At this point the build-up of evidence is hard to deny. Why is the refrain from the left and the media still 'Bush lied'?
Documents of the former Iraqi government released by the US Government include unexpected revelations about events in Iraq prior to the US-led invasion. These documents are addressed in an ABC News report released this week.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments276 - Dave Nalle
Dave, I think you're missing the point. The United States of America was rushed into war under the premise, now proven false, that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our safety because a known enemy, Saddam Hussein, actually had WMD he could --and would-- use against us.
That was never the point of this article. The fact is that WMDs were just one of numerous reasons cited for the invasion of Iraq. They are brought up in this article because that particular claim has been the focus of so much attention, and now that it proves to be much better substantiated than anyone would admit for 3 years it's worth mentioning.
The documents found may tell of a few talks with Al Queda eight years before the inception of war, and may point to WMD programs, but that is hardly the same as actually having WMD on hand, and ready to be used to attack America.
Saddam's stated intention to renew WMD production and his stated intention to sponsor terrorist attacks on America add up to something pretty damned significant. Maybe not an imminent threat, but an unquestioned future threat.
Had we been told the truth, that would not have been sufficient justification for invading a sovereign nation preemptively.
There remains no evidence that those who used WMDs as one of the almost 20 reasons for the Iraq invasion did not believe them to exist.
The Neocons had a now-documented agenda already in place for attacking Iraq. The terrorist threat was suborned to support the Neocon agenda. Do you deny it?
The Neocon agenda may have included an invasion of Iraq, but it was clearly NOT the agenda followed in the actual war. The Neocons were one of the first groups to turn against Bush and his post-war handling of Iraq. The fact that a few people in the administration agreed with the Neocons on some issues during the course of their careers does not mean that the administration is doing the Neocons dirty work.
The Bush war against Iraq may well be the single largest blunder in American history.
You REALLY need to read up on the War of 1812. It would take 3 Iraqs to screw up that badly.
It was ill-conceived and ill-executed. The previous military action against Iraq was arguably one of the most efficient operations in military history. Less American troops died during it than would have died by accident during a training exercise. The contrast between the wars waged by Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. could hardly be greater.
Actually, the military campaign was executed fairly brilliantly. It was the post-war management which was bad.
Dave
277 - Mo
Dave you say
“Mo, what do you have against MacArthur?”
I have nothing against MacArthur. My point is that even a good man can be fired when things are not going well.
You also say, “ MacArthur was better than Rumsfeld in almost every way.”
I say all the more reason to fire Rumsfeld.
Then you say, “All he [MacArthur] had going against him was a mammoth ego which clashed with Truman's inclination to be a control freak.”
MacArthur was guilty of insisting on winning a war once a president started it and Truman was in over his head. MacArthur was guilty of trying to win the war that Truman started,
Rumsfeld is guilty of taking neophyte Bush into a “preemptive” war without knowing what the hell he was getting into. MacArthur didn’t do that to Truman.
If Rumsfeld was guilty of what MacArthur did, we would have won the war by now.
278 - Mo
Dave -- your response to Independent Thinker -- “The Bush war against Iraq may well be the single largest blunder in American history” was inane,
Your response was -- “You REALLY need to read up on the War of 1812. It would take 3 Iraqs to screw up that badly.”
By what measure do you judge screw-ups?
The War of 1812 put an end to the abuse that Britain was perpetrating against this country and put us a path of trade, growth and prosperity.
Is the Iraq war going to do that?
You need to read (and understand) more history.
But even that may not be enough.
279 - Dave Nalle
Mo, I taught college history for almost 20 years after acquiring my graduate degrees. I've read more History books than you've ever seen.
I suggest that you're not at all familiar with the War of 1812 if you think it wasn't a total fuck-up. The ultimate outcome of ending hostility with Britain may have been good, but the war itself was a ridiculously botched disaster. Read up on the Battle of Detroit and the Battle of Queenstown Heights if you want to see how badly a war can be fought.
And the Iraq war MAY still lead to a more prosperous and peaceful middle east. That remains to be seen. One thing I have learned from all my history reading is that you can rarely predict the future accurately based on the past.
Dave
280 - Mo
Dave if you taught college history for almost 20 years after acquiring graduate degrees it proves that understanding is not always acquired or induced by osmosis.
I would not advise waving a diploma. I for one, am not favorably impressed.
There are many who teach the same course for many years. That gives them one year of experience for as many years as they taught.
And saying you have read more history books and taught for 20 years assumes that you know how many history books others have read, or how many years others have taught in a college or university. Only children get into that kind of pissing contest.
The fact that you have to rely on this shows a weakness.
What appears to be clear can be summarized by a comment you made earlier -- “That you understand very, very little. You're just another knee-jerker who doesn't look beyond the tediously obvious or those things which fit their preconceptions.”
You say, "One thing I have learned from all my history reading is that you can rarely predict the future accurately based on the past."
That may be the case for you, but don't conclude that others cannot do it.
281 - Jet in Columbus
Dave, regarding 263, there used to be an attack against you and A.G. in #262, concerning you not supporting our troops, which apparently has been removed.
It kind of makes me look like a raving lunatic against who knows what. I was going to ask you to remove it, but on second thought, leave it there, just to say I can see both sides of the issue.
Jet
282 - Dave Nalle
I think I saw it, Jet, so I know what you're talking about. A certain person makes these personal attacks in almost every post and never says anything constructive or productive. It's best just to ignore him.
Dave
283 - Dave Nalle
I would not advise waving a diploma. I for one, am not favorably impressed.
There are many who teach the same course for many years. That gives them one year of experience for as many years as they taught.
Very true. Fortunately I taught a dozen different courses at two different schools, so I got to vary my material a great deal. I'd have gone mad teaching the same thing day in and day out.
And saying you have read more history books and taught for 20 years assumes that you know how many history books others have read, or how many years others have taught in a college or university. Only children get into that kind of pissing contest.
You started it by suggesting I was historically ignorant. I merely pointed out that you were making the mistake of assuming that merely disagreeing with you makes someone ignorant. As for my conclusion that you are historically challenged, that's just derived from your statements here. It's always possible that you have great stores of knowledge and are cleverly suppressing them.
The fact that you have to rely on this shows a weakness.
Clearly I don't have to rely on my history credentials since I stopped teaching some years ago and make my living in a different field.
You say, "One thing I have learned from all my history reading is that you can rarely predict the future accurately based on the past."
That may be the case for you, but don't conclude that others cannot do it.
I've also learned not to be arrogant in my assumptions. It only gets you in trouble.
Dave
284 - Mo
I would say you are in trouble.
285 - Dave Nalle
Oh dear, what shall I do?
Dave
286 - Mo
Act accordingly.
287 - MCH
"Dave, regarding 263, there used to be an attack against you and A.G. in #262, concerning you not supporting our troops, which apparently has been removed."
- Jet in Columbus
Jet, it's still there, check out comment #260. I think you inadvertantly confused 262 with 260.
288 - Jet in Columbus
Okay, my bad.
I'm wrong, this has been a recorded announcement
289 - MCH
Jet;
Civilians Dave Nalle and Anthony Grande "support" the troops, unless it's a veteran who disagrees with them regarding the invasion/occupation of Iraq. Then they attempt to cast aspersions on the service of vets with an opposing point of view (see comments 200 and 242).
Once when I posted the web sites of Veterans Against the Iraq War (www.vaiw.org/) and Iraq Veterans Against the War (www.ivaw.net/), Nalle referred to those vets opposed to the war as "a bunch of fools."
290 - Jet in Columbus
MCH, I hate this war, and everything it stands for, and resent that Bush bamboozled us into it, but I support our troops over there and pray for them daily.
Dave may cast aspersions on people that oppose his point of view, even soldiers, but you'll never convince me that he doesn't support the ones on the ground fighting for their lives.
I agree with your principle opinion, but not your premise that there's anyone who'd be against supporting the troops.
The reason their over there is a nother matter.
...but that's only my opinion
291 - MCH
Jet;
Actually it wasn't I who originally suggested they didn't "support" the troops (see comment 260).
And my issue is not so much that "there'd be anyone against supporting the troops," but more with the personal attacks by those who've never served against vets who oppose the invasion/occupation.
292 - Mo
Those who live in glass houses...
293 - Mo
Anyone who supports our military in Iraq should support what General Zinni has been saying since 2002.
First of all, Zinni would not have made the unjustified decision to put our troops there in the first place.
But if there, Zinni would not have conducted the war in such a manner that their numbers would be insufficient to do the job.
And on and on...
If anyone wants more information about Zinni's position, it is readily available on the web.
The ones complaining about Zinni are those who bow down to the political hacks who drag us into wars we shouldn't be in and now enjoy besmirching a real American hero.
294 - IgnatiusReilly
Jet, calm down. You act like a prissy dog who wets the carpet from the excitement of new people coming over to the house, which is of course my opinion. I am going to ask that your comments be removed.
Men like Zinni fought for their freedom to speak out while others bask in that sacrifice, and the opinion of the former is worth more than a couple of Internet generals' pontifications.
By all means feel free to argue and disagree with their points, but that's not happening. Claiming you are too stupid to understand what someone is saying is not an arguement, so when the discourse rises above childishly mocking names, give me a holler.
295 - Mo
Well said.
296 - Jet in Columbus
#294 And because I agree with Dave that makes me a Prissy dog. Well as far as I'm concerned you [disgusting personal pronoun deleted] you can take you [expletive deleted] attitude and {deleted] it.
I have just as much right to express my [deleted] opinions as any one here. You don't see me sitting up on some high-horse [expletive deleted] thrown judging you, you pompus [deleted]
I love being my own censor...
Rock on Dave...
297 - Mo
WOW!
I love to see a temper tantrum being thrown.
Rock on Ignatius ...
298 - Dave Nalle
I'm not here to defend myself, but I do thank Jet for not caving when the same old unprincipled attacks are wheeled out by the same old whiners.
I'll just make two points. Contrary to what MCH has said I've never said anything against our troops and the job they do and the sacrifices they have made. Similarly, I never said anything negative about Zinni except to object to his speaking style - not one negative word about his service or even his basic ideas about the war. His acolyte Mo just needs a reason to keep promoting his cause, so attacking me becomes his justification.
Dave
299 - Mo
Dave says: I'm not here to defend myself,
Yes, you are,
Dave says: I do thank Jet for not caving when the same old unprincipled attacks are wheeled out by the same old whiners.
Unprincipled attacks? Dave’s imagined “attacks” were only statements of fact which Dave could not rebut. If Dave cannot rebut a statement -- the statement become an “unprincipled attack” against Dave.
Same old whiners? By Dave’s definition, anyone who makes statements of fact that Dave cannot rebut is a “whiner”. Dave’s current complaint makes him a whiner by any standard. He offers no argument here against prior statements that he could not rebut at the time. All he does now is whine more.
Dave says: I never said anything negative about Zinni except to object to his speaking style - not one negative word about his service or even his basic ideas about the war.
Here’s what Dave actually said to discredit General Zinni:
#229 “I'm afraid that Zinni's credibility sort of disintegrated when he went on the payroll of various far-left partisan groups like the Center for Defense Information. He's also really and seems to be contaminated by the not uncommon paranoia about Neocons common to rabid anti-zionists.”
“Zinni was removed from the Bush administration because of his incompetent handling of negotiations between Israel and Palestine and has had an axe to grind ever since.”
“Only after leaving the administration did he start raising these issues publicly and profiting from playing to anti-Bush sentiment.”
Dave now wants us to believe that he only objected to “speaking style”?
Dave slurs General Zinni by saying he is “rather anti-semitic” and now wants us to forget it. What kind of person would slur a war hero like General Zinni and then try to weasel out of what he said earlier?
In #243 Dave said: “As for the Neocons, I don't now and have never supported the Neocons… I didn't support the war in Iraq in the first place, and don't support any of the Neocon goals in foreign policy.”
According to this statement General Zinni and Dave think alike. That leads to the conclusion that something else is going on. What could it be?
Dave continues: His acolyte Mo just needs a reason to keep promoting his cause, so attacking me becomes his justification.
I need no reason to continue here except that I don’t like it when anyone slurs someone like General Zinni and then tries to back out of what was said.
It’s interesting that Dave thinks I am a “devoted follower” of General Zinni. It is interesting that Dave knows so much about my devotion. That is not surprising. But unknown to Dave, I will admit that from what I know about General Zinni, when I was in the military I would have been honored to polish his Marine boots.
From all appearances Dave has really been promoting the neocon cause which is what General Zinni detested and would not cave into.
300 - Jet in Columbus
WOW Mo!!!
I love to see a good temper tantrum thrown
Rock on...Wayne
Rock on...Garth
301 - IgnatiusReilly
Not because you agree with Dave and not because you defended him, but your tone is like some schoolyard tattletale, so get over yourself.
You defend them once, but why keep on about it? While I appreciate the attention, why point out that you thought a comment was removed? Just looking for attention? Yip, yip yip.
"You don't see me sitting up on some high-horse [expletive deleted] thrown judging you,"
Here's your own statement "I was going to ask you to remove [Ig's comment].
Considering to ask for something to be removed was either a judgement or arbitrary. You decide.
Next,
"Similarly, I never said anything negative about Zinni except to object to his speaking style- not one negative word about his service" - Dave Nalle
How quickly they forget:
"I'm afraid that Zinni's credibility sort of disintegrated when he went on the payroll of various far-left partisan groups" - Dave Nalle
Most see losing credibilty as a negative.
"Zinni was removed from the Bush administration because of his incompetent handling of negotiations between Israel and Palestine" - Dave Nalle
Was he not serving his country when handling these negotiations? Do you see incompetent as being a positive or negative description, regardless of its accuracy?
Someone start the music, Nalle's got some dancing to do.
302 - Dave Nalle
Sorry, my mistake, Mo. Let me correct my earlier comment. I never said anything that wasn't a statement of established fact about Zinni, aside from my personal observation on his speaking style.
BTW, do you actually have anything pertinent to say that related to the subject of this article? Perhaps you should become a BC writer and begin a series of articles on your personal love and respect for General Zinni. I'm sure there'd be an appreciative audience.
Dave
303 - Bliffle
I must be really dumb. I thought that business about Not Supporting Our Troops was a satirical jibe!
304 - MCH
Yeah, he does seem awful defensive about, eh Bliff? Hhmmm.
305 - Jet in Columbus
Ignatius, you are the one who needs to get over yourself. Your cute little condescending attitude isn't taking you very far either buddy. Frankly I couldn't tell if you were foaming from the mouth at me, or at Dave! I never said a word about having your comment removed, I'm not self-righteous enough to do something like that.
You have just as much right to put your thoughts on these pages as I do.
This whole discussion has turned into a pissing contest to see who can come up with the biggest smartass comeback at eachother instead of sticking to the script.
For weeks now I've disagreed and critisized nearly everything Dave has written, and on the one time I agree with the man, I take nothing from grief form jerks with "hollier than thou" attitudes who think that they are the only ones who can possibly be right in argument.
Well guess what, nothing you say, and nothing I say is going to make a bit of difference concerning this subject, no matter what your research, no matter what your attitude, you can't do a damn thing about it, and neither can I.
That means that this string is worthless except to express opinions-period.
That should mean your's are welcome here
That means mine are welcome here
I'm not having a childish temper tantrum, I'm expressing my right to express myself as I please just as you dol
yip yip yip yip
PERIOD
306 - sr
Hey, Jet made me laugh on another blog. I usually agree with Dave. Still do and Im, God forgive, a conservative. Press this double dot with your finger. .. No stupid, the middle finger. Technology arrived a little early. Just watch out for flying objects. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. What the freck is that smell.
307 - IgnatiusReilly
When was it an established fact "that Zinni's credibility sort of disintegrated"?
When was it an established fact that "He's also rather anti-semitic"?
"BTW, do you actually have anything pertinent to say that related to the subject of this article?"
Translation: Stop pointing out the errors I make in the comments.
Next,
"This whole discussion has turned into a pissing contest"
Jet, is this the first time you've been on the Internet? This has been going on since the late '80s.
I've never proclaimed to always be right, but I did notice a certain someone have to write a correction to his statement. That's usually done by the people who are wrong.
308 - Jet in Columbus
At least I was man enough to admit I was wrong, and make sure it was corrected ASAP.
309 - Dave Nalle
When was it an established fact "that Zinni's credibility sort of disintegrated"?
When he lost his job because he couldn't figure out a way to follow through on the promises he made to the Palestinians and Israelis in trying to implement the 'roadmap for peace'. People in the region have the impression that he's all talk and no action.
When was it an established fact that "He's also rather anti-semitic"?
It's not me saying this. I'm just passing on a common opinion about the guy. I refer you to this article.
I admit I may have gone too far in calling these 'facts'. They aren't facts on the scale of 'Zinni was in the marines'. They are, however, genuine and accurate bits of information about Zinni. Those who have drawn these conclusions about him have done it based on his actions. They may be incorrect in your opinion, but it's a fact that many people believe these things about Zinni with good reasoning behind those beliefs.
've never proclaimed to always be right, but I did notice a certain someone have to write a correction to his statement. That's usually done by the people who are wrong.
It's also done by people who want to make sure that their observations are accurate.
Dave
310 - Dave Nalle
Anyone who supports our military in Iraq should support what General Zinni has been saying since 2002.
I had to go back to this comment from Mo. It's the most ridiculous and unsubstantiated assertion we've had here so far, and it's been mostly overlooked.
Even if you believe that everything Zinni has said is right, that doesn't mean that in order to support the troops you have to agree with him on cutting and running. The troops mostly don't agree with that. The Iraqis don't much like the idea. It may not even be the most sensible conclusion to draw from the valid points he has about the mismanagement of the war.
When you've screwed something up, there are two things you can do. You can abandon the work you've done, or you can save the good parts and fix the rest. Zinni favors giving up. Others favor fixing the problem. Most of the time I tend to be a bit stubborn, so I'm a fixit guy. Most of our military seems to fall in that mindset as well. Zinni is more of a bean counter, cut your losses type., which is sometimes not a bad thing.
But the thing is that starting from the same point there's more than one answer to any problem.
Dave
311 - Mo
C'mon Dave, cut the bullshit.
Your earlier slurs against General Zinni tell us what you really have against him.
You said he is "rather anti-semitic".
That is what you have against him.
That type of slur is below the level of what Joe NcCarthy used to do.
Does that make you proud?
312 - Mo
If you don't know who Joe McCarthy is, and the garbage he spewed forth in Washington, there are over 15 million hits in google.
313 - Dave Nalle
Mo, I've said what I have to say about Zinni. You can either take it as I said it or continue to raise straw men and mischaracterize my statements.
As I pointed out, there's a common perception that he's anti-semitic. He's commented on it in his own defense quite a few times. I don't see it being that much of an issue, but it's clearly something that bothers a lot of people. I've seen real anti-semites enough not to classify him with them.
I think he has some very good points and a big axe to grind too.
What bothers me is why you keep harping on Zinni shen he's now largely irrelevant. The only role he plays anymore is as a pawn to be used by those who want to attack the administration and who would rather score political points than seek solutions to our foreign policy problems.
Dave
314 - IgnatiusReilly
"It's not me saying this. I'm just passing on a common opinion about the guy. I refer you to this article."
No, it was you saying it. There was no reference to others making this claim in your sentence. Look again:
"He's also rather anti-semitic and seems to be contaminated by the not uncommon paranoia about Neocons common to rabid anti-zionists."
Then when called out on your libelous charges, you backtracked and did a 180.
"I don't see it being that much of an issue, but it's clearly something that bothers a lot of people. I've seen real anti-semites enough not to classify him with them."
If it's not much of an issue, then you shouldn't have raised it in the first place. You should think twice before you engage in gossip-mongering.
I also looked at your link. The author takes Zinni to task for being critical of NeoConservatives, which it has now been decided is a new anti-semetic slur.
Nice way to distract from the arguement at hand. If anyone is critical of the NeoCon policies, you slap an anti-semetic label on them to shut them up. That way you don't have to deal with issues raised.
I also noticed the author writes for a right wing website. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they don't like Zinni speaking out against Bush's policies.
But then you only have trouble with the way he speaks in public, which sounded fine on The Daily Show. I was hoping for some fireworks with Jon Stewart since some people say Zinni's anti-semetic.
315 - Dave Nalle
"It's not me saying this. I'm just passing on a common opinion about the guy. I refer you to this article."
No, it was you saying it. There was no reference to others making this claim in your sentence. Look again:
"He's also rather anti-semitic and seems to be contaminated by the not uncommon paranoia about Neocons common to rabid anti-zionists."
Then when called out on your libelous charges, you backtracked and did a 180.
No, I substantiated where I got the information that he was considered anti-semitic by some. I'm relatively neutral on the issue, but I was indeed repeating the accusation and I don't deny that.
I also looked at your link. The author takes Zinni to task for being critical of NeoConservatives, which it has now been decided is a new anti-semetic slur.
I've never agreed with that approach to dealing with the Neocons. Despite being of Jewish background most of them are actualy atheists.
Nice way to distract from the arguement at hand. If anyone is critical of the NeoCon policies, you slap an anti-semetic label on them to shut them up. That way you don't have to deal with issues raised.
Nice straw man. It would make sense were it not for the fact that I'm one of those most critical of the Neocon policies and of the Neocons in general.
I also noticed the author writes for a right wing website. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they don't like Zinni speaking out against Bush's policies.
Are you talking about me or the author of the article I linked to? The author of the article I linked to writes for a Jewish website. I write for a number of websites, some right, some left, some other. If you think I'm a typical right-winger you're seriously confused. Read some of my articles on BC and see if you can maintain that delusion.
But then you only have trouble with the way he speaks in public, which sounded fine on The Daily Show. I was hoping for some fireworks with Jon Stewart since some people say Zinni's anti-semetic.
He did sound fine on the Daily Show. A bit hard to tell with Stewart interrupting him so much, but that's typical. Stewart was also basically just running down Zinni's prior comments and Zinni was agreeing with some elaboration. Not a tough interview. He had more of a chance to drone on in the Meet the Press interview.
Dave
316 - Mo
Dave:
The “the same old song” article you referenced in #309, starts out by saying, “As war news turns sour, critics point their fingers at who else " the Jews “ and the article then goes on to say. “It is a rule of thumb that has been tried and tested many times over the last 2,000 years. When things go bad, blame the Jews.”
Are you now saying, -- “When things go bad, blame the anti-semites?”
Things are going bad for the neocons.
You said in #243, "As for the Neocons, I don't now and have never supported the Neocons... I didn't support the war in Iraq in the first place, and don't support any of the Neocon goals in foreign policy.”
This is difficult to believe. You say that you don’t support the neocons but then you smear a man who does.
You smear General Zinni with the slur that, “he is "rather anti-semitic."
You say, “I've seen real anti-semites enough not to classify him with them.” Amazing that this statement was made by you after you said, “he is "rather anti-semitic."
What your “casual and-then-retracted-witch-hunt” and “anti-semitic” statements attempt to do is to silence opponents of this war that General Zinni opposed even before it started.
That is lower than McCarthyism.
You say in #283, “I've also learned not to be arrogant in my assumptions. It only gets you in trouble.” That is something Joe McCarthy could have said.
As was told to Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
The same could be said to anyone who now smears General Zinni with the epithet, “anti-semite”.
317 - Dave Nalle
I think we're going to start classing comparisons with Joe McCarthy in with comparisons to Hitler. This is the best you can do?
Plus now you're repeating yourself ad nauseum. What's more, my comment you cite was NOT in response to whatever you think it was, it was in response to MCH's tired old personal attacks, as should have been blatantly obvious.
This is difficult to believe. You say that you don't support the neocons but then you smear a man who does.
I don't subscribe to the 'the enem of my enemy is my friend' theory of politics. That's what has gotten the GOP to the sorry position it's in now. There's room in this world to dislike both the Neocons and their imperialism and Zinni and his self-promotion and counterproductive carping. Put them both in a room, let them fight it out amongst themselves and let the rest of us get on with solving problems sensibly.
Dave
318 - Bliffle
Gosh. Every day I come to this article hoping to find herein the Smoking Gun that will restore the enthusiasm I first felt 3 years ago when we invaded Iraq. Then I knew that the administration held secrets that conclusively proved that Saddam had vast stockpiles of WMD and, furthermore, had well-laid plans with OBL and Al Quaida to wreak havoc on the US and me and my loved ones. I also knew, then, that proofs could not be offered for fear of revealing Means and Methods, perhaps even revealing the names of US undercover operatives! But I knew, then, that upon successful prosecution of the Just War that Bush and Co. would show the doubting world that they were right all along. I even made ridiculous the figure of Hans Blix, who I comically named as the Chicago Porch Inspector whose oversights led to the collapse of several famous porches in that fair town about that time (you had to read it, then, to appreciate the comic irony of my satire!)
I eagerly awaited the revelations of Saddams treachery, his stockpiles of WMD, his intimate association with famous assassins.
I waited in vain. Soon it became apparent that the administration had used innuendo and, alas, outright lies to manipulate my opinion and secure my support. To what purpose? I still don't know. It was not for US security, or even for oil, which would at least have made some sense. Not only that, but the administration itself revealed the name of a US undercover agent to protect itself from its (deserved) obloquy!
Worse, I soon found that numbers of people arose to defend that deceit practiced on us all, motivated by the false coin of political loyalty or personal pride, I suppose.
Nevertheless, every day I visit this topic in hopes of finding herein the Smoking Gun that will restore some shred of faith in this administration. Alas! And what do I find? Witless gossip of a Saddam general! Seeking a comfy book deal? The cash proceeds of some spurious notoriety?
I can only hope.
319 - MCH
"...it was in response to MCH's tired old personal attacks..."
- Dave Nalle
Huh? You were pontificating your military expertise in Iraq, and the guy asked which branch of the service you were in over there. I told him you never served, before you had a chance to give your tired old answer, ad nauseam, "If I would have served I would've been the captain of a ship." How is that a "personal attack," Nalle?
320 - IgnatiusReilly
"No, I substantiated where I got the information that he was considered anti-semitic by some."
Keep spinning, but everyone can go back and read how you claimed he was anti-semetic and later attirbuted it to others. Now a link to one author's assertion has become a link to some.
"The author of the article I linked to writes for a Jewish website."
It's a conversative site. Maybe you haven't noticed the other contributors: Dennis Prager, Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp, Larry Elder, Cal Thomas, Mort Zuckerman, Charles Krauthammer. I don't believe they are all Jewish, and feel free to point out the liberal contributors.
"I don't subscribe to the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' theory of politics."
you forgot to include, "unless it's Iraq and Al Queda."
321 - Dave Nalle
You were pontificating your military expertise in Iraq
I'd love for you to point out exactly where in this thread I said one word about having military expertise of any kind.
Dave
322 - Dave Nalle
Wow, Bliffle. You actually supported the war in Iraq from the start? Even I wasn't on that bandwagon.
Dave
323 - Mo
Dave says: "I think we're going to start classing comparisons with Joe McCarthy in with comparisons to Hitler. This is the best you can do?"
Dave, you bring Hitler into the picture, and then ask if this is the best I can do?
But since you introduced Hitler into the discussion, let me add that your attempts to blackball General Zinni would have made Joseph Goebbels envious.
Dave -- your best argument so far has been the
article you referenced. This article states:
"discrediting some of the war's more prominent architects has always meant one thing: smearing them as Zionist tools determined to drag America into a war for Israel's sake."
That statement would explain your smearing General Zinni. And it is understandable from this article why you want to smear General Zinni.
However, On the other hand, you have said:
"As for the Neocons, I don't now and have never supported the Neocons... I didn't support the war in Iraq in the first place, and don't support any of the Neocon goals in foreign policy."
Would your "discrediting "Neocon goals " also make you an anti-semite?
Your article also says:
"It is a now familiar rhetorical drill: Claim that the war is an invention of the "neoconservatives," then produce a roster of the neocons that is solely inhabited by Jews."
Dave -- you have said that you "don't support any of the Neocon goals in foreign policy". So to become a full fledged "anti-semite" all that remains for you is to produce a "roster of the neocons ."
As far as I know General Zinni hasn't produced a roster of the neocons.
If you hurry you an beat him.
Your referenced article goes on to say:
"Zinni rose briefly to fame in 2002 during a brief stint as Washington's envoy to the Middle East, an experience that gave new meaning to the word fiasco."
This is a perfect example of what Joe McCarthy would do --. blame General Zinni for the 50+ year-old fiasco between the Palestinians and Israel. Aside from the fact that there has been no resolution for over 50 years -- you, the Jewish World Review, and Jonathan Tobin want to blame this "fiasco" on General Zinni.
If this is not a smear tactic, what is?
Your boy, Tobin also sails into Correspondent Steve Croft who:
"played right into Zinni's hands as he described the Iraq invasion planners as "a group of policymakers within the administration known as 'the neoconservatives,' who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel."
So now Steve Croft is also an anti-semite.
Getting crowded here.
It will get more crowded.
Tobin keeps blasting away. (Joe McCarthy would love this man.)
Tobin says: "Following in the footsteps of other media outlets, including Business Week, that have played the same tune."
Next Business Week (and other media outlets) become anti-semitic.
Where will this all end?
When Zinni is quoted, Tobin goes above and beyond the call of duty in denigrating what Zinni says:
Tobin says:
"Zinni stretched his thin supply of credibility to the breaking point: "Because I mentioned the neoconservatives ... I was called anti-Semitic. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are."
Obviously Zinni made a foolish self-serving statement. He should have 'fessed up.
Of course whatever Zinni said would make no difference. The smear campaign is in.
Jonathan Tobin, a man on the alert for anti-semites says:
"Given the confrontational culture of the "60 Minutes" genre, you would have expected Croft to nail Zinni for uttering such disingenuous tripe. At the very least, you would expect a follow-up question. But just because he plays "journalist" on television -- like the rest of "60 Minutes" on-screen celebrities -- doesn't mean he actually practices the craft of journalism. Zinni was allowed to get away with not only spreading a whopper of a lie, he wasn't even challenged to defend it."
I'm sure everyone had already suspected that Steve Croft is "anti-semitic", so why does Tobin feel he has to remind us here?
Tobin also implicates United Press International editor-at-large Arnaud de Borchgrave and The Washington Times to round it out.
Tobin then claims:
"Whatever possible gains in security the war inadvertently made for Israel are far outweighed by the potential boost to the American security and regional stability. "
What planet is Tobin living on?
And finally, Tobin says:
"Should the tables turn in the coming months and American strategy is seen as succeeding in Iraq, you can expect to hear talk of Jewish plots cease."
We now all know how the tables have turned.
This must be why Dave still believes "Jewish plots" are all around.
Tobin's wrap-up:
"But don't worry, the next time anything else goes wrong, we know whose heads are going to be offered up on a plate."
I know one for sure -- General Zinni's.
324 - Dave Nalle
It's hardly worth responding to your lunacy, Mo. But I'll just point out a couple of your bizarre misconceptions.
That statement would explain your smearing General Zinni. And it is understandable from this article why you want to smear General Zinni.
Odd, I have no interest in General Zinni one way or another. I'm just skeptical about him. It's not like he's attacking my sacred cows here.
Would your "discrediting "Neocon goals " also make you an anti-semite?
No, it would make me anti-Neocon. I don't consider the Neocons to be primarily characterized by being jews, though some do. The neocons are atheist, socialist imperialists and while many may be Jewish by ancestry they aren't practicing Jews and many aren't jewish at all.
This is a perfect example of what Joe McCarthy would do --. blame General Zinni for the 50+ year-old fiasco between the Palestinians and Israel. Aside from the fact that there has been no resolution for over 50 years -- you, the Jewish World Review, and Jonathan Tobin want to blame this "fiasco" on General Zinni.
If this is not a smear tactic, what is?
I think in this case the author of the article is referring specifically to Zinni's bungling of the negotiations he was in charge of in Israel in 2002.
What planet is Tobin living on?
Planet anti-semite?
This must be why Dave still believes "Jewish plots" are all around.
Oh, indeed. They're poisoning the wells and eating babies.
BTW, is all of this just revenge for when I exposed your anti-semitism back when you were still using the handle Practical Joe?
Dave
325 - Mo
Dave -- evidently you live on conspiracy theories.
You are also adept at avoiding issues and changing the subject when you have no good answers.
When presented with facts to which you cannot respond -- you say the facts are "lunacy."
When you don’t want to face up to what you said earlier -- you say to answer would be "bizarre" or you make light of it with an attempt at your perverse sense of humor, e.g., "poisoning the wells and eating babies."
Avoiding the real issues is your real forte.
For example, you say:
"Odd, I have no interest in General Zinni one way or another. I'm just skeptical about him. It's not like he's attacking my sacred cows here.
Yes, he is attacking your sacred cows here.
The topic here is “Was Bush Right About Iraq, Al Qaeda and WMDs?
Bush was wrong about Iraq, Al Qaeda and WMDs, General Zinni said so. General Zinni testified before Congress in 2002 and warned against invading Iraq, and he gave his specific reasons.
Was Bush Right About Iraq, Al Qaeda and WMDs?
No.
Was General Zinni Right About Iraq, Al Qaeda and WMDs?
Yes.
There is your sacred cow that has been attacked.
And all you can do is try to run away and hide as your sacred cows are attacked.