No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link
Ah, return with me now to those thrilling days of 2002... Remember the Administration-Wingnut Complex hyperventilating about all the (ahem) "evidence" that Saddam was in bed with (his deadly enemy) bin Laden?
I do. I remember thinking: these people all seem so convinced! They can't all be crazy, can they? (Ah, little did I realize...) What am I missing? Because the evidence they keep citing is approximately as lame as evidence can get.
Oh, how I tortured myself trying to discover what shreds of anti-Bush partisanship were preventing me from seeing their point. Oh, how I turned the evidence over and over and over in my mind.
Oh, how it always added up to bupkis.
Well, guess what? As the reality-based community has recognized basically from the start, there was no link.
Oh, and the evidence was cherry-picked.
But you might be comforted to know that Cheney is still saying that there was a link (same link).
Now that is some seriously resolute sh*t right there, Maynard. As we know, changing your mind simply because it becomes indisputable that you were absolutely wrong about everything is just flip-flopping. And flip-flopping--like actually, ya know, fighting in war--is for sissies like John Kerry.
Staying (a) in the States and (b) the course is for real men like D*ck Cheney.
If these criminals had even the most gossamer shred of decency they'd resign.
And join a monastery.
In prison.
Ah, return with me now to those thrilling days of 2002... Remember the Administration-Wingnut Complex hyperventilating about all the (ahem) "evidence" that Saddam was in bed with (his deadly enemy) bin Laden?
I do. I remember thinking: these people all seem so convinced! They can't all be crazy, can they? (Ah, little did I realize...) What am I missing? Because the evidence they keep citing is approximately as lame as evidence can get.
Oh, how I tortured myself trying to discover what shreds of anti-Bush partisanship were preventing me from seeing their point. Oh, how I turned the evidence over and over and over in my mind.
Oh, how it always added up to bupkis.
Well, guess what? As the reality-based community has recognized basically from the start, there was no link.
Oh, and the evidence was cherry-picked.
But you might be comforted to know that Cheney is still saying that there was a link (same link).
Now that is some seriously resolute sh*t right there, Maynard. As we know, changing your mind simply because it becomes indisputable that you were absolutely wrong about everything is just flip-flopping. And flip-flopping--like actually, ya know, fighting in war--is for sissies like John Kerry.
Staying (a) in the States and (b) the course is for real men like D*ck Cheney.
If these criminals had even the most gossamer shred of decency they'd resign.
And join a monastery.
In prison.
posted by Winston Smith at
1:28 PM
29 Comments:
It hurts.
And you know what hurts worse?
34% of the country still supports him. How is that possible? Line up everyone in the country and every third person (slightly more, even) is like "Yeah, Bush rocks."
I feel like we need to have interventions.
*Bush Supporter comes home from work* (F = Friend)
BS: "Hey guys...what's going on?"
F: "Hey man..why don't you sit down? We need to talk."
*girl runs out of room crying*
BS: "What? What the hell is going on?"
F: "Look, man, we're worried about you."
BS: "Why? Nothing's wrong."
F: "We know you support bush."
BS: "Well..no..I mean, sometimes I do, but what's the harm in that?"
F: "It's ok man, we're not mad, we're just worried..but we know you've been hiding letters to editors around the house..supporting bush."
BS: "What? No..no I haven't. I don't know what you're talking about."
F: "I think you need to realize the facts here.."
BS: "Look, I can stop supporting Bush whenever I want."
and so on.
This is the second time the inspector general has gone after Douglas Feith. This is Feith's defense from the first time. It's to NPR's credit that they gave him the opportunity, something that the mainstream press is unlikely to do.
Just an FYI that there is more than one side to things. Undoubtedly, more to follow.
Yes, there are, of course, ALWAYS two (or more) sides.
In many cases, one side is well supported and reasonable, while the other is...rather less so.
One must hear them both in order to discern which is which.
Since it's unlikely that those on a strict diet of mainstream news and left-of-center blogs will hear more than one side, or even be aware there is more than one, I provide the service.
Bring it on, Tom. Enlighten us.
Yeah.
Um, Tom, it seems like you post an awful lot of the time with something like "I know the evidence seems incredibly damning right now, but just you wait, there's more evidence out there that completely validates my point of view, and I'm just waiting for it to come to light."
And then it never comes to light.
It's sort of a convenient tactic, though, because it means you never have to admit to error.
Do you, right now, have any non-bullshit evidence for a link between Saddam and bin Laden?
If not, maybe you need to admit that.
And admit that when administration officials claim that there is a link, they're filthy goddamn liars deliberately deceiving the public on a matter of national security.
This has been going on for years, man. It's time to put up or shut up.
Jesus, Tom, why do you think you're the only one around here who has the relevant information? For awhile there I was reading just about everything Feith and his cohorts were spewing forth.
I've got the information. It doesn't add up. It never added up. Everybody in the entire world has concluded that it didn't add up.
Everybody but American conservatives, that is.
This is the conservative strategy, though: just keep asserting that you're right, that things are complicated, that the other side is blind or uninformed or biased over and over again until the opposition gets tired of responding.
Then declare victory.
It's how Ronald Reagan became a "great president"...so maybe it'll be able to work for Dubya as well.
Ronald Reagan was a great president.
And since Doug Feith had what I regard as a strong reply the first time the IG went after him (that no one discussed, preferring to focus on me and the amophous "conservatives" instead), the meaning of my initial comment is simply that I'll wait for the other show to drop in this latest go-round.
And come to think of it, since the Washington Post had to issue major corrections on its reportage of the first IG salvo, I'll wait to see how that shakes out, too.
And that's all I was saying.
Ronald Reagan was an avuncular actor who played a president for eight years. His presidency was one of the most corrupt in recent memory. He committed impeachable offenses, and he was not impeached for them only because we'd just had a (Republican) President resign because he committed crimes, and the Speaker of the House didn't think the country could take another such incident.
Saying the mantra won't change any of that.
You've got a mantra of your own, and one that doesn't make Reagan anything but a great president.
Your argument is one of paper morality. Technical violations of the law are necessarily corrupt. Nancy Pelosi may have violated the Logan Act and the Syria Accountability Act, but that concerns neither you nor any of her ideological allies. (Neither am I terribly concerned about it. I just think she shouldn't have done what she did, and she certainly made a mess of it.)
Iran-Contra was no more corrupt than FDR evading the Neutrality Acts and helping the British against the rising Nazi menace. Neither did anyone except Reagan's enemies care much, since the questionably constitutional Boland Amendment was repealed shortly thereafter, rendering the controversy moot.
Neither does the verdict of history care much. Reagan helped erase the threat of global nuclear war, and supporting the Contras freed the Nicaraguan people from the Sandinista boot. Iran-Contra was a footnote, no more.
As for administration officials lying, yes, they did. In your morality lying about sex is A-OK; in mine, lying in the interest of national security and in defeating totalitarianism is even more morally acceptable.
As for Douglas Feith, yes, according to him, both the IG report completely ignored a certain letter from George Tenet (the head of the CIA and a Clinton appointee) that cited a decade of al-Qaeda-Iraq contact. No surprise that only one side of the story was told. The IG seems to have it in for Feith, and that's politics. But the Washington Post has no professional journalistic excuse for not contacting Feith and asking for his side of the story. Typical bias.
Now, Joshua can and probably will omniciently argue that Feith is bullshit and Tenet is bullshit, but that's not germane. What is germane is that Tenet was the head of the CIA, and it was entirely proper for Feith to accept Tenet's representations.
There's more at Feith's website, including the exact and careful wording of Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, whose language does not correspond to the caricaturization of the administration's rhetoric, but that's entirely too substantive for this discussion.
Feith is bullshit, Bush lied, Reagan was the most corrupt in recent memory, and that satisfies the narrative.
Now, Joshua can and probably will omniciently argue that Feith is bullshit and Tenet is bullshit, but that's not germane.
Not at all (although yeah, they are bullshit)!
My argument doesn't have much to do with whether or not various folks mistakenly believed that there was collaboration between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, it has more to do with the folks who are still insisting.
The other part is . . . can we have some sort of time limit? I understand saying 'more evidence will out,' and I don't think that that's necessarily unreasonable, but you can't just say that forever (or if you do, it's intellectually corrupt). At some point (and maybe that's 20 years from now) you have to say, "the evidence I thought would come out hasn't come out, and the evidence available indicates that these people deceived us."
So the question is, when is that point for you?
My argument doesn't have much to do with whether or not various folks mistakenly believed that there was collaboration between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, it has more to do with the folks who are still insisting.
Yeah, I hear that graf completely, Joshua, but not the previous deceiving part. But Cheney's about the only one who still holds on to the collaboration thing, and yes, I do find it embarrassing. He has become the weird old uncle in the back room who pops out occasionally and the only polite thing to do is ignore him.
I've felt that way about Al Gore since he was cheated out of the 2000 election and likewise went insane. I think it's a vice-president thing. Looking back, Agnew, LBJ, Nixon, Henry A. Wallace. Kinda wack.
Mondale, Humphrey, Bush41---born to be vice-presidents, and damn good at it.
Dan Quayle? The ultimate vice-president---the perfect lodger, the perfect guest. Knows when to arrive, knows when to leave. Let's give the guy his props.
I see that Winston Smith claimed:
This is the conservative strategy, though: (a)just keep asserting that you're right, (b)that things are complicated, (c)that the other side is blind or uninformed or biased over and over again until the opposition gets tired of responding.
Then declare victory.
It's how Ronald Reagan became a "great president"...so maybe it'll be able to work for Dubya as well.
(Letters in bold added by me for clarity)
In return, Tom Van Dyke asserted:
(a)Ronald Reagan was a great president.
(b)As for administration officials lying, yes, they did. In your morality lying about sex is A-OK; in mine, lying in the interest of national security and in defeating totalitarianism is even more morally acceptable.
(c)supporting the Contras freed the Nicaraguan people from the Sandinista boot.
(Presumably because anyone who says the Contras were terrorists and cocaine traffickers,or who thinks that the Sandinista “boot” was the democratically elected socialist party, is biased or uninformed).
Kudos to Tom Van Dyke for illustrating Winston Smith’s claim so nicely.
Well, I think that lying in the interest of national security may sometimes be permissible, too.
Though I also think that:
1. Such lying is only permisslbe if *actually in the interest of national security*, which the Iran-Contra lies weren't
2. It's not o.k. if it aims at benefitting evil people who are doing evil things, which the Iran-Contra lies were.
But, hey, other than that, I think we're on the same page.
How Ronald Reagan became a "great" president: redefine everything he did as great. Supported murderous thugs: great. Negotiate with terrorists: great. Lie to further crackpot political agenda: great. Spew vapid patriotic mumbo-jumbo instead of honestly dealing with real problems: great.
That guy was a joke. Made me embarrassed to be an American. I'll take Jimmy Carter over that guy any day. But, then, I don't need a cheerleader telling me that "it's morning in America" in order for me to get through the day. I'd rather have straight talk and a morally defensible foreign policy than cheery nationalistic bullshit and crappy policy.
Jimmy Carter?
I suppose we're both dead-enders in our own way, then.
Yes, Ms. Pelosi certainly behaved traitorously and "made a mess of it", but only if one drinks from the Cheney/Rush Kool-Aid:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013508.php
I'm amazed that people who are repeatedly exposed as liars continue to get any benefit of the doubt.
Well, re Douglas Feith, I did warn everybody they shouldn't believe everything they read in the Washington Post. But they laughed.
However, the TPM "refutation" changes the subject---Pelosi was to let Syria know that Israel plans no war in the summer. In fact, Olmert says just that in the Haafetz article, the day before Pelosi even arrived in Syria. In other words, even by TPM's account, she was carrying a message that had already been made public.
Now I don't know whether to believe the Washington Post when they quote Pelosi herself, but she seems to have represented that Israel and Syria had told her they wanted to resume the peace process.
No such thing. If the Post is to be believed, she screwed up royal.
"After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda."
Yeah, well I call bullshit. It is well known in ME circles that the Israelis a couple of months ago were entertaining talking directly to the Syrians, but were pressured by the Bush administration not to, so this is really nothing new:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ24Ak03.html
"So rigid is the US position that it has consistently pressured Israel not to talk peace with Bashar al-Assad, as a recent article in Ha'aretz confirmed. "A few short weeks ago, [Israeli] Public Security Minister Avi Dichter told Army Radio, with regard to peace talks with Syria, that 'if it turned out that there was someone to talk to and something to talk about, the idea would be right'," recounted Shmuel Rosner. "On Tuesday, however, after his meeting with US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Dichter sounded somewhat different." Dichter then parroted verbatim Washington's conditions for engaging Syria and said that as long as the US opposed Israel engaging Syria, "Israel could not ignore it"."
Couple that with the two-step by the Administration and Olmert TPM described otherwise, and it's obvious who we should believe. If they were willing to bullshit everyone about the one thing, why not about the other? Once you lose your credibility, it's really hard to get it back. Except with the TRUE BELIEVERS, who at this point still believe whatever bilge comes out of these compulsive liars' mouths.
Quoting leftist blogs and bravely calling bullshit? Anonymously? Oh, please. Who the hell are you?
If Syria wants peace with Israel, it'll get peace with Israel, just like Egypt and Jordan did. They don't need Bush, and they certainly don't need Pelosi. As reported by your own sources, they already have their own backchannels.
Pelosi brought a message of peace (actually a promise on non-aggression this summer) that had already appeared in the newspapers. From Syria, she heard, um, how did you put it, bullshit.
She heard what she wanted to hear, just like Neville Chamberlain when he returned from his own shuttle diplomacy and announced peace in our time.
Every age has its fools.
Careful, you're entering Godwin territory.
And the example, one of many which impeach the Administration's credibility, was a double quote from the Isreali Security Minister. A quote which, yeah, appeared in the 'leftist blog' Asia Times.
Since you were personally there, I know that you can personally attest to what she heard, and that it resembled what Neville Chamberlain heard, rather than what Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin heard from Egypt and Jordan. And that Tom Lantos was lying when he said that everything Pelosi said the Israelis had said they did in fact say, because he was there.
So who the hell am I? I'm apparently the only proctologist currently available to help you remove your head from your ass.
And by the way, you betray your ignorance when you state that Syria "will get peace with Israel" without US involvement (e.g. 'they don't need Bush), just like Egypt and Jordan did".
Study up on how the groundwork was laid and details finalized on those agreements and then explain to me again how it'll similarly happen just like that between Israel and Syria.
Ignorant and dogmatic is no way to go through blogs, son. Here's some sample material. Get back to me when you've learned something:
"During 1994 the ice was broken. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres informed King Hussein that after the Oslo Accords with the PLO, Jordan may be "left out of the game". Hussein consulted with the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Mubarak encouraged him, but Assad told him only to "talk" with Israel and not sign any accord. U.S. President Bill Clinton pressured Hussein to start peace negotiations and to sign a peace treaty with Israel and promised him that Jordan's debts would be forgiven. The efforts succeeded and Jordan signed a nonbelligerency agreement with Israel. Rabin, Hussein and Clinton signed the Washington Declaration in Washington, DC, on July 25, 1994. The Declaration says that Israel and Jordan would end the official state of enmity and would start negotiations in order to achieve an "end to bloodshed and sorrow" and a just and lasting peace. [1]"
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Jordan_Treaty_of_Peace
I'd offer up something on the Camp David Accords, but I don't feel like doing all of your homework for you.
Well that was fairly conclusive.
Although, maybe you should stop being such a jackass, Tom, and you won't get owned in such a hardcore way.
No need to stoop and be rude back, Anonymous.
What can I say to someone who gets their history from the Wikipedia? And you have the nerve to lecture someone else?
Jordan was for practical purposes already at peace with Israel in 1994.
http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/meria/journal/2001/issue3/jv5n3a5.html
"For almost twenty years, from the 1970s until the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty of 1994, Israel and Jordan maintained quasi-normal, albeit secret, relations. Jordan’s King Hussein reportedly met numerous times with Israeli leaders, and even visited the country. Armed clashes along the lengthy border were virtually non-existent. During the Gulf War, despite Jordan’s neutrality, Israel even officially announced that Jordan’s eastern frontier (with Iraq) constituted its security border. During all of this period, informed Israelis had heard of the meetings between leaders and realized that secret understandings existed, and thus considered that Israel had achieved peace with Jordan in all but name."
Sure, to his credit, Clinton helped finish the negotiations, but you already had two good-faith partners.
You want peace with Israel, you get peace, and you don't need angels like Pelosi. Clinton met with Assad Sr. in 1994. Guess what?
No peace. Syria still doesn't want peace.
So stop with the paper arguments. Pelosi, the good Mr. Lantos notwithstanding, announced that through her good offices, Israel and Syria had signalled their willingness to resume the peace process.
This was, as you call it, bullshit. She screwed up and heard what she wanted to hear, as if some amateur can bumble into the Middle East, spout a few platitutes and create peace. Sheer nonsense.
Ah, to take such a simplistic view, like Hussein would have had the werewithal to weather his isolation from the rest of the Arab world after expelling the PLO. He was not simply seeking accomodation with Israel for its own sake, but also because the PLO had become an internal threat to his own rule.
There was also the issue of his need for help with Jordan's perennially flagging economy. In all of these instances, his cultivation of a western outlook was met with aid from Washington, more so after expelling the PLO, and even more so after signing the 1994 Israeli agreement and then bilateral trade agreement with the US.
http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/cold/articles/ashton.html
The point is that the US is the party that holds the most incentives to get these nations back into the fold internationally. Why do you think that even Libya was talked down from the nuclear ledge? Q was rapidly running out of money.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fleverett/20040123.htm
Sanctions work and money talks.
All Pelosi did was give public voice to something EVERY close observer of the situation has know for almost a year: the Israelis and Syrians have been pursuing back-channel negotiations for a while, and are open to a peace process. Olmert was just responding the Cheney omerta, just like the Security Minister did before. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...you can't get fooled again.
Here is a money quote from Leverett, someone who was actually engaged in the type of negotiations we're talking about:
"The lesson is incontrovertible: to persuade a rogue regime to get out of the terrorism business and give up its weapons of mass destruction, we must not only apply pressure but also make clear the potential benefits of cooperation. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has refused to take this approach with other rogue regimes, notably Iran and Syria. Until the president is willing to employ carrots as well as sticks, he will make little headway in changing Iranian or Syrian behavior.
The president's lack of initiative on this point is especially disappointing because, in the diplomatic aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has a singular opportunity to effect strategic realignments by both Iran and Syria. Well-placed Iranians, including more pragmatic elements of Iran's conservative camp, have indicated through diplomatic channels and to former officials (including myself) their interest in a "grand bargain" with the United States. Basically, Tehran would trade off its ties to terrorist groups and pursuit of nuclear weapons for security guarantees, a lifting of sanctions and normalized relations with Washington.
Likewise, senior Syrian officials—including President Bashar al-Assad himself, in a conversation in Damascus last week—have told me that they want a better strategic understanding with the United States. To achieve this, however, Washington needs to be willing to spell out what Syria would get in return for giving up its ties to terrorists and its chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. As Mr. Assad told me, Syria is "a state, not a charity"—if it gives up something, it must know what it will gain in return."
Why don't you take it from a genuine *non-amateur* that Bush has fiddled while opportunities for peace, opportunities which have in the past only gained traction with US involvement, passed by?
(Not to mention non-'amateurs' like Baker and Hamilton)
The point of it all is - talking to Syria is what needs to be done.
These hardcore "We don't negotiate with terrorists" people are just not thinking their stance through. They're afraid that if they negotiate, then it will legitimize the use of terrorism to get what you want.
Sure has stopped terrorism so far, hasn't it!? Way to go!
If people would just think about it, they'd see that you must talk to those who are angry and capable enough to kill. That's just the nature of the world. Presuming there is no higher authority to turn to (since the UN doesn't really get the job done - all they do is impose sanctions, not take away the ability of the party that is capable and angry enough to kill you like the police would by throwing him in jail) If someone is threatening your life and you know he or she is capable of ending it, do you just say "I'm not talking to you until you aren't threatening anymore."
?
No. You take that approach, you're dead. You must talk to the person and attempt reason. Why the anger? What can we do to resolve the situation peacefully? Is there any way we can approach this that will be mutually beneficial? If you try that, and find that they really are just purely insane and out to kill you (which very few people are), then your hand is forced and you have to resort to violent measures to protect yourself.
Bush, however, refuses to take these steps. There's a total refusal to at least have talks with the countries that hate us and foster violent activities towards us. He just calls them "evil" and "terrorists" and even invades some of them for no good reason (not that there weren't good reasons, but he didn't use any of them).
How, exactly, is this going to help? This is the "Violently subdue" approach that only works if you completely eliminate every single aspect of what you're trying to subdue, which never, ever happens. Ever.
It's beyond ridiculous. We gotta stop labeling people as "good" and "evil" and fucking get a clue and just try to get along without trying to claim the moral high ground. It will not ever work to say "Well I'm right and you're wrong, so I'm not going to listen to you until you stop being angry because I won't listen to you".
Wtf is that. That's why kids run away from homes. That's why people are murdered. That's why there are wars.
tvd wrote:
"Jimmy Carter?
I suppose we're both dead-enders in our own way, then."
LOL
touche.
You think that's bad, JQ is trying to convince me to pull for Gore in '08...
Then I'll be a DOUBLE dead-ender.
Since I try to see things through your eyes, I'd say that many in the current crop are worse choices than Al Gore.
I don't think it would be contentious to note that he's patently more qualified for the job (on paper, at least) than the Democrats' current top 3.
Or the Republicans', for that matter.
Go for it.
Hell, if I thought the GOP could push Newt Gingrich past his own historically recorded wigginess, I'd be a Newt man all the way.
I agree with Tom - I don't really see the reason that he'd be considered to be a "dead-ender", especially with democrats in control of congress.
I think he'd do some really good things.
If he runs, he's got my vote, hands down.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home