Today on Blogcritics
Home » LIES! And more damn lies.

LIES! And more damn lies.

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A leaked British memo, and other documents, make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq — and lied about it to the American people.

The key line in the leaked memo, (as described by Getler from the Sunday Times Post), is the assessment by British intelligence, after a visit to Washington, that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” That kind of assertion has been made by critics and commentators, but it has not been included in official post-invasion assessments here about how the country went to war under what turned out to be false premises about weapons of mass destruction and other matters.

Why has this information not been discussed? My guess is that the people in power are just sitting on this information until after the midterm elections to see if democrats can get control and then the fireworks will begin.

The same critics have been unsuccessful in getting an investigation into the misuse of the intelligence and as long as they are in the minority they never will.

This isn’t the last you’ll hear of this is my guess…

Read more >
The Memo >
Letter to Bush >
Why we’re not talking about this >

Powered by

About Yensid

  • Nancy

    This is not news to most of us – including I suspect those conservatives who refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever. The problem is, what can be done about it? 30 years ago, information like this coming to light in the media brought down the Nixon administration; today, however, it gets posted & publicized – and nothing whatsoever happens. Are we so inured to government mendacity these days that it no longer matters?

  • Eric Olsen

    this has been slapped around at least twice here: the bottom line is that the meaning of the words in the report is ambiguous, the gun is not smoking, AND why is it inherently wrong for the administration to have predisposed to enact regime change in Iraq? Latching on to this aspect assumes there was no other reason to do this other than WMD, when in fact there were numerous reasons to do so, the most salient being that the region needed a serious enema and Iraq was where this was most possible.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    why is it inherently wrong for the administration to have predisposed to enact regime change in Iraq?

    if the administration had come right out and said that then it wouldn’t have been a problem. instead it was sold as needed for solving the problem of weapons of mass destruction.

    let’s face it they were obviously looking for regime change all along…and nancy’s point hits the mark: we’re so used to political truth twistings that, as long as we agree with the ends, we don’t give a shit about the means.

  • Maurice

    Yensid,

    welcome to the party albeit quite late. As mentioned by the other commentators this non-issue has been hashed and rehashed.

    Nancy, I think Eric answered your question very well but I would like to add that you may want to read ‘All the Presidents Men’ for an explanation of why Nixon resigned. There is no resemblence between this non-smoking gun and Nixon’s last days in office.

  • Matt

    What was the lie? Everyone from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein, at least until Bush was elected, and all of them said he had WMDs. In fact, getting rid of Hussein was the official policy of the US since 1998, so what’s the surprise here?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Two weeks behind the news a bit, Yensid?

    I almost didn’t post my article on this last week because it was already a week old and losing currency. By now it’s ancient news.

    What it comes down to ultimately is that the memo is third hand, ambiguous and nothing we didn’t already know. There’s enough there for those who want to use it to try to blow it up into something, but on examination it’s a hollow bubble and pops pretty quickly.

    Dave

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    lie to the Public…

    umm..even without the WMD bit, how about the “clear and present danger to our national security” bit?

    it was sold as if we were facing imminent attack by Iraq..in previous discussion all the proper quotes have been laid out…

    my big problem has always been, pre-emptive?…why?

    and then being misinformed or perhpas outright deceived about the answer

    when mistakes or incorrect “intelligence” is alluded to for reasoning NO ONE HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!!!

    in fact, the man Responsible for all the Intelligence..ex-CIA chief , did retire, but then received the highest civilian Award the President could bestow…

    does that sound like being held Accountable for a screw up that has cost well over $200 biliion so far, with no end in sight, over 1500 lives and more than 10,000 injured American soldiers?

    whether i thik the “reasons” are “right” or “wrong” at this point is immaterial, we are there, and we have to deal with the situation…my problem here is with Accountability

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • Eric Olsen

    yes, it would have been far preferable for Bush to have totally leveled with the American public and the world, but would regime change have been accepted under those terms? Likely not. So the question is, was it preferable to shade the truth and do what they — and I, by the way — believe needed to be done, or explain it bluntly and be precluded from enacting the policy?

    It’s an extremely thorny question because I DO NOT believe that the ends justify the means, but I also think regime change in Iraq was absolutely critical to breaking the atrophying logjam of the region

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Actually, the person who should have been held accountable for much of this is clearly Richard Perle, but he very cleverly got out of the administration and wrote a tell-all book, thereby making any attempt to punish him look like retaliation for his kissing and telling. But it seems as more and more information comes out that Perle was the main nexus through which information got fed and distorted.

    Dave

  • Richard

    NO ONE HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!
    Reminds me of Iran Contra, except Ollie was the fall guy. Do you think W will pick a fall guy?

  • http://spaces.msn.com/members/dorksandlosers Tan Hoang

    In history, leaders have done worse actions for less reward. I think further down the line in time that historians/people can really look with better perspective on these events and give us a clearer understanding. If Iraq really is a better place without Saddam in power? If the Middle East is a better place without Saddam’s Iraq? If terrorism has lost its grip on the world because of America/Britain’s actions. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t say our minds, but we all must make sure it is history that decides/judges right and wrong in the course of mankind.

  • Eric Olsen

    words of wisdom and perspective Tan, thanks

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Eric O sez…
    *It’s an extremely thorny question because I DO NOT believe that the ends justify the means, but I also think regime change in Iraq was absolutely critical to breaking the atrophying logjam of the region*

    well said…i am uncertain that it is the place of our Nation to “break the logjam”, the only possible Reasoning would be for National Security…but i have yet to see the case made for such, and am uncertain as to the cost/effect ratio in terms of our National “Blood and Treasure”

    Mr Nalle makes an excellent point about Richard Perle, but i do not think he is the only one involved…our current Attorney General wrote the legal briefs surrounding these matters(was a Counsel to the President, now A.G.), Wolfowitz was quite the hawkish advocate (Deputy Def Sec, now Pres of World Bank), Rumsfeld’s thoughts were also well known as well as Cheney’s and Rice’s (the last was Security Advisor, now Sec of State)

    so it appears not only were the thinkers/planners not held accountable..many got promoted

    Tan makes some astute Observations, but all come from the “Ends justify the Means” model…i personally find that line ethically repugnant…

    your milage may vary…

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>well said…i am uncertain that it is the place of our Nation to “break the logjam”, the only possible Reasoning would be for National Security…but i have yet to see the case made for such, and am uncertain as to the cost/effect ratio in terms of our National “Blood and Treasure”<<

    The problem here is that we were the only ones who could and would be willing to break the logjam. No one else had the resources and the resolve to do it. It’s not the ideal foreign policy, but if it works then in retrospect it will have been worth it.

    As for the National Security argument, it’s pretty simple. Terrorism threatens everyone, at home and abroad. If we change the conditions which make terrorism so popular, then we’re under less of a threat. The counter argument is that we may be breeding terrorists by our actions, but recent signs are that this argument isn’t correct, as public sentiment in the middle east seems to be growing more and more anti-terrorist to the point where terrorists will be either ostracized or dead.

    Dave

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Mr Nalle, while i Respect your Opinion..i do have one Question as top your last Paragraph…

    we are talking Iraq, yes?…what “terrorists” came from Iraq and attacked us?

    last time i recall any Iraqi’s attacking anyone, was Kuwait..and we went there and beat the shit out of them, sanctioned them hard enough to ruin their economy, and kept planes from flying over 2/3’s of the country…

    but no Iraqi terrorists..not on 9/11…not since…until we invaded and then allowed chaos/anarchy for a while , you remember all the fun looting and pillaging and neglecting to protect infrastructure…

    after that, yes..there are a shitload of terrorists, and they need to be dealt with…

    but before then?..not in Iraq…i know the whole “killing his own people” thing..most refer to the Kurds in the 80’s when Rumsfeld brokered the deal to sell him the WMD’s to use against Iran…or just after Gulf War 1 when we abandoned the Kurds and allowed Saddam to use the few bits of airpower he had to smack them around…

    i’m not saying he was anythign but an evil fucker, but there are a lot of evil fuckers in the world…why not invade and annex Cuba? …Castro is an evil fucker, communist to boot..and we could have a very nice new state to add to the union…

    mass killings?..how about Sudan?

    crazy dictators with WMD..real ones, nukes even..kooky Kim in north Korea and those wacky mullah’s in Iran come to mind…

    so , do forgive me if i am not buying into the bullshit rationale spewed forth by the Administration..they don’t seem to have a good record in terms of truthfullness or competence when it comes to some of these things..

    /end twaddle

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>we are talking Iraq, yes?…what “terrorists” came from Iraq and attacked us?<<

    Gonzo, you can’t take Iraq and separate it from the rest of the middle east. There may be separate countries, but it’s all one culture and one religion, with very open borders. Attacking Iraq, which was one of the main pillars in the support structure of terrorism has weakened the entire terrorist hierarchy, and the ongoing conflict there is forcing the terrorists into a showdown which will leave them marginalized, decimated and delegitimized if they lose.

    Dave

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Mr Nalle sez..
    *but it’s all one culture and one religion*

    one religion..nope..not really, big difference between sunni and shi’a

    one culture..>falls over laughing<

    i know you lived there for a while..how can you say that an Assyrian,Persian,Turk,Jew,Bedoin, Egyptian,Lebanese or Saudi are “culturally” the same?

    is a Dutchman the same as a Frenchman as a German as a Spainaird, etc?

    Mr Nalle sez..
    * Attacking Iraq, which was one of the main pillars in the support structure of terrorism*

    again..the only instance of “support” i am aware of was Saddam’s giving money to the parents of Palestinian bombers…that would make sense for Israel to invade perhaps..but a “pillar”?

    when Saudi Arabian royalty spends millions each year financing whabist schools that actively preach against the US…

    one other word on that….Iran

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • Bennett

    “which will leave them marginalized, decimated and delegitimized if they lose.”

    Hmmmm… Should I?

    Nah, I have better things to do, and only time will tell if this is one huge “if”.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, like any stucture, terrorism is supported by more than one pillar.

    As for Iraq’s support of terrorism. the payments to suicide bombers was the tip of the iceberg. No one is doing much to pursue it because events have passed it by, but there’s lots of evidence of monetary support for Al Quaeda and other groups either direct or channelled through Syria and the Palestinians. Plus, of course, Saddam’s reign was a reign of terror in and of itself.

    Oh, and Bennett. The big ‘if’ DID originate in my comment, eh.

    Dave

  • Bennett

    Dave, It did, and I was surprised to see it there. Perhaps I really shouldn’t have.

    Keep on.

  • Patriot

    We don’t need a leaked British memo to make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq — and lied about it to the American people.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Actually, Patriot. I challenge you to point to one time that Bush said explicitly that he wasn’t going to invade Iraq from the start of the campaign to the time he did it.

    Dave

  • Patriot

    Dave

    In the months leading up to the attack, President Bush and other high-ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the threat posed to the US and world by the Baghdad regime was so grave and imminent that the United States had to act quickly to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq.

    On September 28, 2002, for example, he said: “The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given… This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.”

    On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared: “Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people… I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction… The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.”

    These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no dangerous “weapons of mass destruction,” and posed no threat to the US. Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without foundation.

    So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack?

    Whatever the secondary reasons for the Iraq war, the crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish “neo-conservatives” holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush — who was already fervently committed to Israel — resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    So the answer to my question would then be a definitive ‘no’, you can’t demonstrate any instance in which Bush lied about his intentions to go to war in Iraq.

    Dave

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    heh..nope..he always said he wanted to go..

    it’s the Why he was deceptive about , Mr Nalle

    but you knew that

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.taospost.com MDE

    re: “Actually, Patriot. I challenge you to point to one time that Bush said explicitly that he wasn’t going to invade Iraq from the start of the campaign to the time he did it.”

    Why the ‘said explicitly’? How about ‘implied’. In the debates he stated that he didn’t think the US should engage in what he called nation building. This implies no invasion of Iraq.

    Grist for a national opinion poll: did he did or did he didn’t seem to rule out escalated war in Iraq before 9-11.

    Mark

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Why the ‘said explicitly’? How about ‘implied’. In the debates he stated that he didn’t think the US should engage in what he called nation building. This implies no invasion of Iraq.<<

    No, it explicitly says nothing about invading Iraq. It says that once we invade we’re not going to build a nation there. Clearly he changed his mind on that one, but I think that’s pretty understandable.

    Dave

  • Patriot

    Conversation in White House on 9-12-01

    Neocons: OK Georgie Boy – now is our chance to go forward with our 1995 plan to take out Saddam.

    George: But I can’t do that, I have no reason to.

    Neocons: George, you are really simple-minded, of course you do.

    George: What is that?

    Neocons: You tell Americans that Saddam is a terrorist with WMD’s

    George: OK – I get it. I can do that. But won’t I need proof?

    Neocons: Whatever we need – we’ll make up for you. Just listen to us.

    George: OK – Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.

    Neocons: Georgie Boy – we love you for your patriotism!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Not exactly Noel Coward, are you Patriot.

    Plus you got the basic facts wrong. It was Bush who wanted to invade Iraq first, not the Neocons. The Neocons want to invade everyone. Bush just wanted to get revenge on Saddam.

    Dave

  • Patriot

    OK Nutty One – read this and weep

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    OMG, Patriot – you just referred me to a neo-nazi holocaust-denial site. Was that intentional? You actually think the war on Iraq is part of a zionist conspiracy? Do you also think the Jews knew about the 9/11 attack?

    And you called ME ‘nutty’?

    Dave

  • http://jonsobel.com/ Jon Sobel

    Heh. I’m Jewish and I didn’t know. I bet those goshdurned commie pinko Socialists (ooh, scary!) knew, though, right, Dave? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

  • http://jonsobel.com/ Jon Sobel

    I wish someone here would try to defend Dave’s statement that “it’s all one culture and one religion.” I guess no one will because it’s impossible. True believers (on both sides) will do that often – make a blanket, patently wrong statement, and when challenged, simply clam up, as if the point they made was so obvious as to not need defending. I’m curious as to what the other right-leaning commentators such as Eric O. think of this?

    My quick answer to it would just be to point at the ongoing insurgency in Iraq (which includes a great deal of Muslims killing Muslims), the current and past conflicts in Lebanon, and that little war between Iran and Iraq that people seem to forget about. To mention a few.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    No one actually challenged me on it, Jon, so no one had to defend it. It was overly simplified, but in the context in which I made the statement it was also correct. I did not say it was one nation, one race, one polity or one religious sect. Culture is a very broad concept.

    In the region west of Iran one language will let you get anywhere, and everyone shares certain basic cultural concepts. I did not say it was one homogeneous culture, but there is a common culture that everyone partakes of, just as there is here in the US. The US is full of diverse nationalities and cultural groups, but we all share a unifying culture – culture being thngs like shared literature, media and interests.

    Are you saying that there is more difference between a Wahabi from Saudia Arabia and a Shiite from Iraq than there is between a Southern Baptist from Alabama and a Congregationalist from Massachusets? They speak the same languages, they use the same holy book, they watch the same cable TV – but aside from that they’re going to be radically different in their personal beliefs and interests. And that description works for both pairs. That’s a basic commonality of culture and one of them could move to where the other one lives and be basically functional

    Get it?

    Dave

  • Patriot

    Mr Nalle’s feeble response is “OMG, Patriot – you just referred me to a neo-nazi holocaust-denial site. Was that intentional? You actually think the war on Iraq is part of a zionist conspiracy? Do you also think the Jews knew about the 9/11 attack?

    And you called ME ‘nutty’?

    Yes – YOU.

    And with good cause.

    Let’s see what Mr Nalle is up to:

    After considering the article stating the reasons why Bush attacked Iraq, Mr Nalle wishes to excuse himself from directing his attention to even one statement in the referenced document, all of which have their sources identified, including Ernest F. Hollings, R. Dunn, A. S. Lewin, Yediot Aharnonot, J. Bamford, B. Whitaker, J. Vest, Jonathan Steele, Robert Novak, Wesley Clark, L. King, P. J. Buchanan, F. Nelson, and M. White.

    The reason Mr Nalle gives for being unable to respond to any of the statements attributed to the above-named, is that they are, in some way, “neo-nazi holocaust deniers“, whatever that is. The question of course is, why does Mr Nalle respond in this manner.

    It is remarkable that Mr Nalle wants to bring up the terms “holocaust” and Nazi”, subjects that have no bearing on why Bush attacked Iraq, or what is happening in this country in the year 2005.

    Mr Nalle is clearly incapable of rational thinking and discourse.

    If a statement is made that is false, the way to confront is with the truth. It’s that simple. But alluding to subjects which have no bearing or relationship to an issue shows either an inability to put forth a rationale response, or an attempt to hide the truth.

    And in another ludicrous statement, Mr Nalle questions whether the above-named actually think the war on Iraq is a Zionist conspiracy. Now why would Mr Nalle bring that up, unless there is support for such in the afore-mentioned article?

    It is clear that Mr Nalle wants to divert attention from the real issue of, “Why did President Bush decide to go to war? He goes so far as to make the absurd obfuscating statement, “Do you also think the Jews knew about the 9/11 attack?”

    Mr Nalle is among those in this country who cannot tolerate any criticism of the neo-cons and their support of Israel, and is willing to distort and obfuscate to protect them and their war against Iraq.

    The war against Iraq has only one winner and that is Israel no matter how you slice it. And Americans are the losers.

    American “conservatives” such Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and all the others who defend, and even promote sending thousands of Americans to die for a cause that benefits a foreign entity, and are willing to spend hundreds of billions of American taxpayers’ dollars to fight in a war that had no bearing on our national defense, are not worthy to be called Americans.

    Semper Fidelis.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>And in another ludicrous statement, Mr Nalle questions whether the above-named actually think the war on Iraq is a Zionist conspiracy. Now why would Mr Nalle bring that up, unless there is support for such in the afore-mentioned article? < <

    What are you talking about. The post I responded to consisted of nothing but a link to an article on a website which is known for anti-semitism and holocaust denial. They may have a decent argument from your point of view, but the site is more than just suspect. I refer you to this article from the Anti-Defamation League which exposes the IHR and their racist agenda.

    >>It is clear that Mr Nalle wants to divert attention < <

    You're the one who brought up an article on an anti-semitic website, not me.

    >>from the real issue of, “Why did President Bush decide to go to war?< <

    What's confusing about this issue? Bush did it to get revenge for his father and to give his friends who were in his Dad's administration a chance to finish the job they started.

    >> He goes so far as to make the absurd obfuscating statement, “Do you also think the Jews knew about the 9/11 attack?”< <

    Well, a lot of anti-semites do hold that position.

    >>Mr Nalle is among those in this country who cannot tolerate any criticism of the neo-cons and their support of Israel, and is willing to distort and obfuscate to protect them and their war against Iraq. <<

    You really are a nut, Patriot. I’m as anti-neocon as they come, but I’m also rational and don’t think the War on Iraq is part of a zionist conspiracy.

    Dave

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Mr Nalle is among those in this country who cannot tolerate any criticism of the neo-cons and their support of Israel, and is willing to distort and obfuscate to protect them and their war against Iraq.

    Mr. Nalle doesn’t need me to defend him but I take great exception to this statement. There are many issues that we haven’t agreed upon. That being said, Mr. Nalle has always been courteous and respectful of my views.

    The war against Iraq has only one winner and that is Israel no matter how you slice it. And Americans are the losers.

    There are no winners in any war. Once we invaded Iraq, we owned it. How Israel wins anything in this war is beyond me and America lost when it squandered the opportunities it had in the weeks following September 11, 2001.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    What exact opportunity did America supposedly squander after 9-11? If we had just rolled over and left the attacks unanswered, then maybe Jacques Chirac would like us. I’d much rather have people despise and fear us than feel pity and contempt for our weakness.

  • Patriot

    Mr Nalle is clearly incapable of rational thinking and discourse.

    Mr Nalle says “What are you talking about”?

    Mr Nalle, I am talking FACT, which is something you are unable to do in your posts.

    And just what is Mr Nalle’s “point of view“.

    It’s a reasonable question because all he can do is mumble, “anti-semitic website“ and “racist”.

    [Note to readers: According to Mr Nalle, any fact not acceptable to him and to which he has no rational response is “racist”].

    Mr Nalle’s “reason” to ignore facts, is to criticize the publisher.

    Mr Nalle totally ignores the truth of any statement, choosing instead to ignore FACTS because he has no answer. (old communist trick – Remember Nikita Khrushchev – banging his shoe to make noise at the UN when he could not answer charges of nukes being placed on the island of Cuba?)

    Israel has spies all over the place, and it had the military weapons supplied by us to keep Saddam Hussein from attacking it, but that was not enough. Our neo-cons were not satisfied and felt it was the duty of the United States to use its military might to take out Israel‘s arch foe in the area, and AIPAC ensured that it would happen, (All it took was the promise of campaign contributions).

    There are no winners in this war except the one entity that is unscathed and has seen the demise of its arch foe. But there is one BIG loser — the United States. The issue is not who owns Iraq now. That issue is yet to be decided. But if history is our teacher, the nationalist cause (complicated here because of religion and culture) will win out. We don’t know yet who that is but it is unlikely to be the United States.

    And everyone, please stop trying to connect Iraq with the attack on 9/11. That is so obnoxious to the truth that it is beginning to smell like a diaper a child with a good digestive system filled sometime ago.

    And please stop blaming the French for predicting the outcome of the Iraq morass that the neo-cons have led us into. It is an illegal, unconstitutional, unsubstantiated war that the majority of Americans want us out of – ASAP.

    It takes Americans awhile to wake up, but they are awakening to these facts:

    Fact:

    The United States Invasion of Iraq in March-April 2003, and the occupation of the country since then, has cost more than fifteen hundred American lives and many tens of billions of dollars, and has brought death to many thousands of Iraqis.

    Fact:

    In the months leading up to the attack, President Bush and other high-ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the threat posed to the US and world by the Baghdad regime was so grave and imminent that the United States had to act quickly to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq.

    Fact:

    On September 28, 2002, for example, Bush said: “The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given… This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.”

    Fact:

    On March 6, 2003, Bush declared: “Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people… I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction… The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.”

    Fact:

    These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no dangerous “weapons of mass destruction,” and posed no threat to the US. Moreover, alarmist rumors that the Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without foundation.

    So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack?

    Fact:

    The crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish “neo-conservatives” holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush — who was already fervently committed to Israel — resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies.

    Fact:

    This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq “to secure Israel,” and “everybody” knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author.

    Fact:

    Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying that “nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on.” Due to “the pressures we get politically,” he added, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies. [Remarks by Ernest F. Hollings, May 20, 2004. Congressional Record — Senate, May 20, 2004, pages S5921-S5925.]

    Fact:

    Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said in an interview: “Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.” [The Guardian (London), August 20, 2002.]

    Fact:

    President Bush’s fervent support for Israel and its leader is well known. He reaffirmed it, for example, in June 2002 in a major speech on the Middle East. In the view of “leading Israeli commentators,” the London Times reported, the address was “so pro-Israel that it might have been written by Ariel Sharon.” [R. Dunn, “Sharon Could Have Written Speech,” The Times (London), June 26, 2002]

    Fact:

    Condoleeza Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor, echoed the President’s outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.” [A. S. Lewin, “Israel’s Security is Key to Security of Rest of World,” Jewish Press (Brooklyn, NY), May 14, 2003. Rice’s interview with the Israeli daily Yediot Aharnonot is quoted]

    Fact:

    In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state.” He also told the gathering: “By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America.” [Bush address to AIPAC convention, Washington, DC, May 18, 2004]

    Fact:

    Jewish-Zionist plans for war against Iraq had been in place for years.
    In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle East. Entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Specifically, it called for an “effort [that] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right…”

    [Text posted at: http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm See also: J. Bamford, A Pretext for War (Doubleday, 2004), pages 261-269; B. Whitaker, “Playing Skittles with Saddam,” The Guardian (Britain), Sept. 3, 2002].

    Fact:

    The authors of “A Clean Break” included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, three influential Jews who later held high-level positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004: Perle as chair of the Defense Policy Board, Feith as Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser as special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.

    The role played by Bush administration officials who are associated with two major pro-Zionist “neoconservative” research centers has come under scrutiny from The Nation, the influential public affairs weekly. [J. Vest, “The Men From JINSA and CSP,” The Nation, Sept. 2, 2002]

    Fact:

    The author, Jason Vest, examined the close links between the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), detailing the ties between these groups and various politicians, arms merchants, military men, wealthy pro-Israel American Jews, and Republican presidential administrations.

    Fact:

    JINSA and CSP members, notes Vest, “have ascended to powerful government posts, where… they’ve managed to weave a number of issues — support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general — into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core… On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war — not just with Iraq, but ‘total war,’ as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it… For this crew, ‘regime change’ by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.”

    Fact:

    Samuel Francis, author, editor and columnist, has also looked into the “neo-conservative” role in fomenting war.

    “My own answer,” he wrote, “is that the lie [that a massively-armed Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the US] was fabricated by neo-conservatives in the administration whose first loyalty is to Israel and its interests and who wanted the United States to smash Iraq because it was the biggest potential threat to Israel in the region. They are known to have been pushing for war with Iraq since at least 1996, but they could not make an effective case for it until after Sept. 11, 2001…

    “What has been happening inside the Bush administration is no less a nest of treason than the Soviet spy rings of the New Deal era, and if political reality doesn’t demand its exposure, simple loyalty to the United States does.” [S. Francis, “Weapons of Mass Deception: Somebody Lied,” column of Feb. 6, 2004].

    In the aftermath of the 2001 Nine-Eleven terror attacks, ardently pro-Zionist “neo-conservatives” in the Bush administration — who for years had sought a Middle East war to bolster Israel’s security in the region — exploited the tragedy to press their agenda. In this they were backed by the Israeli government, which also pressured the White House to strike Iraq.

    Fact:

    The Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian, the respected British daily, reported in August 2002: “Israel signalled its decision yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel.” [Jonathan Steele, “Israel Puts Pressure on US to Strike Iraq,” The Guardian (London), August 17, 2002].

    Fact:

    Three months before the US invasion, the well-informed Washington journalist Robert Novak reported that Israeli prime minister Sharon was telling American political leaders that “the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.” Moreover, added Novak, “that view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are assembling for war.” [Robert Novak, “Sharon’s War?,” column of Dec. 26, 2002].

    Fact:

    Israel’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq’s ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons [of mass destruction] existed.” [L. King, “Ex-General Says Israel Inflated Iraqi Threat,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 5, 2003.]

    Fact:

    For some Jewish leaders, the Iraq war is part of a long-range effort to install Israel-friendly regimes across the Middle East. Norman Podhoretz, a prominent Jewish writer and an ardent supporter of Israel, has been for years editor of Commentary, the influential Zionist monthly. In the Sept. 2002 issue he wrote: “The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [Iraq, Iran, North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.”

    Fact:

    Patrick J. Buchanan, the well-known writer and commentator, and former White House Communications director, has been blunt in identifying those who pushed for war:

    “We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging US relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity…

    “Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

    “Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud. [P. J. Buchanan, “Whose War?,” The American Conservative, March 24, 2003].

    Fact:

    Uri Avnery — an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, and a three-time member of Israel’s parliament — sees the Iraq war as an expression of immense Jewish influence and power. In an essay written some weeks after the US invasion, he wrote:

    “Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers.

    The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush’s Republican party. …Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.”

    Fact:

    In Britain, a veteran member of Britain’s House of Commons bluntly declared in May 2003 that Jews had taken control of America’s foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US into war. “A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians,” said Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy and the longest-serving House member. “There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States,” he added. [F. Nelson, “Anger Over Dalyell’s ‘Jewish Cabal’ Slur,” The Scotsman (Edinburgh), May 5, 2003; M. White, “Dalyell Steps Up Attack On Levy,” The Guardian (London), May 6, 2003].

    Fact:

    For many years now, American presidents of both parties have been committed to Israel. This entrenched policy is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s political and cultural life. It was fervent support for Israel — shared by President Bush, high-ranking administration officials and nearly the entire US Congress — that proved crucial in the decision to invade and subdue one of Israel’s greatest regional enemies.

    Fact:

    While the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq helped Israel by overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein, just as those who wanted and planned for the war had hoped, it has been a calamity for America and the world. It has cost tens of thousands of lives and many tens of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States, and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-American terrorists.

    ***

    Now, if that us not enough to galvanize your “patriotic” minds, turn your attention to another example of what AIPAC has done to this country:

    Fact:

    After forty years, retired officers of the U.S. Navy are still unable to pry loose all the documents that shed light on the WORST PEACETIME DISASTER IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY.

    Fact:

    In this quest, they have encountered resistance by the Department of Defense, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the book publishing industry, the news media, and the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The resistance, seemingly coordinated on an international scale, is especially perplexing because the US Navy retirees’s goal is public awareness of an episode of heroism and tragedy at sea that is without precedent in American history.

    Fact:

    As the result of a program of concealment supported by successive governments in both Israel and the United States, hardly anyone remembers the miraculous survival of the USS USS Liberty after a devastating assault by Israeli forces on June 8, 1967, left 34 sailors dead, 171 injured, and the damaged ship adrift with no power, rudder, or means of communication.

    Fact:

    The sustained courage of Captain William L. McGonagle and his crew in these desperate circumstances earned the USS Liberty a place of honor in the annals of the U.S. Navy. But despite energetic endeavors, awareness of the incident remains unknown to most Americans.

    Fact:

    The episode and its aftermath were so incredible that Admiral Thomas L. Moorer, who became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a month after the attack, observes, “If it was written as fiction, nobody would believe it.”

    Fact:

    The attack was no accident. The USS Liberty was assaulted in broad daylight by Israeli forces who knew the ship’s identity. The USS Liberty, an intelligence- gathering ship, had no combat capability and carried only light machine guns for defense. A steady breeze made its U.S. flag easily visible. The assault occurred over a period of nearly two hours–first by air, then by torpedo boat. The ferocity of the attacks left no doubt: the Israeli forces wanted the ship and its crew destroyed.

    Fact:

    The public, however, was kept in the dark. Even before the American public learned of the attack, U.S. government officials began to promote an account of the assault that was satisfactory to Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee worked through congressmen to keep the story under control. The president of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, ordered and led a cover-up so thorough that sixteen years after he left office, the episode was still largely unknown to the public–and the men who suffered and died have gone largely unhonored.

    Fact:

    The day of the attack began in routine fashion, with the ship first proceeding slowly in an easterly direction in the eastern Mediterranean, later following the contour of the coastline westerly about fifteen miles off the Sinai Peninsula.

    Fact:

    At 6:00 A.M. that day, an airplane, identified by the USS Liberty crew as an Israeli aircraft, slowly circled the ship, then departed. At 9:00 A.M., a jet appeared at a distance, then to the left of the ship.

    Fact:

    At 10:00 A.M., two rocket-armed jets circled the ship three times. They were close enough for their pilots to be observed through binoculars. The planes were unmarked. An hour later the Israeli aircraft returned, flying not more than 200 feet directly above the USS Liberty and clearly marked with the Star of David. The ship’s crew members and the pilot waved at each other. The plane returned every few minutes until 1:00 P.M. By then, the ship had changed course and was proceeding almost due west.

    Fact:

    At 2:00 P.M., three Israeli Mirage fighter planes headed straight for the USS Liberty, their rockets taking out the forward machine guns and wrecking the ship’s antennae. The Mirages were joined by Mystere fighters, which dropped napalm on the bridge and deck and repeatedly strafed the ship. The attack continued for more than twenty minutes. In all, the ship sustained 821 holes in her sides and decks. Of these, more than 100 were rocket-sized.

    Fact:

    As the aircraft departed, three torpedo boats took over the attack, firing five torpedoes, one of which tore a forty-foot hole in the hull, killing 25 sailors. The ship was in flames, dead in the water, listing precariously, and taking on water. The crew was ordered to prepare to abandon ship. As life rafts were lowered into the water, the torpedo boats moved closer and shot them to pieces. One boat concentrated machine gun fire on rafts that were still on deck as crew members there tried to extinguish the napalm fires. Petty Officer Charles Rowley declares, “They didn’t want anyone to live.”

    Fact:

    At 3:15 P.M., the last shot was fired, leaving the vessel a combination morgue and hospital. The ship had no engines, no power, no rudder. Fearing further attack, Captain McGonagle, despite severe leg injuries, stayed at the bridge. An Israeli helicopter, its open bay door showing troops in battle gear and a machine gun mounted in an open doorway, passed close to the deck, then left. Other aircraft came and went during the next hour.

    Fact:

    U.S. air support never arrived. The USS SARATOGA was only thirty minutes away, and, with a squadron of fighter planes on deck ready for a routine operation, it was prepared to respond to an attack almost instantly. But the rescue never occurred. Without approval by Washington, the planes could not take aggressive action, even to rescue a U.S. ship confirmed to be under attack. Admiral Donald Engen, then captain of the USS AMERICA, a second U.S. carrier in the vicinity, later explained: “President Johnson had very strict control. Even though we knew the USS Liberty was under attack, I couldn’t just go and order a rescue.”

    Fact:

    The ship’s planes were hardly in the air when the voice of Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara was heard over Sixth Fleet radios: “Tell the Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft back immediately.” They were ordered to have no part in destroying or driving off the attackers.

    Fact:

    Shortly after 3:00 P.M., nearly an hour after the USS Liberty’s plea was first heard, the White House gave momentary approval to a rescue mission, and planes from both carriers were launched. At almost precisely the same instant, the Israeli government informed the U.S. naval attache in Tel Aviv that its forces had “erroneously attacked a U.S. ship” after mistaking it for an Egyptian vessel, and offered “abject apologies.” With the apology in hand, Johnson once again ordered U.S. aircraft back to their carriers.

    Fact:

    The cover-up began almost at the precise moment that the Israeli assault ended. The apology from Israeli officials reached the White House moments after the last gun fired at the USS Liberty. President Johnson accepted and publicized the condolences of Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, even though readily available information showed the Israeli account to be false; the CIA had learned a day before the attack that the Israelis planned to sink the ship.

    Fact:

    Nevertheless, congressional comments largely echoed the president’s interpretation of the assault, and the casualties on the USS Liberty got scant attention. Smith Hempstone, foreign correspondent for the WASHINGTON STAR, wrote from Tel Aviv, “In a week since the Israeli attack on the USS USS Liberty, not one single Israeli of the type which this correspondent encounters many times daily–cab drivers, censors, bartenders, soldiers–has bothered to express sorrow for the deaths of these Americans.”

    Fact:

    The Pentagon staved off reporters’ inquiries with the promise of a “comprehensive statement” once the official inquiry, conducted by Admiral Isaac Kidd, was finished.

    Fact:

    Arriving at Malta, Kidd gave explicit orders to the crew: “Answer no questions. If somehow you are backed into a corner, then you may say that it was an accident and that Israel has apologized. You may say nothing else.” Crew members were assured they could talk freely to reporters once the summary of the Court of Inquiry was made public. This was later modified. They were then ordered not to provide information beyond the precise words of the published summary.

    Fact:

    The court was still taking testimony when a charge that the attack had been deliberate appeared in the U.S. press.

    Fact:

    An AP story filed from Malta reported that “senior crewmen” on the ship were convinced the Israelis knew the ship was American before they attacked. “We were flying the Stars and Stripes and it’s absolutely impossible that they shouldn’t know who we were,” a crew member said. The navy disputed the story, saying the United States “thoroughly accepted the Israeli apology.”

    Fact:

    With the testimony completed, Admiral Kidd handcuffed himself to a huge box of records and flew to Washington where they were examined by Chief of Naval Operations Admiral McDonald, as well as by congressional leaders before the long-awaited summary statement was issued.

    Fact:

    When it was finally released, it was far from comprehensive. It made no attempt to fix blame, focusing instead almost entirely on the actions of the crew.

    Fact:

    The censored summary did not reveal that the ship had been under close aerial surveillance by Israel for hours before the attack, or that during the preceding twenty-four hours Israel had repeatedly warned U.S. authorities to move the USS Liberty.

    Fact:

    It contained nothing to dispute the notion of mistaken identity. The navy erroneously reported that the attack lasted only six minutes instead of seventy minutes, and falsely asserted that all firing stopped when the torpedo boats came close enough to identify the U.S. flag. The navy made no mention of napalm or of life rafts being shot up. It even suppressed records of the strong breeze that made the ship’s U.S. flag plainly visible.

    Fact:

    The report did make one painful revelation: Before the attack, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had ordered the USS Liberty to move farther from the coast, but the message “was misrouted, delayed, and not received until after the attack.”

    Fact:

    “Several newspapers criticized the Pentagon’s summary, because it “leaves a good many questions unanswered.” Some used the word “cover-up,” and called the summary an “affront,” and demanded a deeper and wider probe.

    Fact:

    It never came.

    Fact:

    Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, after a closed briefing by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, called the episode “very embarrassing.” The STAR concluded: “Whatever the meaning of this, embarrassment is no excuse for disingenuousness.”

    Fact:

    The ship’s name appeared in large letters on the stern and the hull number was plainly visible on the bow. A breeze made the ship’s U.S. flag easily visible during the day. A new 5- by 8-foot flag was displayed early on the day of the attack. By the time the torpedo boats arrived, that flag had been shot down, but an even larger (7- by 13-foot) flag was mounted in plain view from a yardarm.

    Fact:

    The attackers, whether by air or surface, could not avoid knowing it was a U.S. ship. Above all, the USS Liberty’s intercept operators had heard the Israeli reconnaissance pilots reporting to Israeli headquarters that the ship was American.

    Fact:

    Concerning Israeli motives for the attack, Israeli officials may have decided to destroy the ship because they feared its sensitive listening devices would detect Israeli plans to invade Syria’s Golan Heights. (Israel invaded Syria the day after the USS Liberty attack, despite Israel’s earlier acceptance of a ceasefire with its Arab foes.) A BBC television documentary titled DEAD IN THE WATER was broadcast several times in England and in several European markets–but not in the United States. The documentary reported a different theory: Israel wanted to destroy the USS Liberty, confident that Egypt, not Israel, would be blamed. Israel hoped this would provoke sufficient American outrage against Egypt that the United States would enter the war in alliance with Israel.

    Fact:

    Americans have already paid too high a price for their nation’s commitment to Israel. We will pay an ever higher price — not just in dollars or international prestige, but in the lives of young men squandered for the interests of a foreign state — until the Jewish-Zionist hold on US political life is finally broken.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    My word that’s a long post, Patriot. I’m not a huge fan of Israel or anything, but your interminable diatribe demonstrates nothing but that you’re an obsessive anti-Israeli zionist conspiracy nut.

    Your endless comment came in response to nothing I had said except pointing out that your main reference – your ‘aha!’ link – which was supposed to reveal all truth to me, was to what has been described as “the world’s single most important outlet for Holocaust-denial propaganda,” and which is chock full of position papers and supposed research by avowed neo-nazis and holocaust deniers.

    I’m not going to respond to all the stuff in your endless comment, I’m just going to respond to one line:

    “the lives of young men squandered for the interests of a foreign state — until the Jewish-Zionist hold on US political life is finally broken.”

    Ok then, just out of curiosity, how many Jews do you believe were killed under the government of Nazi Germany before and during WW2?

    Answer that one for me honestly and I’ll consider discussing your other points.

    Dave

  • Patriot

    Mr Nalle has difficulty responding to FACTS.

    If only Mr Nalle could disassociate himself from his trite responses.

    Mr Nalle believes that a listing of facts is a “diatribe“. It’s obvious he doesn’t know the difference – and what is worse – he uses “interminable” and “obsessive” to describe a series of facts. Now “interminable and “obsessive” are strong adjectives, so he does understand that strong adjectives are needed when his response is weak or nonexistent.

    For good measure, Mr Nalle throws in “conspiracy nut” to support his lack of factual evidence.

    Next, Mr Nalle doesn’t understand that an “Israeli” is a person who lives in Israel, and that a person living in Israel could be a “Zionist” or a Secular Jew or an Arab Moslem (or possibly – but unlikely, a Christian),

    And Mr Nalle certainly doesn’t understand what “Zionist” means. He doesn’t understand that Zionism is a political cause – it is not a religion and it is not a race. But Mr Nalle likes to make up whatever he believes will enhance his non-argument.

    Mr Nalle certainly doesn’t understand that there are Jews who are Zionists, and there are Jews who are not Zionists. There are non-Jews who are Zionists and there are non-Jews who are not Zionists.

    It is obvious Mr Nalle has great difficulty with language as well as facts.

    Mr Nalle is proficient at switching to the well-worn response to any fact which is not to his liking and which he wishes to avoid or deny.

    Mr Nalle likes to invoke his favorite phrase – “ Holocaust-denial propaganda” – as if documents describing what happened during WWII could be denied. It is the mantra of those who have no answers to valid questions concerning events of WWII to resort to this type of diatribe when questioned about facts which are to be avoided.

    Of course this phrase was created to enable those so inclined to disregard any question regarding WWII documented facts.

    Mr Nalle believes the only way to dispute other opinions on what happened during WWII is to attack the questioner rather than answer the question.

    Mr Nalle, since you brought it up – and you are obsessed with the issue – just out of curiosity, how many Jews do you believe were killed under the government of Nazi Germany before and during WWII?

    If you cannot provide these numbers just say so and I will understand.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    So okay, you’re not going to answer my question. Carry on with your anti-jewish conspiracy ranting then. With every word yoiu expose yourself more for what you really are.

    >>Mr Nalle believes the only way to dispute other opinions on what happened during WWII is to attack the questioner rather than answer the question.< <

    I haven't disputed your opinions on WW2 yet. In the context of your opinions on contemporary zionism I wanted to hear your opinion on the fate of Jews during the holocaust, which you seem reluctant to discuss.

    >>Mr Nalle, since you brought it up – and you are obsessed with the issue< <

    Obsessed? I'm barely even interested. I just find your cornered defensiveness amusing.

    >> – just out of curiosity, how many Jews do you believe were killed under the government of Nazi Germany before and during WWII?<<

    So I have to answer my own question before you are willing to answer it? That hardly seems fair, but I’ll humor you.

    Jews were likely the second largest group to be exterminated by the Nazis, who actually killed more ethnic Slavs than Jews. In approximate numbers That’s 10 million Slavs (many of whom may also have been Jews), just under 6 million Jews, and another million of ethnic German ‘undesirables’, plus Gypsies and others.

    How do you feel about those figures?

    Dave

  • Patriot

    Your question is your question and your answer is your answer.

    I have no interest in your question because it has nothing to do with documents making it evident that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq — and lied about it to the American people. The question is why did Bush attack Iraq?

    You are the one who is exposing yourself.

    Your interest in pursuing what is not relevant shows that either you are too ignorant to stick to the issue at hand – or you have a stronger allegiance to Israel than to the United States and you must bring up WWII events to keep them alive hoping for continued American aid to Israel.

    I would expect that my words would expose me for who I am.

    What I am is an American who has no allegiance to any foreign entity – something that I find wanting in you.

    All I see in you is an abject obsession with events of WWII. We all know about WWII and the atrocities that were committed. There are significant documents and testimony that have been presented and discussed over and over for decades.

    When will you turn your attention to what Bush did to get us into a war in Iraq?

    And if you want to discuss other related events — why not start with the attack on the USS Liberty. That is at least is somewhat related to the issue at hand.

  • HW Saxton

    Didn’t Stalin kill even more Slavs and
    Jews put together than the “3rd Reich”
    did though ?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Stalin killed more of his own people than any other leader ever, HW.

    And Patriot, I’ve already discussed the War in Iraq exhaustively on this and other threads. You have nothing new that isn’t just conspiracy drivel to add to the discussion.

    I conclude from your unwillingness to address the holocaust issue that you are, indeed a holocaust denier, and if you’re that far off the mark about established historical fact and writing from a perspective warped by anti-semitism, why should I take anything you have to say about recent events at all seriously?

    Dave

  • Bob

    I am a little uncertain. I thought Mao had the all time record for people killed (I could be wrong). After all, he had more to start with.

    As for killing per unit time, that record goes to the Rwandan Hutu’s. As for highest percentage of population, that (Dis)honor goes to Pol Pot.

    Kind of makes us horrible Americans look like rank amatures, doesn’t it?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I’ve never seen an accurate count of how many people Mao killed in the course of his reign. Estimates for Stalin are around 40 million. Of course, they’re both distinguished from Hitler as being less purely genocidal. While Stalin liked to kill Jews more than other people, they were a fraction of his total body count. Same for Mao who killed ethnic minorities more than Han Chinese, but not all that aggressively.

    Dave

  • Patriot

    Mr Nalle says – “I’ve already discussed the War in Iraq exhaustively on this and other threads. You have nothing new that isn’t just conspiracy drivel to add to the discussion.”

    Mr Nalle has “exhausted” his interest in how we got ourselves involved in Iraq – it’s good to know that Mr Nalle hs ceased to comment on the war in Iraq.

    We should pay attention to future posts on the subject – and whether Mr Nalle appears there with his drivel.

    Mr Nalle prefers to discuss what happened over 60 years ago and which has been discussed in thousands of volumes and countless hours since then – instead of what is currently the biggest morass we have been in since Vietnam.

    And Mr Nalle is upset because he does not get the response he wants from me – because I will not provide him with what he wants me to say.

    Mr Nalle prefers to use inflammatory name-calling to promote his agenda.

    Mr Nalle – I will not take your bait – Your objective is obvious – I have seen how your organization (AIPAC) blacklists and slanders those who disagree with it.

    Mr Nalle shows clearly that he is not concerned with a treason that takes us into wars under false pretenses – he is more interested in promoting the agenda of AIPAC in its quest to make blind support of Israel the number one priority – above loyalty to this country.

    So Mr Nalle has outed himself – he is a card-carrying supporter of AIPAC – an American organization with its first allegiance to Israel, not the United States.

    Mr Nalle should read “What Price Israel” by Alfred M Lilienthal, to see where he went wrong.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Wow, you really are in full-on crazy mode today, Patriot. It’s exhilarating.

    >>Mr Nalle has “exhausted” his interest in how we got ourselves involved in Iraq – it’s good to know that Mr Nalle hs ceased to comment on the war in Iraq.< <

    I haven't ceased to comment on it, I've ceased to go over old points with you, especially when you won't do me the courtesy of answering my simple contextual question.

    >>Mr Nalle prefers to discuss what happened over 60 years ago and which has been discussed in thousands of volumes and countless hours since then – instead of what is currently the biggest morass we have been in since Vietnam.< <

    I find your position on the Holocaust to be an important first step, as it establishes your credibility. Refusing to answer that simple question over and over again makes it hard to discuss anything else with you.

    >>And Mr Nalle is upset because he does not get the response he wants from me – because I will not provide him with what he wants me to say.< <

    I'll be perfectly happy with anything you say. The problem is you won't say anything.

    >>Mr Nalle – I will not take your bait – Your objective is obvious – I have seen how your organization (AIPAC) blacklists and slanders those who disagree with it.< <

    My organization? OMG, I'm part of the zionist conspiracy now! Where on earth did you get the idea I was associated with AIPAC? Is this how you build your conspiracy theories, just assume that anyone who finds you suspect is automatically a conspirator?

    >>Mr Nalle shows clearly that he is not concerned with a treason that takes us into wars under false pretenses – he is more interested in promoting the agenda of AIPAC in its quest to make blind support of Israel the number one priority – above loyalty to this country.< <

    I can safely say that I've never written an article on BC or on my own blog either in support of or opposition to Israel in the context of Iraq or anything else. But that's because I'm not a zionist conspiracy nut who thinks the ZOG is behind the 9/11 attacks.

    >>Mr Nalle should read “What Price Israel” by Alfred M Lilienthal, to see where he went wrong.<<

    Well, Lilienthal at least admits the existence of the Holocaust, so that’s something. Do you agree? His anti-zionism is of a more sensible, less racist sort, what with being a Jew himself and all.

    Dave

  • Patriot

    Mr Nalle is noted for his attempted diversions from the issue at hand – which is:

    “The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception”

    Mr Nalle doesn’t want to hear about what Ernest F. Hollings, R. Dunn, A. S. Lewin, Yediot Aharnonot, J. Bamford, B. Whitaker, J. Vest, Jonathan Steele, Robert Novak, Wesley Clark, L. King, P. J. Buchanan, F. Nelson, and M. White have been quoted saying about the lies and deception of the neo-cons in our government and the real cause of the war in Iraq.

    And to further illustrate the problem, Mr Nalle was pointed to the attack on the USS Liberty and the deception and lies out of our government that made up that debacle.

    It is clear that Mr Nalle cannot refute what all those named above have claimed.

    Does Mr Nalle want to go on the record as calling them all liars?

    What Mr Nalle wants to do is play his little game of “guess who” – “how many Jews were killed under the government of Nazi Germany before and during WWII?”

    That is his obsession.

    He thinks it’s “exhilarating’ to divert attention from the real issue by a harangue over what happened more than 60 years ago.

    He also says he has “ceased to go over old points” because I will not play his little game. He reminds me of the little boy in the school yard – who not getting what he wanted – picked up his marbles and went home.

    Read what the above-named individuals have written and tell me how what they said is relevant to your little game.

    Mr Nalle – I would be glad to provide an answer if your question was relevant – but it is not relevant, and your saying it is relevant will not make it so. And if you are saying that I must answer you on your terms – and play your little game – I say I do not cater to bullshit.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Patriot, I was not particularly involved in this discussion until you decided to start referencing racist websites to support your position. That’s the only thing that’s kept me here and the only thing I’m interested in discussing. I’m not about to waste a minute on your silly conspiracy theories. I can get all the crazy conspiracy theories I want on any number of extreme left websites.

    My ‘obsession’ is with getting you to be honest about your beliefs, which you absolutely refuse to do. I’m not going to discuss what you want to discuss and give it legitimacy when you aren’t willing to establish basic credibility by answering my perfectly reasonable question.

    Your anti-semitic conspiracy theories aren’t nearly as interesting as your unwillingness to make a simple statement acknowledging the existence of the Holocaust. Come on, you can do it – repeat after me: “Hitler ordered the death of —- (insert number here) innocent Jews.”

    Until you can make a statement on that subject I can’t imagine anyone taking your comments seriously.

    Dave

  • Jesus Christ

    Let us bring some civility back to the forum my children.

    Now Dave,
    Yes- Bush is a monkey faced douche-bag.
    And Patriot,
    Yes- The Jews are greasy schemers.

    Now we must move forward.
    Bless you all.
    Jesus

  • Patriot

    Mr Nalle believes that the neo-cons had nothing to do with AIPAC and the decision to go to war in Iraq for Israel.

    Mr Nalle says that bringing it up – makes me part of an “anti-semitic conspiracy”.

    No information showing that linkage can sway Mr Nalle. So – the question is – why does Mr Nalle show no interest? There is no amount of relevant detail that piques his interest…

    Truly Amazing!

    In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: “By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America.”

    Is George Bush also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Condoleeza Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor, echoed the President’s outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”

    Is Condoleeza Rice also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    US Senator Ernest Hollings acknowledged that the US invaded Iraq “to secure Israel,” and “everybody” knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author.

    Is Senator Ernest Hollings also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said in an interview:

    “Those who favor this attack by the US against Iraq now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.”

    Is Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle East. Entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Specifically, it called for an “effort that can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right…”

    The authors of “A Clean Break” included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, three influential Jews who later held high-level positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004: Perle as chair of the Defense Policy Board, Feith as Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser as special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.

    Was then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Jason Vest, examined the close links between the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), detailing the ties between these groups and various politicians, arms merchants, military men, wealthy pro-Israel American Jews, and Republican presidential administrations
    JINSA and CSP members, notes Vest, “have ascended to powerful government posts, where… they’ve managed to weave a number of issues — with support for the Israeli right at its core… On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war — not just with Iraq, but ‘total war,’ as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it… For this crew, ‘regime change’ by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.”

    Is Jason Vest, and those he identifies here, also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Samuel Francis, author, editor and columnist, has also looked into the “neo-conservative” role in fomenting war.

    “My own answer,” he wrote, “is that the lie that a massively-armed Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the US was fabricated by neo-conservatives in the administration whose first loyalty is to Israel and its interests and who wanted the United States to smash Iraq because it was the biggest potential threat to Israel in the region. They are known to have been pushing for war with Iraq since at least 1996, but they could not make an effective case for it until after Sept. 11, 2001…

    “What has been happening inside the Bush administration is no less a nest of treason than the Soviet spy rings of the New Deal era, and if political reality doesn’t demand its exposure, simple loyalty to the United States does.”

    Is Samuel Francis also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    The Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian, the respected British daily, reported in August 2002: “Israel signalled its decision yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel.”

    Is the Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Three months before the US invasion, the well-informed Washington journalist Robert Novak reported that Israeli prime minister Sharon was telling American political leaders that “the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.” Moreover, added Novak, “that view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are assembling for war.”

    Is Robert Novak also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Israel’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq’s ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel (maybe intentionally?) and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons of mass destruction existed.”

    Is Brigadier General Shlomo Bron also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    For some Jewish leaders, the Iraq war is part of a long-range effort to install Israel-friendly regimes across the Middle East. Norman Podhoretz, a prominent Jewish writer and an ardent supporter of Israel, has been for years editor of Commentary, the influential Zionist monthly. In the Sept. 2002 issue he wrote: “The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [Iraq, Iran, North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.”

    Is Norman Podhoretz also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    HOT DAWG! – MR NALLE… DO WE EVER HAVE A NEST OF CONSPIRATORS HERE!!!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Wow you took a long time to not answer my question, Patriot. I give up.

    My remaining suggestion is that you put all of your paranoia together into a substantial article and post that, rather than covering all of this on someone else’s thread.

    Dave

  • Patriot

    Mr Nalle – you are slow.

    What ever made you think I would play your little game?

    Why on earth should I play your little game – when the issue is about something totally unrelated?

    You can continue to call anything you want “paranoia” — but you calling it doesn’t make it paranoia.

    Perhaps you could have found a better excuse to avoid the real issue of why we invaded Iraq.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    You really need to find someone to discuss this with who’s interested. As I said, the best way to do that is to take all your thoughts and put them together into a coherent article laying out exactly why the ZOG got us into the war.

    Dave

  • Patriot

    It is clear that the subject Mr Nalle has consistently brought forth recently is “how many Jews died in WWII”.

    It is also clear this is not the subject that this post is all about.

    It is perfectly clear that the subject is about a leaked British memo, and other documents, which make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq — and lied about it to the American people.

    Mr Nalle has made it clear that he wants to run the show and wants to “test” those who post here to see if they meet his qualifications.

    Mr Nalle – is like a child throwing a tantrum.

    Mr Nalle — GROW UP!!!

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    Ambivalent as I am about bringing this thread up again, today’s news fuels Patriot’s argument. Seems that AIPAC is implicated in a case of ‘spying’. See story.

    Mark

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Note that I’ve never said AIPAC is a desirable organization. There are lots of good reasons to oppose their activities. But thinking that they are part of a shadow government conspiracy and hating them solely out of irrational anti-semitism is a problem, and one which Patriot seems to be afflicted with.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    A propos of marginal comments, why is it considered to be antiSemitism to criticize Israel, Israeli policies, etc.? I’m not asking in reference to the above exchanges, I’m just asking in general. It seems to me that any time anyone says anything even mildly critical of anything even vaguely Jewish (or Black, or Hispanic, or Gay/Lesbian, or Conservative, or Liberal) that criticism is automatically construed as being rooted in anti-whateverism. Isn’t it possible to disagree with a group and criticize, without automatically being anti-them? Just asking; maybe I don’t understand the definition of ‘criticism’ correctly, altho I swear I thought I could speak/understand basic English.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    It’s not considered anti-semitic to criticize Israel. It IS considered anti-semitic to criticize Israel solely because it’s full of nasty icky Jews.

    In the case of Patriot, his zeal to stamp out Israel originates in a zeal to stamp out Jews as a race, so he’s immediately suspect on the topic. He accidentally tipped his hand early in this discussion by drawing all his data solely from holocaust denial and neo-nazi web sources.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Ah. I’ve noticed that frequently in various situations – on TV, radio, the net, the papers, etc. – even mild criticism of various groups brings down ringing denunciation of the critics as being ‘anti-‘ this or that, even when (IMO) the criticisms seemed justified by behavior, speech, policies, etc. I do think some groups are hyper-sensitive and bristle at anyone and anything that doesn’t accord w/them, but it also has the effect of making everyone hyper-afraid to say anything adverse, even when it seems justified.

  • Micheline

    Would anyone know the name of Hitler’s Ship tjat was anchored on the Miami River in the early 70’s.It was at a Marina near the Miami River.

%d bloggers like this: