Looks like someone in Washington doesn't want you (or me) to see it.
Via Talking Points Memo to ABC News:
Of course not. Now it looks like that public knowledge of dubya's war is fading:The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
So why would we want to have a good counter to this administration's many lies that got us into that mess? Lies like this one:Twenty-eight percent of the public is aware that nearly 4,000 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq over the past five years, while nearly half thinks the death tally is 3,000 or fewer and 23 percent think it is higher, according to an opinion survey released yesterday.
The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, found that public awareness of developments in the Iraq war has dropped precipitously since last summer, as the news media have paid less attention to the conflict. In earlier surveys, about half of those asked about the death tally responded correctly.
On June 18, 2004 the Washington Post quoted President George W. Bush as saying: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said.Or this one:
"We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization," Vice President Dick Cheney said on NBC's Meet The Press March 16, 2003.Yea, instead let's talk about how nasty Saddam was (and he was) and the places over there where the violence has abated (and it has - if only somewhat and if only temporarily) and not spend any time worrying about how George Bush and Dick Cheney lied this country into war and about how nearly 4,000 American servicemen and women have died because of it.
21 comments:
I was gonna channel C.H.'s whole concern troll shtick -- you know, the predictable crap about how Saddam was an evil dictator, how we're all stuck in the past, then transition to the all of the evils elsewhere in the world that have really nothing to do with Iraq, blah, blah, blah -- but I'd figure I'd let him have his fun for the day.
After all, it's hard being a closet wingnut.
Hail to the Thief: Pay attention...pay attention...two and two... always makes five....
Here we go again...the same old arguments.
"We had him surrounded!"
"Saddam hated religious extremists!"
"Bush lied, people died!"
Alright, I understand that you people will never be able to look past your ideology and see reality for what it is. Obviously, you won't listen to me, since I'm just a neocon wingut. But maybe you'll listen to the words of a former Iraqi police officer under Saddam Hussein. May I add, this offers a very different conclusion than the politically-driven "reports" we continue to hear about in regards to Saddam's association with Al-Qaeda.
At the same time, forget about the links Saddam could have had with Al-Qaeda. What about the links to other terror groups. Surely, the cook does not deny that Saddam was sending 25,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers who carried out "martyrdom" against Israel, or giving shelter to wanted terror leaders. Do you remember Abu Abbas, the hijacker of the Achille Lauro back in 1985? Well, he was captured in Iraq. Apparently, Saddam was more than willing to give shelter to religious extremists if they went along with his views.
CH: "you people will never be able to look past your ideology and see reality for what it is."
This is the pot calling the mirror black.
CH: "I'm just a neocon wingut."
Finally making some sense.
CH: "forget about the links Saddam could have had with Al-Qaeda."
Nothing to forget for us. You?
CH: "Surely, the cook does not deny that Saddam was sending 25,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers"
So what? And don't call me Shirley.
The rest of the post we can get every day on Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, Coulter, and the dozens of other lying neocons.
That's the response I thought I'd get. After all, if something comes out that contradicts the one-sided BS we hear about every single day, then it must just be lies. At least, that's the only defense you have. The left simply goes rabid over this.
Instead of debating the very legitimate points the sources I linked to speak of, the only thing to do is to attack me with foam spewing from my mouth and shoot it down as nothing but propaganda. At the same time, you people provide links to some of the most vile haters out there, like Keith Olbermann.
I for one believe the words of the people who live in Iraq over a bunch of politicians who are only looking out for their party.
I also loved how 3:19 said "so what" in regards to Saddam supporting the "resistance" in the Palestinian territories...that was priceless.
At 4:14 PM said...
As usual, I will whine and complain. The only ideas in my head came from Rush.* That's why I can't put out a new argument but I can sure as hell repeat the same unsupported nonsense over and over again.
I can also whine about other countries behaving the way I want my country to behave. More torture! More war! More dead Americans! More displaced Iraqis!
Does anybody know where I can get a plaster cast of Saddam's head?
* And BillO and my favorite intellectual, Glenn.
The part that C.H. is missing is this: While Saddam Hussein was known to fund "suiciders" (or at least their families), THAT'S NOT THE POINT. THE POINT is that we were told, assured even, that we HAD to hit Saddam, and hit 'im quick, because he HAD these links to the group that attacked us on 9/11.
Bringing up ANYTHING ELSE as a defense of this president's illegal war is a cheap diversion.
THAT was the lie of this administration. To divert any attention away with it is to approve of that lie, if only tacitly.
...and perhaps there's more to it. Read the first article I linked to and hear a change of pace for once. Saddam's funding of "martyrdom operations" in the Palestinian territories was only one point I made.
CH: That's the response I thought I'd get. After all, if something comes out that contradicts the one-sided BS we hear about every single day, then it must just be lies. At least, that's the only defense you have. The left simply goes rabid over this.
A translation for those of us who are not fluent in Wingnut:
I was expecting this from you because people try to talk sense to me all the time when I go whining on liberal blogs. It's always the same thing, and we Wingnuts know that the truth changes all the time, depending on who the Administration is trying to enrich or pardon today.
Why can't I just be blissfully, willfully ignorant and live in the little world of fear and despair that Rush, Coulter, and Cheney have built for me? Why shouldn't I believe the people who have lied to me over and over? They are fellow extreme right-wing Republicans, so their lies are actually truth, aren't they?
Excuse me for now. I have to go hate some immigrants for stealing that great job I wanted picking lettuce. I'll be back with more evidence of my microcephally soon. Buh-bye!
Here's a video you might enjoy. Check it out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBwzQYAGbqs
By the way, if you ever read my blog, you'll see that I do not have too many nice things to say about Anne Coulter.
...and by the way, I challenge you to find ONE post that even suggests I am against amnesty or a guest worker program for illegal immigrants.
It's never a bad idea to know your opponents positions before you try to get me to defend positions I have not taken.
"I for one believe the words of the people who live in Iraq over a bunch of politicians who are only looking out for their party."
Of course, the hundreds of thousands of innocent children and civilians-- who were caught dead in the civil war-like crosfire, in a land we egregiously falled secure after a pre-emptive unjust invasion-- cannot now speak for themselves. I surmise that, if they could, they would tell us otherwise than you generally assume.
C.H.,
In regards to your carer aspirations, I encourage you to contemplate these words, at least once daily.
"This is a pity, unless the United States is able to do some hard thinking about the world, it is not at all certain that the world will be around that much longer. That would certainly save us from the necessity of hard thought, since there would then be nothing to think about; but there are probabably less drastic ways of making thinking less rebarbarative. It is true, of course, that some Americans have never quite grasped this esoteric concept of ‘the world’, believing as they do that it is somewhere just south-east of Texas. There are those Americans who have no idea of how others see them; those who have no idea but do not care anyway; and those who have yet to hear that there are other people out there in the first place.From
Terry Eagleton, “After Theory” p.223-4."
Still no comment on your poor and ignorant assumption about my political views, huh?
John McCain says:
"As president, I will secure the border."
"Border security and our failed immigration system are more examples of an ailing Washington culture..."
"A secure border is an essential element of our national security."
We all know that "border security" is extremist code for "keep the brown people in Mexico, in poverty, where they belong." Oddly enough, McCain hasn't said a word about securing the border with Canada, nor about restricting imports of huge numbers of technology workers and exporting white-collar American jobs.
Are you saying you have problems with McCain's immigration policies, CH? Let all those wetbacks in to steal American jobs?
Poor guy, Rush & Co have you so confused, you don't even realize how blind you are to reality. Here's a quiz for you: Which of your heros claimed that trees cause most polution and that ketchup is a vegetable?
That's the first time I've ever heard someone attack John Mccain for being anti-illegal immigrant...and I live in the bay area, a kook-fringe leftist stronghold. In your mind, everyone to the right of Pete Stark and Keith Olbermann is a neocon wingut, or so it seems.
I never realized that living somewhere constitutes proof that one's political views amount to anything more than a sack-full of rightwing bumper stickers slogans.
Those quotes ARE FROM JOHN MCCAIN'S WEB SITE!
I take back the part about your being confused. You are un-fucking-conscious.
All he's said is "I will secure the border", so what? It's not like he's picking up a copy of Pat Buchanan's book and saying that he'll implement polcicies like that. A border that is "secure" means that there will be less chaos down there--less drug smuggling, less criminal activity, and it will be safer for people who are seeking a better life to come through.
However, to the deranged far-left ideology, anything other than an open border policy is considered racist...which is stupid. I'm all for a good plan to give some kind of amnesty (or at least a guest worker program) to illegal immigrants...these people who have actually suggested rounding them up are out of their minds. Nevertheless, law and order is essential for everyone, whether they be Americans, Mexicans, Central Americans, or any other nationality.
Oh, I also like how you have conveniently shifted the thread away from the original debate in a pathetic attempt to divert attention from your rebuked talking points.
Bwahahahahaha!
Is McCain going to "secure the border" by breeding pixies to fly around with tiny little dart guns?
I know, he'll send the Army down there...oh, that's right, he's keeping the Army in Iraq for the next hundred years.
How about a nice 30-foot fence all the way from the Gulf to San Diego? Yeah, that's the ticket. It works for the Israelis in keeping the Palestinians under their thumb. And we'll electrify it. And to generate the electricity, we'll bring in Mexicans to ride fixed bicycles with small dynamos installed.
If some Mexican figures out how to build an insulated 31-foot ladder, we'll make it a 40-foot fence.
Nah. "Secure the borders" means persecute them after they get in. All the neocons know that. For McCain, it also means torturing them. That'll teach 'em to stay poor and filthy the way they belong.
Shifting the topic????? Once again, I must remark: Bwahahahahahaha! I guess you thought we would just keep watching you paint the same LSD-inspired vision of Iraq reverting to the Garden of Eden over and over again.
Poor, deluded fool.
Post a Comment