “lie” charge “a poison-tipped dagger aimed at the heart of the Bush presidency” and blames himself for “a weak response” that underestimated “how damaging this assault was.”
***

Tellingly, throughout that period, as Bush blithely lied about the Iraq War history, he was never challenged to his face by the mainstream U.S. journalists who politely listened to the lies. Indeed, some big-name journalists even adopted Bush’s false narrative as their own."

Why did NBC "News" (owned by a military industrial contractor), for example, fail to challenge the official narrative? Why did MSNBC fire Phil Donahue? Partisans and sectarians prove their loyalty by embracing their crowd's most extreme positions and rejecting evidence based decisionmaking. As each major party devolves into its own partisan / sectarian crowd dynamic, providing loyalty, "both sides" miss the elephant in the room.

The result is a policy environment dominated by people who can believe whatever they want to believe, and hardly anybody checks for evidence, because most either don't care or fear seeming disloyal. Most people are partisan or sectarian, alas, and the Interwebs have had at best mixed effects: people who care about evidence are better able to find more of it, but the majority who care only about supporting a partisan position (or "judgment") can reinforce their own belief, like bgamall finding "evidence" of his conspiracies. It would be inconvenient to acknowledge the real problem with the Iraq war, because that would implicate people in both parties (e.g. then-Senators Clinton and Kerry, both of whom voted to authorize it) and the commercial news, so instead the partisan narrative must blame everything on the evil "other side".

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the [administration] you have, not the [administration] you might want or wish to have. Authorizing the faith-based W administration to launch what W called "a crusade" was like giving a 10yo permission to bring a loaded assault rifle to school. But, it conferred tremendous power on both major political patronage networks, including their commercial "news" mouthpieces, who channel debate into the approved lanes.

curious2 says

The result is a policy environment dominated by people who can believe whatever they want to believe, and hardly anybody checks for evidence, because most either don't care or fear seeming disloyal. Most people are partisan or sectarian, alas, and the Interwebs have had at best mixed effects: people who care about evidence are better able to find more of it, but people who care only about supporting a partisan position (or "judgment") can reinforce their own belief, like bgamall finding "evidence" of his conspiracies. It would be inconvenient to acknowledge the real problem with the Iraq war, because that would implicate people in both parties (e.g. then-Senators Clinton and Kerry, both of whom voted to authorize it) and the commercial news, so instead the partisan narrative must blame everything on the evil "other side".

I must confess that I don't grasp your point here. I will fully agree if it is to condemn Democrats, media members, etc. along with the Bush administration. There is no doubt that they should have had contacts within the intelligence community that should have been telling them what was going on. But I don't think that changes my point that lies were told.

tatupu70 says

I don't think anyone has ever claimed Bush to be a genius. And a conspiracy large enough to plant WMDs in a foreign country would be difficult to keep quiet. I imagine he figured he could claim faulty intelligence when the shit hit the fan--he'd be impeached when the public found out he planted WMDs.

I love how the Bush-haters vacillate between him being an evil Machiavellian liar able to bamboozle Democrats and the world about Iraq WMDs, but when challenged on the obvious of question of why he didn't plant some evidence to save his presidency, "Oh he was just too stooopid!"

tatupu70 says

Iraq did have WMDs at some point in their history--they used chemical weapons against Iran. But, yes, some (a lot) of Dems followed the war cry lest they be labeled soft on terrorism.

Watch the video again. Many of the Democrat quotes were BEFORE 9/11 or before Bush took office.

What war cry are you talking about?

tatupu70 says

So, some Iraqi found a small stockpile of 20+ year old weapons and sold them to the US. I don't think that's what Bush was proclaiming and using as a basis for war. They couldn't be provided to the UN inspectors because someone had stolen them already.

Also love how the ISIS propagandists move the goal posts giving Saddam every benefit of the doubt.

"Small stockpile"? It was 400 warheads! It's a joke to believe that anyone could steal these rockets living under the Stalinist Police-State of Saddam Hussein and not end up in a wood chipper or mass grave.

These were some of the very KNOWN WEAPONS UN inspectors had on a list to dismantle. But for some inexplicable reason, Saddam chose to keep them hidden and lost his regime (and life) as a result.

tatupu70 says

I will fully agree if it is to condemn Democrats, media members, etc. along with the Bush administration... I don't think that changes my point that lies were told.

Well, thanks, you've already changed your point. Initially, you said:

tatupu70 says

Bush, Cheney, et. al knowingly lied.

I don't know what was going on in W's head, aside from listening to "a higher father" and working out a lot (he was in the top 1% physically for his age). Bob Woodward reported that CIA Director George Tenet (a Democrat and a Clinton appointee) called it "a slam dunk." I can agree that lies were told, but partisan "judgment" about who was lying doesn't really prove much. The larger problem is most people agreed to believe what was in their interest to believe, as is typical. "We have met the enemy, and he is us" - or at least most of us.

curious2 says

Well, thanks, you've already changed your point. Initially, you said:

tatupu70 says

Bush, Cheney, et. al knowingly lied.

I don't think that is a change. Lies were told (by Bush, Cheney, et. al).

curious2 says

I can agree that lies were told, but partisan "judgment" about who was lying doesn't really prove much. The larger problem is most people agreed to believe what was in their interest to believe, as is typical. "We have met the enemy, and he is us" or at least most of us.

That is true to a point IMO. But, I think many, many people who it wasn't necessarily in their interest to believe, were lied to by an authority figure who they didn't expect to lie.

If the US or NATO plans on invading a backwardass crazyfuck country, they better have a 40 year occupation in the plan if they hope to succeed.
The older generation must die off while the younger generation is brought up exposed to the modern world, all under the occupying boot until the seed takes hold.

There is plenty of legitimate issues to criticize Bush and Co. on the Iraq War.

But the fucking mind-numbing retarded "Bush Lied" lie pushed by Leftists and Islamists is beyond the pale and has done so much damage to the credibility and honor of our country.

The lie pushed by fucking hacks like Tatupu, Salon and Mother Jones has probably helped radicalize thousands of Muslims to jihad.

Keep it up Tatapu. ISIS can't buy better PR than what it gets for free from the likes of you and your fellow travelers.

tatupu70 says

Lies were told (by....

I see. You're back to the partisan blame and attributing a lie to someone without acknowledging the sources he relied on or knowing what was in his head. I updated my comment to add a source link for you on the "slam dunk" quote:

"About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward."

So, in your view, if a Republican President believes a CIA Director who had been appointed by a Democrat, that means the Republican "lied." Do you see the problem?

Also, I would appreciate any insights into this question: why do partisans insist on destroying their own party's credibility by putting others in the bizarre position of defending the other side? I never voted for W, but now I find I've wasted a half hour defending him. Let him defend himself, I suppose, although I can't help noticing that former Secretary of State Clinton and current Secretary of State Kerry (both of whom voted in the Senate to get America into Iraq) have also got us into Libya and Syria. Similar story, different day.

Strategist says

99% of all terrorism is Islamic based.

So you are saying the FBI/europol don't know that they are talking about and their numbers are wrong. What exactly are your sources for this? Is there anything to document this other than I believe it should be true?

socal2 says

There is plenty of legitimate issues to criticize Bush and Co. on the Iraq War.

But the fucking mind-numbing retarded "Bush Lied" lie pushed by Leftists and Islamists is beyond the pale and has done so much damage to the credibility and honor of our country.

Then you should have no trouble at all explaining why the 10 lies documented above are actually not lies You can start any time.

bob2356 says

Then you should have no trouble at all explaining why the 10 lies documented above are actually not lies You can start any time.

For starters.

"Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying"
http://factcheck.bootnetworks.com/article222.html

I suppose in Bob's world, the President of the United States is supposed to ignore the claims made by the CIA director and listen to some back office analyst?

God you fuckers, isn't it enough to claim the Iraq war was a mistake and waged poorly instead of claiming Bush lied and giving the world's Islamists a propaganda boon?

Here is another ones of those so called "lies" pushed by Leftist and Islamist harpies.

"LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise."

When in fact we found thousands of chemical weapons and warheads in the east, west, south and north.

"A New York Times investigation published in October found that the military had recovered thousands of old chemical warheads and shells in Iraq and that Americans and Iraqis had been wounded by them, but the government kept much of this information secret, from the public and troops alike."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=1&assetType=nyt_now

socal2 says

Finally, they did find WMD's in Iraq for years after the liberation. Here is a story about one of the biggest finds. These chemical warheads were some of the listed WMD's we KNEW Iraq had, but were never provided to UN inspectors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=1&assetType=nyt_now

Those were warheads, from an abandoned program in 2003, and rotting. The CIA purchased them to prevent any latent materials from becoming turned into an actual viable weapon.

I think it is a great thing. Yes, those are "WMDs in Iraq", but no-where near the capability and threat level being presented by our administration at the time as a justification for war. This is why it isn't talked about more. The Army also found older shells out in the desert that had mustard gas in them.

The simple truth is, there was no wide-scale chemical weapons capability in the Iraqi military left. It was all destroyed in the first gulf war. It wasn't a reason to go to war, it's false, just like claims of Iraqi cooperation/training/aid to al-Qa'ida.

Rew says

Those were warheads, from an abandoned program in 2003, and rotting. The CIA purchased them to prevent any latent materials from becoming turned into an actual viable weapon.

Read the article. They weren't abandoned in the desert and rotting, they were hidden away from UN inspectors and being sold to us by an Iraqi seller after Saddam fell.

These were some of the weapons we KNEW Saddam had in his possession based on earlier disclosures to the UN after the Gulf War. The fact that Saddam didn't give UN inspectors access to these KNOWN weapons gave us plenty of suspicion he was hiding more stuff.

Again, being wrong on the size and scope of Iraq's WMD program is not the same thing as lying.

socal2 says

The lie pushed by fucking hacks like Tatupu, Salon and Mother Jones has probably helped radicalize thousands of Muslims to jihad.

Keep it up Tatapu. ISIS can't buy better PR than what it gets for free from the likes of you and your fellow travelers.

You're hilarious. You think an article documenting lies told by the American administration radicalized more Muslims than the American military invading a country in the Middle East for dubious reasons?

Your words are falling on deaf ears. Acknowledging the difference between lying and being wrong will destroy their narrative...

socal2 says

Again, being wrong on the size and scope of Iraq's WMD program is not the same thing as lying.

SoftShell says

Your words are falling on deaf ears. Acknowledging the difference between lying and being wrong will destroy their narrative...

I know. I have been debating with the "Bush Lied" and 9/11 Troofer morons for years. Nothing penetrates their thick skulls.

But I will still keep calling them what they are....... ISIS Propagandists.

curious2 says

I see. You're back to the partisan blame and attributing a lie to someone without acknowledging the sources he relied on or knowing what was in his head. I updated my comment to add a source link for you on the "slam dunk" quote:

I know that's the argument that apologists frequently make--the intelligence was faulty, it's possible Bush believed what he was saying, etc. I think it strains credibility to say that Bush simply didn't know or believed what he was saying to be true when he said it, but either way it doesn't change the fact that he lied. How do you explain away

tatupu70 says

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

or

tatupu70 says

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

Those aren't exaggerations. They are mistruths. Deliberate.

curious2 says

So, in your view, if a Republican President believes a CIA Director who had been appointed by a Democrat, that means the Republican "lied." Do you see the problem?

Not really. If the CIA director was out there lying(and I don't doubt he was)--he shares the blame too.

curious2 says

Also, I would appreciate any insights into this question: why do partisans insist on destroying their own party's credibility by putting others in the bizarre position of defending the other side? I never voted for W, but now I find I've wasted a half hour defending him. Let him defend himself, I suppose, although I can't help noticing that former Secretary of State Clinton and current Secretary of State Kerry (both of whom voted in the Senate to get America into Iraq) have also got us into Libya and Syria. Similar story, different day.

I cannot comment on your motivations. Your entire point seems to be that Dems are guilty too. Which I fully acknowledge. I don't find the crime of a Congressman lacking the cajones or political will to challenge a popular (at that time) President and risk being called weak on terrorism/defending the country to equal that of the President lying to the public to justify invading another country, however.

socal2 says

Read the article. They weren't abandoned in the desert and rotting, they were hidden away from UN inspectors and being sold to us by an Iraqi seller after Saddam fell.

These were some of the weapons we KNEW Saddam had in his possession based on earlier disclosures to the UN after the Gulf War. The fact that Saddam didn't give UN inspectors access to these KNOWN weapons gave us plenty of suspicion he was hiding more stuff.

Again, being wrong on the size and scope of Iraq's WMD program is not the same thing as lying.

Yes, they were sold by an Iraqi who wanted to make money. There is NO indication that the weapons were under control of the government. I assume from the article that someone found them and decided to make some quick money.

Tatpatu - Factcheck.org debunks your "lie #2". Why do you keep posting it and looking an ISIS supporting fool?
http://factcheck.bootnetworks.com/article222.html

The rest of your "lies" are comments like: "We believe based on the available intelligence...."

Bush's #1 intelligence guy (CIA Director) said it was a slam dunk. Was George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) in on the "big lie" as well?

SoftShell says

Your words are falling on deaf ears. Acknowledging the difference between lying and being wrong will destroy their narrative...

OK---so it I say the Cubs won the World Series last year, I'm not lying, I'm just wrong?

tatupu70 says

President lying

You quote W reading a speech that others wrote and the CIA approved. Where is your evidence that he knew the assertion was false? And why do you insist on going beyond your own evidence? And with whom do you surround yourself on a daily basis that nobody challenges your elisions? You seem very similar to what you accuse the W administration of doing, tbh.

tatupu70 says

Yes, they were sold by an Iraqi who wanted to make money. There is NO indication that the weapons were under control of the government. I assume from the article that someone found them and decided to make some quick money.

So we are to believe that Saddam could somehow lose 400 warheads filled with Sarin before the Iraq war when the UN and whole world was bearing down on him demanding more transparent inspections?

If this is true, Saddam was even more criminal if he could be so sloppy with these weapons to let outside groups get their hands on it.

One of the MANY justifications of liberating Iraq was the fear that Saddam's WMD's could fall into terrorist hands.

curious2 says

You quote W reading a speech that others wrote and the CIA approved. Where is your evidence that he knew the assertion was false?

Which one? I listed two specifically.

tatupu70 says

curious2 says

You quote W reading a speech that others wrote and the CIA approved. Where is your evidence that he knew the assertion was false?

Which one? I listed two specifically.

No, you didn't provide any evidence of W lying. You provided an example of something he read, that had been endorsed by the CIA, and that turned out to be false. Do you see the difference?

socal2 says

So we are to believe that Saddam could somehow lose 400 warheads filled with Sarin before the Iraq war when the UN and whole world was bearing down on him demanding more transparent inspections?

He lost them sometime in the 20 years prior to the 2nd Iraq War. Yes, one possibility is that an rogue Iraqi officer took them.

socal2 says

If this is true, Saddam was even more criminal if he could be so sloppy with these weapons to let outside groups get their hands on it.

He's not alone in that respect. But the weapons were rotting so they clearly weren't well cared for and maintained so it's not a stretch to think they could be stolen.

curious2 says

No, you didn't provide any evidence of W lying. You provided an example of something he read, that turned out to be false. Do you see the difference?

I do. Do you?

Saying he has evidence of something when he did not have such evidence is, in fact, lying.

Tenet admits error in approving Bush speech
President 'had every reason to believe' uranium claim, he says

That is a special case and would always be considered a lie...

tatupu70 says

OK---so it I say the Cubs won the World Series last year, I'm not lying, I'm just wrong?

curious2 says

Tenet admits error in approving Bush speech

President 'had every reason to believe' uranium claim, he says

So, you are in the camp that Bush was lied to by his team and that he repeated the lies because he didn't know any better and that makes it OK. Fine--would you feel better if I said the Bush Administration lied to the public to justify the war in Iraq? And that Bush may have lied or he may have been too stupid to know or care?

I think it defies credibility to believe that a President would make statements that were baldfaced lies without wanting to make sure they were sourced well, but maybe I give Bush too much credit.

tatupu70 says

you are in the camp

So, tatupu70, you're re a TERRORIST! Obviously, because by your non-logic either you are with us or you are with the terrorists, just like your doppelganger (whom you call a liar) said:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/cpPABLW6F_A

curious2 says

So, tatupu70, you're re a TERRORIST! Obviously, because by your non-logic either you are with us or you are with the terrorists, just like your doppelganger (whom you call a liar) said:

No, not sure where you come up with that. Please clarify your position if I am presuming incorrectly. You write very cryptically so it's sometimes challenging to understand what you are trying to say.

It seems that you are trying really hard to make my position be partisan when it is not.

tatupu70 says

Please clarify your position if I am presuming incorrectly.

First, you make obviously false statements. Then, you say pointing out your obviously false statements puts me in the other "camp". Frankly, you can't possibly be that stupid, so the only conclusion remains the one you accuse W of: you're a liar. At least W had, according to the CIA director, "every reason to believe" what he said. You have no such excuse.

There's nothing new under the Sun here with ISIS.

ISIS knows exactly what it is doing, and the Atrocities are the Goal. The means is the end.

Pol Pot had no 'plan' for Cambodia other than killing everybody who wore glasses. ISIS has no real long term strategy except some general jack off fantasies about reconquering Al-Andalus or the Balkans or India.

A return to the "Year Zero". For Pol Pot, a basic agrarian society to act as a clean slate. For ISIS, year one of Islam in the 7th Century, to get everything "Right" this time and recreate the raw, awesome energy of the first burst of Islam from the Arab world.

These panics, these desires to burn it all down and start afresh, and never mind the consequences, are not at all new to humanity.

There have been flagellants, levelers, fascists, etc. who have all wanted the same thing. A fresh start with a pure heart.

curious2 says

First, you make obviously false statements. Then, you say pointing out your obviously false statements puts me in the other "camp". Frankly, you can't possibly be that stupid, so the only conclusion remains the one you accuse W of: you're a liar. At least W had, according to the CIA director, "every reason to believe" what he said. You have no such excuse.

I don't recall you pointing out any of my "obviously" false statements, and your link is similarly vague. If you think I lied, by all means link to the direct statement and let's go in to detail on it and see who is lying and who is stupid.

Here's a really depressing theory.

Since the late 70s, when Wahabi Youth fought Saudi Arabia for control of Mecca, and it took weeks for the KSA Mercs to stop the armed Wahabis, the Kingdom has been in a bind.

It must support Wahabism as the foundation of the Monarchy's legitimacy. However, extreme Wahabism is a danger itself to the Monarchy, demanding ever more purity.

The solution, blessedly provided 'right on time' by the Soviet Assistance to Afghanistan, saved their bacon. They've depended on giving stipends and salaries to the most radical Wahabis the country produces as a matter of course of the normal functioning of their society - their Education, their Religious Police, the very core Myth of the State.

These men are both the jihadis, the textbook writers, and the teachers at the Madrassah. If they stayed at home instead of going to Syria or Indonesia or Chechnya, they would create trouble.

Perhaps ISIS is just a means to meatgrind the excess Wahabis created by the House of Sauds attempt to maintain legitimacy, and a useful tool of foreign policy.

curious2 says

Tenet admits error in approving Bush speech

President 'had every reason to believe' uranium claim, he says

OK--please explain the purpose of this link if not to point out that the CIA director had OK'd the text of the speech in which Bush lied.

The CIA intelligence was deemed insufficiently bellicose by Cheney, Feith et. al., so Cheney actually built an independent team of intelligence analysts to create the intelligence to justify Cheney's predetermined conclusions.

At that point the distinction between "lying" and "delusional asshole" became less interesting to me.