Lies about Iraq rise to level of the absurd

[Bowfinger]

Here's an op-ed piece from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. They seem to think that the lies coming out of the Bush-lite administration, particularly from Cheney, are getting ridiculous.

Lies about Iraq rise to level of the absurd

Lies beget more lies; a policy built on deception will always require further deception to sustain itself.

Case in point: The campaign by leading members of the Bush administration to rebuild faltering support for their invasion of Iraq. To hear them tell it, everything that has happened since last March has just proved how right they've been all along.

To cite just one example, consider a recent speech by Vice President Dick Cheney to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington. Cheney is credited by many for having led President Bush, and by extension this country, into invading Iraq. So it's no surprise that he has been unflinching in defending that policy.

As he explained the rationale:

"We could not accept the grave danger of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies turning weapons of mass destruction against us or our friends and allies."

Of course, no such grave danger existed. Having failed to find any WMD, we know that now. More importantly, we knew it in the fall of 2002, when this push for war began. Even back then, the CIA was using terms such as "unlikely" and "low probability" to describe the odds of Saddam handing WMD to terrorists.

Somehow, "low probability" and "unlikely" were transformed into "grave danger." Claims about Saddam's nuclear program have followed a similar trajectory.

In January 2002, the CIA reported that Iraq's nuclear weapons program consisted of no more than low-level theoretical work, an assessment that time has proved quite accurate. Yet eight months later, Cheney was somehow claiming that Iraq was close to completing The Bomb.

In his Heritage speech, Cheney also described the prewar efforts to contain Saddam -- "12 years of diplomacy, more than a dozen Security Council resolutions, hundreds of U.N. weapons inspectors, thousands of flights to enforce the no-fly zones and even strikes against military targets in Iraq" -- and dismissed them as failures.

That too denies reality. In fact, multilateral efforts to contain and disarm Saddam had succeeded to a degree that few had imagined possible.

In 1991, Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, production facilities to produce still more, and a maturing nuclear weapons program. By 1998, and certainly by 2003, he had none of those things.

Sanctions worked. Inspections worked.

Then Cheney got to the core of his argument:

"Another criticism we hear is that the United States, when its security is threatened, may not act without unanimous international consent. Under this view, even in the face of a specific agreed-upon danger, the mere objection of even one foreign government would be sufficient to prevent us from acting."

With that statement, Cheney abandons deception and traipses merrily into the Land of the Completely Absurd. Nobody -- not the Democrats, not the United Nations, not even the French -- makes the argument that he describes. It would be insane to do so.

Cheney invents that argument to support his larger point: After Sept. 11, the Bush administration at least did something, while its less-than-manly critics would have done nothing.

And that is the ultimate falsehood.

The true policy choice is between actions that make things better for the United States and actions that make things worse. If we were to assess the invasion of Iraq on those grounds, the outcome would be something like this:

Saddam had no WMD, no nuclear program and no ties to al-Qaida. So invading Iraq did little or nothing to improve our security. It did, however, come at a cost that may take decades to fully tally.

The invasion has strained our alliances and international standing, making it difficult to draw support against real threats in North Korea and Iran. Our military is overextended. The financial toll is $150 billion and counting; the toll in U.S. lives continues to mount as well.

If the administration truly did expect all that, they are bigger fools than even their harshest critics have claimed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Seems people havea hard time comprenending the fact that people are completely irrational. They don't care that Bush is lying. They ignore the fact that the admin is nuts. people make up their mind about something and nothing can phase them. Caddy is the world.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well, since it is an opinion piece - Here is mine.

I think the accusations of Lies that are being thrown at the White House have long since passed the level of being absurd. I could write a big ol piece on that too, but you'd dismiss it as absurd, no? This piece is no more right in it's opinion than I may be in mine.

CkG

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, since it is an opinion piece - Here is mine.

I think the accusations of Lies that are being thrown at the White House have long since passed the level of being absurd. I could write a big ol piece on that too, but you'd dismiss it as absurd, no? This piece is no more right in it's opinion than I may be in mine.

CkG

... How is it "no more right"?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, since it is an opinion piece - Here is mine.

I think the accusations of Lies that are being thrown at the White House have long since passed the level of being absurd. I could write a big ol piece on that too, but you'd dismiss it as absurd, no? This piece is no more right in it's opinion than I may be in mine.

CkG

... How is it "no more right"?

Is it no more wrong?

It's is OPINION

CkG

 

[Shad0hawK]

speaking of absurd lies, the way the media distorts news is gettnig beyond inane, i heard on the Communist News Network that "43% of iraq is still without power" leading people to think "wow! 43%! they are doing crappy over there!"

what they didnt say is that before the war even started 45% of iraq did not have power!

but what else would you expect from the same people that took the fastest fighting advance in the history of warfare and tried to make it seem like we were losing?

ROFL!!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
speaking of absurd lies, the way the media distorts news is gettnig beyond inane, i heard on the Communist News Network that "43% of iraq is still without power" leading people to think "wow! 43%! they are doing crappy over there!"

what they didnt say is that before the war even started 45% of iraq did not have power!

but what else would you expect from the same people that took the fastest fighting advance in the history of warfare and tried to make it seem like we were losing?

ROFL!!!

Watch here comes the Fox news counter punch...

3...2...

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

You know what's really absurd? Talking about the Iraq situation any further. This whole country is so polarized right down the middle, I seriously doubt anyone is crossing to the other side at this point. Either you believe the admin is golden, or you believe they're complete morons lying out of both sides of their mouths. No one, I repeat no one, is changing their minds at this stage of the game.

Bush would have to whip out his unit and grope an intern before 1/2 the people on these forums would stand up and take notice.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You know what's really absurd? Talking about the Iraq situation any further. This whole country is so polarized right down the middle, I seriously doubt anyone is crossing to the other side at this point. Either you believe the admin is golden, or you believe they're complete morons lying out of both sides of their mouths. No one, I repeat no one, is changing their minds at this stage of the game.

Bush would have to whip out his unit and grope an intern before 1/2 the people on these forums would stand up and take notice.

On national television, all while cursing Jesus and Republicans.

 

[Gaard]

But the Iraq situation is still going on. Even here on the homefront the battle still wages. With this $87B aid package trying to get passed. I think I saw today where the Senate passed it's own version (proposed by a D, obviously) where 1/2 was a grant and 1/2 was a loan. The loan part would be turned into a grant on the condition that all other countries that Iraq is in debt to would wipe out at least 90% of Iraq's debt to them. But, then the House is ready to pass Bush's version of the aid package. Go figure.

 

[Witling]

ShadowHawk, what do you mean the fastest military advance in modern history. How about the modern historic battles of Grenada and Panama?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Whitling
ShadowHawk, what do you mean the fastest military advance in modern history. How about the modern historic battles of Grenada and Panama?

true, those were fast, but not near the scale of iraq. nor the distance covered while under fire.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You know what's really absurd? Talking about the Iraq situation any further. This whole country is so polarized right down the middle, I seriously doubt anyone is crossing to the other side at this point. Either you believe the admin is golden, or you believe they're complete morons lying out of both sides of their mouths. No one, I repeat no one, is changing their minds at this stage of the game.

Bush would have to whip out his unit and grope an intern before 1/2 the people on these forums would stand up and take notice.

You'd be wrong with that assessment. People have been changing their minds at high rates in the past few months..the present situation is certainly no different.

I personally am pretty split on this issue, and really have no opinion of it..

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You know what's really absurd? Talking about the Iraq situation any further. This whole country is so polarized right down the middle, I seriously doubt anyone is crossing to the other side at this point. Either you believe the admin is golden, or you believe they're complete morons lying out of both sides of their mouths. No one, I repeat no one, is changing their minds at this stage of the game.

Bush would have to whip out his unit and grope an intern before 1/2 the people on these forums would stand up and take notice.

On national television, all while cursing Jesus and Republicans.

Nah. As long as he doesn't lie under oath, the Republicans will still support him. Remember, it wasn't about hatred or sex or being poor losers, it was just that he lied under oath.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Gaard
But the Iraq situation is still going on. Even here on the homefront the battle still wages. With this $87B aid package trying to get passed. I think I saw today where the Senate passed it's own version (proposed by a D, obviously) where 1/2 was a grant and 1/2 was a loan. The loan part would be turned into a grant on the condition that all other countries that Iraq is in debt to would wipe out at least 90% of Iraq's debt to them. But, then the House is ready to pass Bush's version of the aid package. Go figure.

$20 billion of the $87 billion package is to help rebuild the Iraq infrastructure. There is debate on whether that should be a grant or a loan.

The other $67 billion is for on-going military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Nah. As long as he doesn't lie under oath, the Republicans will still support him. Remember, it wasn't about hatred or sex or being poor losers, it was just that he lied under oath.

Heh, go testify in court and lie after taking the oath. Then, go ahead and roll your eyes after the judge brings you back in and says he has proof that you lied. See how well you are treated.

 

[smashp]

As a REAL CONSERVATIVE, I love watching the sheppish Republican supporters defending their elitist corupt masters.

it shows the stupity of this country.

If you are a real conservative, dont reelect the man who took the army overseas in a worthless unneeded "optional" war, Is pushing the LARGEST government entitlement program in decades, and has the fiscal responseability of a spoiled brat with a trust fund............OH wait.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smashp
As a REAL CONSERVATIVE, I love watching the sheppish Republican supporters defending their elitist corupt masters.

it shows the stupity of this country.

If you are a real conservative, dont reelect the man who took the army overseas in a worthless unneeded "optional" war, Is pushing the LARGEST government entitlement program in decades, and has the fiscal responseability of a spoiled brat with a trust fund............OH wait.

I don't think that being Conservative or liberal has much to do with this war - it has more to do with being a Republican or a Democrat. I am a "real" Conservative and I have believed for 12+ years that Saddam had to be removed because he couldn't be trusted to hold up his end of the agreement. He proved my thinking right...over and over again.

The other things you said I can agree on...but again then pragmatism rears it's head

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

You know the old saying, it's water under the bridge now.

The question to be seen is will the World, Iraq & the U.S. be a better & safer place without Saddam in power. Time will tell, Historians will wrtite.

Would Gore or anyone else other than Bush gone in Iraq like that? Probably not, we'll never know.

Have to live with it, deal with it and move on.

Get real annoyed with people though twisting words and out of context. Someone posted yesterday of Blair saying Iraq will attack Britain in 45 minutes. I looked at that and was miffed . He was referring to the Iraqi's having the ability to propel Chemical & Bioligical attacks at British & U.S. forces in the desert within 45 minutes. Unbelievable.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You know the old saying, it's water under the bridge now.

The question to be seen is will the World, Iraq & the U.S. be a better & safer place without Saddam in power. Time will tell, Historians will wrtite.

Would Gore or anyone else other than Bush gone in Iraq like that? Probably not, we'll never know.

Have to live with it, deal with it and move on.

Get real annoyed with people though twisting words and out of context. Someone posted yesterday of Blair saying Iraq will attack Britain in 45 minutes. I looked at that and was miffed . He was referring to the Iraqi's having the ability to propel Chemical & Bioligical attacks at British & U.S. forces in the desert within 45 minutes. Unbelievable.

As an American, the question that concerns me more is did my president look me in the eye and bullsh!t me in order to get me to give him the thumbs up to send my brothers to die.

And Dave, it's a little dishonest to say someone said "Blair said Iraq can attack Britain in 45 minutes." He never mentioned Britain, he just said attack. In the words of my good friend CAD, "You Assumed - you misinterpreted things because you Assumed."

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Whitling
ShadowHawk, what do you mean the fastest military advance in modern history. How about the modern historic battles of Grenada and Panama?

true, those were fast, but not near the scale of iraq. nor the distance covered while under fire.

I read somewhere that taking into consideration the distance from LD to objective, the advance to Baghdad was the quickest in history for a division-size or larger mechanized unit.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You know the old saying, it's water under the bridge now.

The question to be seen is will the World, Iraq & the U.S. be a better & safer place without Saddam in power. Time will tell, Historians will wrtite.

Would Gore or anyone else other than Bush gone in Iraq like that? Probably not, we'll never know.

Have to live with it, deal with it and move on.

Get real annoyed with people though twisting words and out of context. Someone posted yesterday of Blair saying Iraq will attack Britain in 45 minutes. I looked at that and was miffed . He was referring to the Iraqi's having the ability to propel Chemical & Bioligical attacks at British & U.S. forces in the desert within 45 minutes. Unbelievable.

Actually, I believe the 45 minute claim, while it refereed to British forces, actually meant in areas such as Cyprus.
In Sept 2002, when the claim was made, the number of soldiers in Iraq (Kuwait) wasn't all that great. It was more British bases near Iraq that were what was "under threat", although the claim wasn't very clear, and many people misinterpreted it, without the Government doing much to rectify the situation.
Essentially, they missold the claim.

 

[section321]

Fastest advance in modern history????

I can think of a few examples from WWII, like Patton's 3rd Army advancing across France. And especially the Third Army's relief of Bastogne.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: section321
Fastest advance in modern history????

I can think of a few examples from WWII, like Patton's 3rd Army advancing across France. And especially the Third Army's relief of Bastogne.

Third Army's relief of Bastogne was largely through friendly AO before passage of lines. Patton's advance to Ludwigshafen and across Germany averaged 25 miles per day. Against Russia, the German Wehrmacht averaged about 20 miles per day during the opening phase of Operation Barbarossa.

Comparatively speaking, 3ID advanced 250 miles (400 km) in 7 days to within 50 miles of Baghdad.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: section321
Fastest advance in modern history????

I can think of a few examples from WWII, like Patton's 3rd Army advancing across France. And especially the Third Army's relief of Bastogne.

Third Army's relief of Bastogne was largely through friendly AO before passage of lines. Patton's advance to Ludwigshafen and across Germany averaged 25 miles per day. Against Russia, the German Wehrmacht averaged about 20 miles per day during the opening phase of Operation Barbarossa.

Comparatively speaking, 3ID advanced 250 miles (400 km) in 7 days to within 50 miles of Baghdad.

Either way it's a bogus self-inflating stat. Like saying a grown man can kick a 5 yr olds ass in less than a minute Whoa. There was real similarly equiped opposition in the past...now it's a virtual pond shoot with the unmatched armament/weapons we have, superior training, open terrian, and unoppsed air support.

Personally I think it's a shame Rumsfelid went that fast and perhaps subjected colunms backside to guerilla vunerablity.