Excellent article on Iraqi WMD backstory: 'Wilson’s House of Lies'
POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 03:16
VIEWED: 3925
PAGE 1 of 6
Bumping this thread is as close to treason as I intend to come. I have very few things to say here.
1. Treason is treason regardless of your personal opinion of the defendant, which is irrelevent.
2. The man had the utmost respect of Mr. George H. W. Bush, who, unlike his son, is not a traitor. If Bush Sr, supports Wilson, as he does, I have no reason to doubt him.
3. I think of myself as a right wing nut and I actually read frontpagemag and I get their regular email updates, and I read those and sometimes respond, and I still don't consider them a credible source.
4. This is all dancing around the issue.
The issue is:
5. Bush, or moreover Cheney, intentionally falsified intelligence information to support a case for war.
6. That war was then pressed as an emergency of national security based on an absurd premise that Saddam Hussein, a man incapable of shooting down a US aircraft over his own country, was about to launch a full scale nuclear assault against the united states to which there was no defense.
7. This absurd scenario swayed the US congress and the UN to endorse a doctrine of pre-emptive war that was nothing other than a nazi imperial invasion.
I've made this point lots of times. If you want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Fine, you have my vote. If you want to endorse genocide, please I beg of you, get out of my party and do it on someone else's ticket.
The Iraq war is an act of genocide. We seek to subject these people through whatever means to change there society and make it suitable for a new state which will supply us with oil.
It was carried out through a means of preemptive war with no deference to any of the groups that were already in opposition to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, even arguably the Kurds, because quite frankly the thinkers at PNAC did not want to compromise, because as they wrote several hundred times throughout history, compromise is a weakness of lack of planning, or something to that effect.
We then gain an oil cornerstone which leads to a globally dominant position. This is great. I would favor actually having such a thing.
But the means DO NOT justify the ends. If you accept that they do you have just accepted the basic tenet of fascism.
Furthermore, the support for this action, the action itself AND
QUITE SPECIFICALLY
The action taken in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame
Was an overt action to disarm opposition while simultaneously being an inadvertent aid to Al Qaeda.
If you, through your actions, as the intended or inadvertent consequence of your actions, which are taken knowingly with the all of the possible outcomes, aid the forces of the enemy in their desire to harm the United States of America, you have committed treason.
There is nothing more to say. The WMD field team under the command of the non-field agent Valerie Plame was disabled as a result of an intentional leak by the administration, and no amount of spin will make that not so.
The only benefiaries of this were officials within the administration in their desire to deceive their own govt. that of the United States, and to allow the forces of Al Qaeda to make transfers of weapons of mass destruction now unknown to us.
In both cases it is extremely possible, if not a dead certainty that this has aided enemies of the United States
And, BTW, Lynch. I am dead serious about this. There is no politicking or spin here. I don't say this because I want Cheney to resign and be replaced by McCain or some other more experienced more level head than Cheney. I say it because it is true. The administration deliberately took action which aided the forces of Al Qaeda. If it were left to me personally, I think they should be tried for treason.
I would be blissfully happy, even if their replacements were all also members of PNAC, which clearly I would not consider an adequate solution, if the US foreign policy were to shift to something which was not the best friend of Al Qaeda.
Finally, I think that these actions and the defense of them increase the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
C,mon, Lynch. Don't you realize that, although this much info about a Bushie would lead the crowd here into an impeachment frenzy, you won't even get a discussion going about this particular topic. Just another chorus of "Bush lied!", all the while ignoring this evidence that one if the people who calls him that isn't too truthful himself.
So far no one has been indicted for blowing the whistle on Ms. Plame, but who cares for due process?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, still a right wing extremist here. Bush did lie. Clearly no one cares, I hardly care myself. But I do care about treason, and what I see here is a couple of people defending it.
The proper thing for the right to do here is turn on Bush, or rather Cheney, like a pack of wild dogs. The failure to do so is daily doing mortal damage to the Party. I can only think that those who don't are stealth lefties themselves.
Did you not see those appalling '05 election results? If we had already decapitated this govt. that wouldn't have happened. If we want any chance of not getting slaughtered in '06 we had better serve up a dish of Cheney stew. It's the only loyal thing to do. The man is a traitor. He's a traitor to the GOP and a traitor to the USA.
There is nothing right wing about the Bush admin. Libby and Cheney are in no way conservatives. I see no contradiction here. I scanned these articles, but quite frankly, after watching all of the senate hearings it is hard to think that there is anything that even could be said in defense. The quanitity of information that would be required for a burden of prood in defense is similar to what would be needed to prove that the holocaust never happened. Admit your candidates disaster, blame Cheney, kick him out of there, and come back into the fold before you and yours get completely marginalized in this part, which is what is seriously in the offing here.
I can't fairly blame Bush because I don't think he knows the difference between Chechnya and Kashmir. Or for that matter between a hammer and screwdriver. Pick your Cheney replacement and go for it. I'll start out by nominating Mrs. Plame.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lynch,
Okay, I'm going to try to make this as succinct as possible.
1. I already gave a detailed explanation on another thread about lies, etc. I think that argument was unshakeable.
2. Your endless rebuffs have lead me to think that your faith in the Bush Admin is also unshakeable, so it is pointless for me to waste time arguing.
3. I don't believe you're an ideological supporter. I think you're a beneficiary supporter. I know many people who themselves benefit from the Bush Admin, and a couple who are directly connected to it. Their faith is also unshakeable.
4. Because of points 1-3 I don't think you're baiting an argument out of curiosity, I think you expect to convince me. I don't think that is likely to happen.
That said, there are some things I have to say.
5. Cheney is PNAC, and PNAC is a global social militarist, which is not a right wing concept, it's pretty solidly left.
6. Cheney had his hands up to the elbows in the Clinton Admin.
7. Nothing these people do or support rings even remotely true to conventional conservatism. In fact, almost none of it even falls to the right of absolute center.
8. Torture? This is Cheney's latest schtick. This is conservative? A Pro-Torture position? Get this man out of my site.
9. Treason in aiding Al Qaeda on more than one occassion, most assuredly in the Plame case, possible in the Iraq War, and conceivably in 9/11. It's at the very least enough to worry me.
10. There is no shortage of good conservatives around. I have so many doubts about these guys that I see no reason to even bother with them. I have a long list of people I know I can trust. why mess with people who might betray you? It's not even worth the time.
11. I had no concerns about Bush and Co. in 2000. He had a solid team of Republicans, and I was too bent on hating Gore. Honestly, I don't think Gore won that election, as the vote counts later proved, but I didn't like the supreme court ruling. I thought that, horrible as Gore was, it was worth the chance of a recount, which would have turned out in our favor anyway. Here's the problem I had with the ruling: It gave the left a means to call the election and the president illegitimate. I would have rather due process continued. I didn't think then it would have made any difference in the outcome. Numbers since then have proven me correct.
12. Bush lost me over time. Let me count the ways.
13. The Patriot Act. What a pure socialist piece of legislation. Did Ashcroft have to hire former Soviets to write this for him?
14. The Spending. This spending is madness, and it is for socialist things that you mentioned.
15. Iraq. This was a typical democrat type thing to do, turn what could be a lightweight exercise into a big feeding frenzy for the military industrial complex. It reminded me of Johnson. I agree with nixing Saddam, I really do, but I think this stopped being about that long ago. This war also stank of Clinton, and PNAC.
16. Abu Ghraib. Not only did this torture prove to lead back to the top level, but they supported the idea. And still do.
17. Valerie Plame. Believe it or not, this is where he completely lost me. But it was just he straw that broke the camel's back, and it's very broken now, and there's no putting it back together.
18. He never handled anything deftly! North Korea now has nukes. China is an unchecked force for global domination. We've done nothing about the hostile takeover of Taiwan.
19. Good God what a nightmare. Intelligent Design in schools? Bans on Stem Cell research? This is a Republican Administration? If I didn't know better I'd think it was a coalition between Bin Laden and Trotsky!
20. Godwin's Law is a cheap attempt to cover the fact that Nazi politics are incredibly strong and have profound influences on much of what goes on in the world today. There is no way I am granting the worst left wing socialist extremist govt. of all time to get off scott free like this. No way in hell. This doesn't relate to the discussion per se, it's just my absolute gutteral reaction t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, reading the article
Some brief thoughts, as I read:
1. Democrats are not a factor, normally, people should stop pretending that they are. There is one debate currently in America, and it is the one you and I are having right now. Neocon vs. Conventional Conservative. Democrats were marginalized a long time ago, and only when the right splits does the left stand a chance. I don't believe Clinton was the traditional left though, I think he was a neocon stooge. He enacted few of the traditional democratic follies, and did apply some fiscal discipline. To that effect I think it was merciful he was a neocon stooge and not a traditional democrat. But still he was, to me, appalling.
2. When a neocon in the GOP f^&ks thinks up this badly, it does create the rare possibility for actual democrats to gain ground. This is not to be taken too lightly, so and Admin must always tread lightly to some degree, and not violate the public trust so absolutely constantly as this admin does. To explain this, I mean to press forward with a policy that the bulk of the people disagree with. I read the polls on every issue, often from as many as five mainstream sources, so I know when the public opposes a policy. Bush Admin never backs down ever. This is a dangerous game to play. Dangerous for the party.
3. I don't care about Rove. He's a small fish. He's also more of a real Republican. I think he sometimes does questionable things, but I'm not demanding his resignation. I'm not sure I'd trust him enough to hire him myself, but he doesn't really bother me. I'm not sure he intentionally, knowingly, participated in the treason, though he did participate. If he knew he was committing treason when he talked to Novak, then he should probably resign, but that remains to be seen. My guess is Rove agreed to squeal, probably on Cheney.
4. I don't think that Ms. Plame sent Wilson, but it's irrelevent.
5. Mr. Wilson had plenty fo forged documents already. There were forgeries submitted to the agency in the summer of '02, Wilson's trip was in summer of '03 was it not? I recall the forgeries being questioned, this was definitely a long time before Wilson's trip.
6. This article paints this as a partisan conflict. This simply is not the case. Brilliant democrats aren't out gathering information to build false cases against a well founded truth. This is an illusion elaborately crafted. Here's the truth:
Democrats aren't doing anything at all. Democrat attacks are just a constant echo of yesterday's news. They pick out what might make Republicans look bad if everyone knew it, and echo it. No democrat attack has any intention of winning. They are just spinning the constituency with yesterday's news. They say things that were already said by someone else, usually a republican or civil servant, and say it loud enough for their own voter to hear. This isn't action, it's echo. They're hope is to boost their '08 and '06 chances. But they aren't morons. They aren't going to echo lies, because then the rebutt would kill them. So they select what they think are defendable but damaging truths.
In American politics, the party in power tends to lie more. Clinton lied his ass off. A Kerry Admin would be lying right now, possibly more than Bush. As I said, Bush lied, it doesn't bother me that much. I'd prefer someone who was less blatantly dishonest than Bush, but it's not the end of the world.
The article wants the Bush Admin to fire back more, but I think that the Bush Admin knows that it is fighting a losing battle if it does.
Let me explain.
Think like a democrat for a second.
Scary, but do it.
You pick a fact you think is defensible but damaging. The outing of Plame, whatever.
Then you make a rediculous attack on Bush.
You're baiting him. You want him to fight you on your own turf, where you have just set the rules. If he comes to you, and fights you on this one fact which you think is either a) unshakeably true, or b) has enough behind it that you can convince the public that it is unshakeably true, then Bush would be
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I'm up for stepping this debate up a notch.
I want to know a couple of things. I'll tell you where I'm coming from and you tell me where you're coming from.
Try to be on the level here. I'm serious about this. No one stumbles on to newamericacentury.org and then cites it as a source. It's an ideological extreme which does rule our govt. and you already know that.
You support it for some reason, and I'd like to know why.
Here's where I'm coming from.
In college I was a student of history, got a degree in it. I must've been to 20+ years of college by now. I farm tomatoes, I'm not anyone of importance.
Like the members of PNAC, I too used to be a socialist sympathizer. I considered many of the ideas of the former Soviets, and considered their possible validity. At the time it seemed to me that they had a valid global strategy, and possible cures to the human condition.
This sympathy led me to know a lot of Soviets. They convinced me that I was undeniably wrong. This itself would be a very long discussion, but suffice it to say, I became convinced that the flaws I saw in America were not from lack of social support structure, but from lack of freedom, and excess of social support structure. Over the course of the years, I re-examined the situation, the blind idealism that built the USSR and other disaster states, and I came to see these fallacies in the democrats, and in other globalist movements, such as the neocons.
Globalist strategies are important. The main reason is that if you don't have them, the other guy still does, and he might conquer the world while you're not looking.
I plan to have global strategies. It might take me some time. I know a lot of other people have them, and I know pretty well what those strategies are. The biggest globalist player is China. The Saudis, Al Qaeda, also play this game. Old Europe for the most part plays it in a profiteering way, but not in a serious way, they're done with that now.
Neocons have a strategy, and I understand where it comes from too. The plan to hold control posts, dominate industries that other nations rely on, hold leverage over them. I know they seek to create a global consensus rule where they hold a compound majority, a fluke rule based on the peculiar makeup of the hierarchy that they have spend decades designing.
But overall, I don't like it.
Here's some serious problems I have with it:
1. It's very much like Athens in the PPW. Sparta won that war not because it was a socialist state, but because it had willing allies. Athens had subjects which it used to funnel money into the machine. Long term, this sort of relationship is always problematic. Subjects never follow you as far as true allies will. For the neocons, Tony Blair is an ally, England is less so, and Iraq and Afgh. will never be true allies. However, for Al Qaeda, Iraq an Afgh. may become true allies. If this is ever the case, they will win in these arenas.
2. It's not as US focused. I really don't care about ruling the world, only stopping someone else from doing so. If America is supported fully, I believe she will continue to be supreme, and a force that can always step in and alter any equation. If she is compromised by a costly global agenda, this may cease to be true, and the stability of the Earth may depend on the new global order, and that might lead us to a course of action which is not in our best interest, as a nation, or as a planet.
3. It's very image costly. American business will suffer immeasurably as a result of this course of action, with the minor exception of a small handful of companies.
I think that when Bush took office in '00, there were two major players in this game: The US and China. Now I think there are four. China is clearly in the lead, and Al Qaeda is growing strong into a full fledged player. The US has now split into two empires, which sort of occupy the same space, but one is building itself in a very globalist manner, and the other in a much more conventional American powerbase manner.
This last part I
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
C'mon, Andrew! Dreamtrove is pulling your leg.
Presidents of this country don't lie.
If he posted that the sky was blue, would you take him seriously on that too?
Sheesh!
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT, you have to realize that Lynch AJ has an idee fixe about WMD and another one about Bush. NOTHING you could say would convince AJ that Bush or anyone in his administration lied about anything, ever. And Geezer? Well, the former voice of reason has resorted to posting flamebait. WARNING: Get sucked in to this debate at your own risk. Sign me: Been there, done that.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, because Bush has never, to anyone's recollection, ever lied.
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Can you site a specific documented and verifiable case where President Bush has lied?
Once, when he was young, he came home stumbling. His dad asked, "Georgie, are you DRUNK?" to which he responded, "Yessireeee!". Truth always.
In school one of his classmates asked what job his father had. "My daddy runs the CIA, Nya nya, nya nya nya !" Again, the truth. College was fun.
When he tanked his dads businesses, he even appoligized truthfully. "Dad, I
ed up."All this brings us to WMD's. No, Bush didn't lie. He isn't smart enough to. He believed what he was told, and repeated it. Technically, that's not a lie.
You're welcome.
Chrisisalltruthful
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, at this point your abusing sarcasm.
I get that lynch has his head in a tin pail and is never coming out, so I thought we could debate something else. The thing is I know Lynch doesn't really believe what he's saying, he thinks he's being rhetorically clever. He's not.
Bush lie #1: There was a consensus of intelligence on WMD. I watched the non-consensus reports on cspan. So probably did all of you. There's not really any docmuntation here. Googling it would probably provide you with 10 matches right off the bat.
Here's another one: There was a consensus of intelligence saying saddam had an extant nuclear program. There almost was, almost everyone though this was a ringer, ie. there was no nuclear program. There had been a nuclear power program, but that was shelved after the bombing and sactions. That program was not locally Iraqi, it was run by the French.
The idea that this was behind the move to war in Iraq is beyond absurd.
Here's who DID have an extant nuclear program and had threatened attack the USA with nuclear weapons: North Korea. NK's longterm goal has to be to take over the SK economy. While SK is devestatingly competitive with the US: This is what we want! Free market capitalism seeks devestating competition. That which does not kill us makes us stronger. But if NK attacks, there is little defense short of a US/Japanese intervention, which is why NK has threatened to attack our civilian populations with nukes if we intercede. It would be kinda nice if someone had done something about this before it came to this point.
Finally, you ducked my offer to debate strategies on globalism and global militarism, so I'm dropping it.
I know these lies of course because I was watching when they happened. I repeatedly saw officials say one thing, and they saw Bush tell the public they said something else. Sorry if actual experience isn't a link, but I'm sure people have posted them
Okay I'm not vouching for this site, becuase it's just the first thing that came up when I googled it, but #8 on this page addresses the consensus one.
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/
I seem to remember a fair number of reversals on campaign promises, also. Unless you want to say "oh, that's not lying, that's him changing his mind." This man doesn't have a mind to change.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME