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
326 - Dave Nalle
I suggest you read this prior article which sums up my position on conspiracy theories pretty well.
As for whether General Zinni or Bush was right or wrong about WMDs, Iraq and Al Qaeda, the answer is certainly not as simplistic as you suggest. Both were right about some aspects, and the truth is more complex and more diverse than the viewpoints which either of them represent.
In the sacred cow department, I don't have any. I'm as skeptical of Bush as I am as Zinni, but as illustrated in the article which started this discussion - which you seem to have little interest in reading - the truth about the WMDs and the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection is quite different from what has been promoted by the left, though it's also not exactly what Bush said either.
Dave
327 - Mo
Dave, you say:
“As for whether General Zinni or Bush was right or wrong about WMDs, Iraq and Al Qaeda, the answer is certainly not as simplistic as you suggest.”
Yes, it is as simplistic as I suggested,
You say, “Both were right about some aspects”
General Zinni was right in all aspects. Where was he wrong?
George Bush was wrong in all aspects. Where was he right?
You say, “In the sacred cow department, I don't have any.”
Your denial is not convincing.
You say: “the truth is more complex and more diverse than the viewpoints which either [Bush or Zinni] represent.”
The truth is simple. It is not complex or diverse. The testimony of General Zinni to the US Congress on February 11, 2003 was the truth and it was simple. What you think is complex is what happened when the advice of General Zinni was ignored.
If George Bush had followed General Zinni’s advice, our country would not have suffered over 2,300 military deaths [so far], and a cost of several hundred billion [borrowed] dollars.
On Oct. 10, 2002, General Zinni spoke before the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. about a new war with Iraq, whether the time was right, and what would have to happen for military action to turn out in the best possible way.
In part what General Zinni said was: “If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don't understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily.“
Evidently, God has not provided much help to George Bush in this transition since George Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” six weeks after the beginning of the Neo-con vs Iraq War.
You should be praising General Zinni, instead of smearing him with the slur that, "he is "rather anti-semitic."
Whose side are you on?
328 - Dave Nalle
I'm on the side of truth, Mo. And of interesting discussion. Your endless repetition of the same assertions are not interesting or productive. We get it. Neocons are evil. Zinni is right about everything. The world is black and white. Boring.
Dave
329 - Mo
Dave says:
“I'm on the side of truth.”
Isn’t it better to exhibit humility when seeking truth? Is there such a thing as self-declared truthfulness?. The only way to show that truth is on your side is to prove it - not declare it.
Dave adds:
“Your endless repetition of the same assertions are not interesting or productive.”
Another self-serving declaration.
The reason for self-declared statements is when someone has no better rebuttal for the stated facts.
Why would anyone magnify himself to be plural by saying: “WE get it”?
Is Dave more than one person? Does “we” make him a larger dispenser of truth, or just a larger purveyor of self-declarations?
Finally, Dave gets something right:
Dave says: “Neocons are evil.”
And,
“Zinni is right about everything.“
Well, at least right about Iraq.
Dave should be proud of at least getting something right.
330 - Dave Nalle
"whooosh"
The sound of sarcasm going right over Mo's pointy little head.
Dave
331 - Mo
When Dave doesn't have the facts on his side, he resorts to pathetic responses such as "whooosh" and what he thinks can be passed off as "sarcasm".
I haven't seen the shape of Dave's head.
However, by what he says it must be grotesquely inflated.
332 - Jet in Columbus
Dave, a question occured to me while watching CNN a few minutes ago.
What happened to all of Saddam's natural and altered doubles. He had reportedly dozens of them.
I'm being serious, this isn't a political inquiry, I'm just curious.
Jet
333 - Dave Nalle
That's a good question, Jet. I think that some of them were caught. I vaguely remember hearing about it during the actual fighting of the war. No idea at all where they ended up after that. My guess would be some sort of prison, but who knows. They weren't exactly real war criminals or anything.
Dave
334 - Jet in Columbus
Perhaps looking into?
335 - Mo
"Dave says he does "vaguely remember" but he has "no idea at all" and his "guess would be" that "they weren't exactly"...
You can count on that and bet your life on it.
336 - sr
Jet, let's be fair and balanced. What is your main source of news. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC OR THE WEATHER CHANNEL? Just curious.
337 - Jet in Columbus
Local news-Channel 10 Columbus
National news CNN and CNN headline news
Paper-The Columbus Dispatch, which endorses most if not all republican candidates and initiatives.
If I'm on line, Google headlines
Political Comentary-Dave Nalle
338 - Dave Nalle
Mo(ron), I was just making clear that I don't know the answer to the question and was being honest about it while giving the best answer I could. Admitting fallibility might be something you should look into.
Good lord, Jet - get political commentary from more than just me or you'll be driven mad.
I like getting my news from The Scottsman and the Washington Post btw, SR.
Dave
339 - Jet in Columbus
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVE!!! Regarding the 2nd paragraph of #338 You haven't been reading my latest comments to gauge my state of mind: have you?
340 - Mark Saleski
Mo(ron), I was just making clear
are you trying to set a bc record for the number of times an editor attacks somebody in the commentary?
very 'professional' of you.
341 - Jet in Columbus
Now kids play nice or I'll have to get the leather out... This has been a recorded announcement
342 - Dave Nalle
Mark, I'm not going to sit back and take abuse from Mo just because I'm an editor. The job doesn't come with a ball gag and leather restraints, much though Jet wishes it did.
Dave
343 - Mark Saleski
i'm aware that there are no 'constraints' for editors...sorry, i just think it cheapens the site to have an editor calling somebody a moron.
344 - Jet in Columbus
So let me get this straight (sorry, uh "correct") is Mo Icanread or is he... oh never mind.
Now I feel like a moron
345 - MCH
Mark;
It does contradict his "I don't call people names" statement, doesn't it.
346 - Dave Nalle
He operates under a number of identities, Jet.
And as for 'calling him names', I guess I can live with that. He's called me a few, and in doing so earned the name I've called him. Let him wear it with pride.
Dave
347 - Jet in Columbus
Alright, now I'm confused, what's his current identity?
348 - MCH
Comment #330:
"'whooosh'
The sound of sarcasm going right over Mo's pointy little head."
- Dave Nalle
Where does all that hatred come from, Nalle?
349 - Dave Nalle
Just not a big fan of mindless bigots, MCH. I'm here to have useful discussion. When someone just harps on the same point over and over or parrots the opinions of his programmers or insists on mindless argument over irrelevancies it disrupts discussion and irritates me. People like you and Mo contribute nothing productive to discussion, and it's not that I hate you - if I bothered to have feelings about it I'd probably pity you - you're just wasting everyone's time and contributing nothing positive.
Dave
350 - Hoggle
Thought I'd post this because the waters aren't muddy enough yet...
White House admits Iraq WMDs error
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Thursday April 13, 2006
The Guardian
The White House has acknowledged for the first time that a key moment in post-war Iraq, the declaration by George Bush that "we have found the weapons of mass destruction", was based on intelligence known in Washington to be false.
Article continues at The Guardian
Note that this concerns only one piece of the jigsaw, and does not necessarily invalidate any other piece, but it clearly casts into doubt any claim made by the whitehouse as to the implications of their 'intelligence'.
351 - JP
Hoggle - Good catch, I wrote about the Post article that prompted it yesterday. Of course I expected the WH to vehemently deny it, and if you notice, the article which said the WH confirmed the error said only that the claim was proven false *After* Bush spoke the famous words. They also didn't address the fact that it continued to be cited for months afterwards..
Man, this thread has gotten long!
352 - REMF
HONOR THE FALLEN
"Army Pfc. Christopher D. Kube, 18, of Sterling Heights, Mich.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.; died July 14 in Baghdad of wounds sustained from an improvised explosive device."
- from the military city web site
353 - Alec
REMF - I think that we might best honor the fallen by extricating ourselves from this mess as soon as possible.
It is ironic that Dave Nalle's original post contained a link to a David McKay interview. That site, for the Telegraph UK, also included a link to a news story from January 2004 which noted the following:
"The man who led the Coalition's post-war hunt for weapons of mass destruction stepped down yesterday, saying he did not believe there were stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.
David Kay, who resigned after a fruitless eight-month search as head of the 1400-strong Iraq Survey Group (ISG), also said he did not believe Saddam Hussein had produced weapons of mass destruction on a large scale in the 1990s - since the first Gulf War."
The Telegraph story goes on to note,
"But the controversy over weapons of mass destruction is less highly-charged in America than Britain, because in the heightened security fears of the post-September 11 era, many Americans accept the administration's argument that the invasion of Iraq was an integral part of the global war against terrorism."
The original story may still be available here.
In short, even back then, there was evidence that Bush lied about WMDs and had moved on to a new bait and switch to offer the now equally phoney war against terrorism.