Ron Suskind Exposes More WMD Lies

[mshan]

yllus, I think you and I both agree that Gulf War I was indeed justified and in the long term national security interests of the United States and other countries around the world.

Do you have insights on whether there really was or is even now a true long term national security interest in the invasion of Iraq?

I only see blind idealogy (PNAC's unipolar moment and pax americana) and just plain corporate greed.

edit: given the mess Bush created by removing the natural counterbalance to Iran in the Middle East, I think it is now in the long term national security interest to make sure that the Sunnis in Iraq (initially our enemy) are strong enough to counterbalance Iran's influence and control of the Shiite dominant Iraq. This outcome is very different than "winning" the war in Iraq.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: KGBMAN

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KGBMAN

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KGBMAN
In other words, discuss the message and not Mr. Suskind. He is a well respected (Pulitzer) journalist.

Uhh sorry but it's a bit much to hide him behind a "pulitzer". As with the Hersh crap - it means very little that a lib org(Columbia U) gives a lib some award.
And no, Suskind is not "well respected" - he is by some but others? not so much.

Would you care to discuss the content or the author?

I was discussing your attempt to portray the guy as unassailable.

"Unassailable" is your term, not mine. My term was "respected".

Again, why do you want to discuss the author and not the content?

Again, I was commenting on your commentary - NOT the guy himself or whatever book he wrote. YOUR commentary attempted to block off any legitimate discussion about the guy by putting a "pulitzer" out there as if it means trust or whatever word you want to use.
There can be no real debate about this book and the claims of the author until he is looked into and his sources discussed. You've tried to prevent that and we are then supposed to take his claims at face value? Sorry, that's not the way things work.

I actually could care less if this is true or not - my whole point is you are preventing actual discussion by attempting to close off parts of it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KGBMAN

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KGBMAN
In other words, discuss the message and not Mr. Suskind. He is a well respected (Pulitzer) journalist.

Uhh sorry but it's a bit much to hide him behind a "pulitzer". As with the Hersh crap - it means very little that a lib org(Columbia U) gives a lib some award.
And no, Suskind is not "well respected" - he is by some but others? not so much.

Would you care to discuss the content or the author?

I was discussing your attempt to portray the guy as unassailable.

No you weren't. You were just displaying your ability to shine on any information that disagrees with you. Nobody was trying to portray the author as unassailable. Information was given that the author holds a prestigious journalism award, the same award you would site if the guy were writing about how wonderful conservatism is in America. You are a smoo, a person who deflects any information from any source for any reason that does not fit your dogmatic belief system or bigotry. You are blind and especially to the fact you are blind. You are a fanatical defender of the good as everyone should be. The trouble you run into is that you don't know what real good actually is so you wind up constantly defending evil. You have all the self justification of a good person doing good in your own mind and look like a complete dolt to everybody else. What you lack is modesty. How did it come to pass that only you know what is good. Until you die to all you hold sacred you will never know anything. Now it's time for you to shine this on.

Yes I was. I have stated no position on this so it's impossible for any claim of "disagrees with you" to have any merit.
And no, awards mean very little when they are given withing one's own little world. In this case, it's a Columbia U who gave it to Hersh and this guy(who just happens to be an alum). His work that won the award may infact be great but that doesn't mean subsequent works automatically hold more weight or truth.
But anyway, it's nice to see the same old knee-jerking moonbeam jumps into things trying to psychoanalyze me and throw around all sorts of labels like "bigot" and "blind". Me thinks you might be the one with an open mind and blindness issue. I don't fit into your little stereotype no matter how hard you try, but it sure is fun to see you flail around.

 

[Lemon law]

I certainly can't disagree with the yllus take here, I am simply saying the saga of Saddam Hussein had a far longer roots dating back at least a decade before Gulf war one. But at one time Saddam was being groomed to be the US man in the mid-east after the fall of Shah, the US hired him and the US fired him. And to some extent, Rumsfeld is the only one left alive to tell the tale, Saddam could have been a treasure to historians, but dead men tell no tales.

To a great extent, I want to believe Suskind, it fits many of the available facts into a greater coherent picture, but without the the substantive proof, its just another conspiracy theory among others.

I am certainly hoping some whistle blower will come forward with the proof, hopefully before the election of 11/4/08, so at least a true historical picture can emerge. But its also possible we will never learn exactly what happened.

In terms of GHB fooling the Saudis and scaring them into joining the coalition, for some it may be ha ha stupid Saudis, but the decision to allow the coalition to base troops in Saudi Arabia broke a deep Wahhabi taboo, it became a prime motivator for turning Ossama Bin Laden from a playboy prince
into a dedicated terrorists, led to the formation of Al-Quida, and the deaths of nearly 3000 people on 911. And then on to a present dual quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan in which millions have already died for some imaginary short term benefit.

Its simply US decisions like that that seem to have short term good benefits that end us biting us in the end. Without a clear and complete factual history, its hard for anyone to learn the lessons of history. And in MHO, the Suskind revelation falls short of filling enough blanks. But if this Suskind piece can be followed up with other more provable revelations, we may start filling in enough blanks to paint a clearer picture.

And I am more and more being coming convinced that the US should mind its own business because we are the authors of our own problems.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KGBMAN

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KGBMAN
In other words, discuss the message and not Mr. Suskind. He is a well respected (Pulitzer) journalist.

Uhh sorry but it's a bit much to hide him behind a "pulitzer". As with the Hersh crap - it means very little that a lib org(Columbia U) gives a lib some award.
And no, Suskind is not "well respected" - he is by some but others? not so much.

Would you care to discuss the content or the author?

I was discussing your attempt to portray the guy as unassailable.

No you weren't.

You were just displaying your ability to shine on any information that disagrees with you.

Nobody was trying to portray the author as unassailable.

Information was given that the author holds a prestigious journalism award, the same award you would cite if the guy were writing about how wonderful conservatism is in America.

You are a smoo, a person who deflects any information from any source for any reason that does not fit your dogmatic belief system or bigotry.

You are blind and especially to the fact you are blind.

You are a fanatical defender of the good as everyone should be.

The trouble you run into is that you don't know what real good actually is so you wind up constantly defending evil.

You have all the self justification of a good person doing good in your own mind and look like a complete dolt to everybody else.

What you lack is modesty.

How did it come to pass that only you know what is good.

Until you die to all you hold sacred you will never know anything.

Now it's time for you to shine this on.

Corrected otherwise perfect commentary, opinion and pwnage :thumbsup:

On another note I didn't know Suskind was still alive :shocked:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uhh sorry but it's a bit much to hide him behind a "pulitzer". As with the Hersh crap - it means very little that a lib org(Columbia U) gives a lib some award.
And no, Suskind is not "well respected" - he is by some but others? not so much.

Hersh and Suskind are both far more experienced and more widely published and far more respected than you for whatever you may have written.

You could always try disproving what they've said in their writings instead of merely claiming it's so with no substantiation, whatsoever... IF you can! :roll:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uhh sorry but it's a bit much to hide him behind a "pulitzer". As with the Hersh crap - it means very little that a lib org(Columbia U) gives a lib some award.
And no, Suskind is not "well respected" - he is by some but others? not so much.

Hersh and Suskind are both far more experienced and more widely published and far more respected than you for whatever you may have written.

You could always try disproving what they've said in their writings instead of merely claiming it's so with no substantiation, whatsoever... IF you can! :roll:

How's this:

"Former CIA director George Tenet said in a statement released Monday, "there was no such order from the White House to me. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from the CIA ever involved in any such effort."

Seems like a pretty good source, no?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Harvey
...
Unless you have some proof Suskind is lying, now, the only fiction is your unfounded assertion that the events described in his article are fabricated. :roll:

Let him roll out some evidence on the fabrication of the letter - until then it is heresy - regurgitating what others have spouted

Others have won the Pulitzer for non-fiction that were later shown to be fabricated.

You would think that a copy of such documentation should be availer to back up his claims.
A credible writer will always have a double/triple check on sources. Something that much of a smoking gun should have documentation to back up someone's statement (which may have been overheard)

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: mshan
Do you have insights on whether there really was or is even now a true long term national security interest in the invasion of Iraq?

I only see blind idealogy (PNAC's unipolar moment and pax americana) and just plain corporate greed.

Back then, sure. That Hussein actually followed through on his threats and invaded Kuwait was an incredible development that set the stage for much more - people with no less stature than the then-head of Iraqi military intelligence have said as much. Despite what self-proclaimed Arab expert Lemon law would have people believe, this was the true breaking of a taboo - taking up arms and invading the lands of fellow Arabs. And all the "free Kuwait" nobility aside, the West clearly had a strong self-interest in keeping the oilfields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia out of Hussein's clutches.

Now, this is when he had an army of ~400,000 soldiers and the aforementioned modern anti-air defence network and land weaponry. One massive beatdown later, it's pretty obvious that Hussein was likely to lay low and merely kill his own people for the next decade or two.

As for purpose, I imagine that President Bush aimed not so much to enrich various corporate coffers as he genuinely wanted to create a model state in the Middle East - something Afghanistan can never be.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

You could always try disproving what they've said in their writings instead of merely claiming it's so with no substantiation, whatsoever... IF you can! :roll:

How's this:

"Former CIA director George Tenet said in a statement released Monday, "there was no such order from the White House to me. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from the CIA ever involved in any such effort."

Seems like a pretty good source, no?

NO! :thumbsdown: :|

I remember George Tenet. He's the lying Bushwhacko jackass who infamously said the evidence that Saddam had WMD's was a "slam dunk." :roll:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

You could always try disproving what they've said in their writings instead of merely claiming it's so with no substantiation, whatsoever... IF you can! :roll:

How's this:

"Former CIA director George Tenet said in a statement released Monday, "there was no such order from the White House to me. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from the CIA ever involved in any such effort."

Seems like a pretty good source, no?

NO! :thumbsdown: :|

I remember George Tenet. He's the lying Bushwhacko jackass who infamously said the evidence that Saddam had WMD's was a "slam dunk." :roll:

Well there you go, you've declared the only person who is in any position to refute it a liar, therefore the book is true!

Master of (partisan) logic, Harvey is.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Well there you go, you've declared the only person who is in any position to refute it a liar, therefore the book is true!

Master of (partisan) logic, Harvey is.

Well there you go. Tenet's a PROVEN lying Bushwhacko bullshitter in a long string of PROVEN lying Bushwhacko bullshitters who have spewed LIE afteR LIE, after LIE, after LIE to support their treason, murder and torture and other crimes against humanity, yet somehow, he's the best you've got to offer to disprove the assertions of Pulitzer Prize winnng authors like Suskind and Hersh.

You still haven't disproven anything either of them has said. Do it... if you think you can. I can always repost my list of years of documented Bushwhacko lies and crimes.

[ Insert your favorite foot long Harvey "macro," including documentation, names, dates, links and statutory and Constitutional citations here. ]

 

[mshan]

"As for purpose, I imagine that President Bush aimed not so much to enrich various corporate coffers as he genuinely wanted to create a model state in the Middle East - something Afghanistan can never be."

I also agree that that fool George Messiah Bush truly believed he was truly going to remake the Middle East.

As for Cheney et. al., I don't think their intentions were so noble...

 

[ayabe]

OK here's the deal.

In scandal after scandal, there's an accusation of partisan hackery/straight lying directed at the accuser/source, a public lambasting by the admin and its surrogates, followed 2 or 3 years later with confirmation that what was reported upon previously is more or less true.

This has been proven time and time again on:

torture
Valerie Plame
Domestic spying/FISA
Justice Dept/US Attny Scandal
Pentagon Propaganda campaign

the list could go on and on.

For these reasons, I fully expect the truth to be revealed and it's not going to reflect kindly on the parties involved.

Trying to give the Admin the benefit of the doubt at this point in the game given all that they've been 100% dishonest about, is the height of folly and anyone participating is a true hack of epic proportions.

 

[KGB]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[

Again, I was commenting on your commentary - NOT the guy himself or whatever book he wrote. YOUR commentary attempted to block off any legitimate discussion about the guy by putting a "pulitzer" out there as if it means trust or whatever word you want to use.
There can be no real debate about this book and the claims of the author until he is looked into and his sources discussed. You've tried to prevent that and we are then supposed to take his claims at face value? Sorry, that's not the way things work.

I actually could care less if this is true or not - my whole point is you are preventing actual discussion by attempting to close off parts of it.[/quote]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never prevented anything of the sort.

I merely pointed out that in his profession, he has been honored. That was an attempt to deflect partisan criticism from the left and right. I could have linked to the same story from DailyKos or Fox News but chose not to because of this very issue.

You, on the other hand, insist on professing that Mr. Suskind is lying until proven otherwise. Is everything a lie to you? Would he be more "respected" in your eyes if he had not been awarded a Pulitzer?

 

[KGB]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KGBMAN

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KGBMAN
In other words, discuss the message and not Mr. Suskind. He is a well respected (Pulitzer) journalist.

Uhh sorry but it's a bit much to hide him behind a "pulitzer". As with the Hersh crap - it means very little that a lib org(Columbia U) gives a lib some award.
And no, Suskind is not "well respected" - he is by some but others? not so much.

Would you care to discuss the content or the author?

I was discussing your attempt to portray the guy as unassailable.

No you weren't.

You were just displaying your ability to shine on any information that disagrees with you.

Nobody was trying to portray the author as unassailable.

Information was given that the author holds a prestigious journalism award, the same award you would cite if the guy were writing about how wonderful conservatism is in America.

You are a smoo, a person who deflects any information from any source for any reason that does not fit your dogmatic belief system or bigotry.

You are blind and especially to the fact you are blind.

You are a fanatical defender of the good as everyone should be.

The trouble you run into is that you don't know what real good actually is so you wind up constantly defending evil.

You have all the self justification of a good person doing good in your own mind and look like a complete dolt to everybody else.

What you lack is modesty.

How did it come to pass that only you know what is good.

Until you die to all you hold sacred you will never know anything.

Now it's time for you to shine this on.

Corrected otherwise perfect commentary, opinion and pwnage :thumbsup:

On another note I didn't know Suskind was still alive :shocked:

You might be thinking of David Susskind.

And yes, he is dead.

 

[mshan]

OK here's the deal.

In scandal after scandal, there's an accusation of partisan hackery/straight lying directed at the accuser/source, a public lambasting by the admin and its surrogates, followed 2 or 3 years later with confirmation that what was reported upon previously is more or less true.

This has been proven time and time again on:

torture
Valerie Plame
Domestic spying/FISA
Justice Dept/US Attny Scandal
Pentagon Propaganda campaign

the list could go on and on.

For these reasons, I fully expect the truth to be revealed and it's not going to reflect kindly on the parties involved.

So I guess Rush Limbaugh really is worth that $400 million contract he got.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Well there you go, you've declared the only person who is in any position to refute it a liar, therefore the book is true!

Master of (partisan) logic, Harvey is.

Well there you go. Tenet's a PROVEN lying Bushwhacko bullshitter in a long string of PROVEN lying Bushwhacko bullshitters who have spewed LIE afteR LIE, after LIE, after LIE to support their treason, murder and torture and other crimes against humanity, yet somehow, he's the best you've got to offer to disprove the assertions of Pulitzer Prize winnng authors like Suskind and Hersh.

You still haven't disproven anything either of them has said. Do it... if you think you can. I can always repost my list of years of documented Bushwhacko lies and crimes.

[ Insert your favorite foot long Harvey "macro," including documentation, names, dates, links and statutory and Constitutional citations here. ]

How exactly does one disprove heresay? There's a reason why it generally isn't allowed in court you realize. Unsworn statements by politicians generally aren't prosecutable either(otherwise most every politican would be locked up for perjury). I'm sure in your brain it's all proven beyond a reasonable doubt, of course the distinction between your mind and reality are two very different things, which is why there have been no criminal case against Bush et al and never will be.

Thanks for sparing us the macro, though

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Well there you go, you've declared the only person who is in any position to refute it a liar, therefore the book is true!

Master of (partisan) logic, Harvey is.

Well there you go. Tenet's a PROVEN lying Bushwhacko bullshitter in a long string of PROVEN lying Bushwhacko bullshitters who have spewed LIE afteR LIE, after LIE, after LIE to support their treason, murder and torture and other crimes against humanity, yet somehow, he's the best you've got to offer to disprove the assertions of Pulitzer Prize winnng authors like Suskind and Hersh.

You still haven't disproven anything either of them has said. Do it... if you think you can. I can always repost my list of years of documented Bushwhacko lies and crimes.

[ Insert your favorite foot long Harvey "macro," including documentation, names, dates, links and statutory and Constitutional citations here. ]

How exactly does one disprove heresay? There's a reason why it generally isn't allowed in court you realize. Unsworn statements by politicians generally aren't prosecutable either(otherwise most every politican would be locked up for perjury). I'm sure in your brain it's all proven beyond a reasonable doubt, of course the distinction between your mind and reality are two very different things, which is why there have been no criminal case against Bush et al and never will be.

Thanks for sparing us the macro, though

That remains to be seen. Currently we have an AG who refuses to enforce the law and a Democratic Congress who's afraid of losing an election and thus won't push as hard as is required.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

How exactly does one disprove heresay? There's a reason why it generally isn't allowed in court you realize.

I have no way of confirming Suskind's assertions, at least yet, but he's a Pulitzer Prize winning author of non-fiction, and what he alleges is consistant with the facts.

OTOH, the entire Bushwhacko administration has been proven to be traitors, murderers and torturers who have spewed a clear, consistant trail of lies over seven years in their attempts to cover up their crimes.

Between them, the odds favor believing Suskind over any Bushwhacko liar.

Thanks for sparing us the macro, though

Thanks for acknowledging the truth in my "macros." If you challenge them, I can always repost them, including names, dates, times, links and statutory citations, and you can try and fail (yet again) to refute them, one by one.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Pulitzer are handed out for fiction as well.

CC, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen said here in a long time. It's an utterly false, disingenuous attack. The fiction awards do not in any way impugn the other awards.

You should really be ashamed of yourself for posting that and being an enemy of the truth, trying to discredit the Pulitzer for no reason but to spread lies.

There's a reason why such an award - if imperfect - carries some clout, and it has in part to do with pointing out the fact that people like Suskind have ideological lying enemies.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KGBMAN
In other words, discuss the message and not Mr. Suskind. He is a well respected (Pulitzer) journalist.

Uhh sorry but it's a bit much to hide him behind a "pulitzer". As with the Hersh crap - it means very little that a lib org(Columbia U) gives a lib some award.
And no, Suskind is not "well respected" - he is by some but others? not so much.

Wh don't you post three credible attacks on Suskind's reporting, and show that you have some justification for your attack on him and aren't just a dishonest partisan ideologue?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

u forgot the anthrax we sold him too.

Cook's resignation speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm

"Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

It's fair to ask, given the wrong of chemical and biological weapons, where is the accountability for the western governments who provided/approved these weapons for Saddam as an 'ally'? Could the record by clearer than the Reagan Administration *tightening* the relationship after he committed atrocities?

Why is it ok to say how terrible it is for him to have them when we want to, but to say it's perfectly ok for us to give and allow them when it suits our political interest?

It's a sort of 'Saddam in a monster for gassing his own people' when we turn on him, after 'here's the help you want to kill your internal enemies while you help against Iran'.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Thanks for sparing us the macro, though

Thanks for acknowledging the truth in my "macros." If you challenge them, I can always repost them, including names, dates, times, links and statutory citations, and you can try and fail (yet again) to refute them, one by one.

I've seen dozens of attacks on Harvey's 'macros' by the right.

The number of them that have any substantive content against the content is zero.

What does that say about the attackers?

Are they interested in the truth, or are they pawns out parroting lies they are told?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

u forgot the anthrax we sold him too.

Ooh, my favroite superficially stated half-truth rears its ugly head in here once again.