20 lies about Iraq
July 13, 2003 4:14 PM   Subscribe

20 lies about Iraq. The independent chimes in on the falsehoods and exaggerations both leading up to and after the war.
posted by skallas (130 comments total)

 
Pffft. Some of the "lies" referenced in the article were NOT lies...others were possible (honest) mis-interpretations of sketchy facts...and still others have nothing whatsover to do with whether or not we went to war. The fact remains that the Middle East, and the world, are safer and better off without Hussein and his ilk.
posted by davidmsc at 4:31 PM on July 13, 2003


Hussein (and Osama and that Mullah Omar guy....) are still there, david, and more dangerous than ever.

this is good...why don't our papers have the balls to do this kind of thing?
posted by amberglow at 4:40 PM on July 13, 2003


The fact remains that the Middle East, and the world, are safer and better off without Hussein and his ilk.

Even if that's true, what does it have to do with this article?
posted by jpoulos at 4:48 PM on July 13, 2003


davidmsc, if some of them weren't lies then by implication some of them presumably were. Could you point them out, just so we're clear on it?
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:01 PM on July 13, 2003


And, are we going to allow our leaders to lie to us whenever they want? Sometimes the means don't justify the ends.
posted by bshort at 5:01 PM on July 13, 2003


[Lie] 13 War would be easy ... Resistance was patchy, but stiffer than expected

This sounds like nonsense. All of the reports during the fighting indicated that progress was being made much more quickly than expected. Indeed, Bush had prepared for it to take 60 days till Baghdad was occupied, and it ended up taking under a month.

Still, this is all rather pointless. None of us have all of the facts about the war one way or another, so to say 'this is true' and 'this is a lie' over a whole handful of issues is to imply you're a liar yourself.
posted by wackybrit at 5:01 PM on July 13, 2003


Still, this is all rather pointless. None of us have all of the facts about the war one way or another, so to say 'this is true' and 'this is a lie' over a whole handful of issues is to imply you're a liar yourself.

Us not having the facts is kind of the point.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:05 PM on July 13, 2003


Personally, I'd put this article in the same category as "The Top 20 Girl Groups of the 1980s", as far as its resounding relevance. Maybe "The Top 20 Reasons Why It Was Wrong For the US To Be In Vietnam" or "The Top 20 Reasons Why Bill Clinton Should Have Been Impeached."

Wasn't there some whining about the propaganda story in the FIRST Gulf War, the babies and incubators thing?

Boy, that sure changed a lot of minds.
posted by kablam at 5:05 PM on July 13, 2003


"We" had enough facts. Afghanistan and Iraq both harbored terrorists and others who sought to harm, kill, destroy, and otherwise injure America and other free nations. Hussein had a long history of torturing his own people and his neighbors, and attacking militarily his neighboring countries. Afghanistan became a brutal theocracy under the Taliban. Both regimes were bloodthirsty, oppressive, and downright evil. Both Iraq and the Taliban sponsored, promoted, and/or created terrorists; even without such direct support, their very existence served as a catalyst for others (within and outside of their respective borders) to launch militant crusades against civilization.

How can anybody dispute this?
posted by davidmsc at 5:10 PM on July 13, 2003


Hussein (and Osama and that Mullah Omar guy....) are still there, david, and more dangerous than ever.

Not true. Al Quaeda has been rendered into such disarray that they haven't been able to mount a meaningful attack since the 9/11. And Saddam is a much less danger now to Iraq's people and the world than he used to be when he was in direct control of the Iraqi army and terror police.

No matter how you cut it, Hussein and Osama are much less powerful now, and thus matter less, whether or not they are still alive.

Sometimes the means don't justify the ends.

But the ends always justifies the means.
posted by VeGiTo at 5:12 PM on July 13, 2003


Wasn't there some whining about the propaganda story in the FIRST Gulf War, the babies and incubators thing?

Too bad it never happened.

This, kablam, you cite as 'whining'? - The lies propagated to advance war in the gulf last time?

I don't get your point. You do want the truth to be spoken by our leaders, don't you? he said, optimistically
posted by dash_slot- at 5:16 PM on July 13, 2003


But the ends always justifies the means.

Really?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:17 PM on July 13, 2003


"We" had enough facts.

Indeed? Then why did "we" lie "our" asses off?
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:18 PM on July 13, 2003


How can anybody dispute this?

Probably by pointing out that we are not the world's policeman and our actions, more so in Iraq than Afghanistan (IMO, of course), could only be justified by the important lies and such that GWB and his posse told. Iran, Syria, North Korea are all countries that seem to fit your your (davidmsc) criteria, so what's holding the other half of our troops up from those invasions?
posted by billsaysthis at 5:21 PM on July 13, 2003


Al Quaeda has been rendered into such disarray that they haven't been able to mount a meaningful attack since the 9/11.

I'm sure the folks who died in the Bali bombing and in the Saudi Arabia bombing are comforted by your assertion.

But the ends always justifies the means.

No, they don't. Unless you'd like to Godwinize this thread here and now.


I think the big question here is: If the Bush regime was so sure they were right, why didn't they just submit the real evidence to the world? Why did they have to make up a bunch of lies and then try to pass them off as the truth?
posted by bshort at 5:22 PM on July 13, 2003


davidmsc: Hear hear, and that's also why invading Serbia was a great idea.
posted by wackybrit at 5:25 PM on July 13, 2003


If its OK for the Prez to lie, is it OK for citizens to lie to the Gov?

To the Police - I wasn't going 75.
To the Judge - I didn't kill him
To the IRS - Undeclared income???
To the State Tax collector - I paid taxes on the web purchases.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:26 PM on July 13, 2003


Al Quaeda hasn't even tried to mount a meaningful attack, so I wouldn't challk that up as a victory for us...we certainly haven't captured enough of their leaders or their funds to stop them from doing whatever they wanted. A few telephone calls could be all that's needed for the next major attack.

The deadly resistance in Iraq is said to be orchestrated...who could be doing that? Who was behind the deaths of the iraqi policemen in training the other day? I would say that by driving Saddam underground, we've made the situation far more dangerous, to us and to the iraqis.
posted by amberglow at 5:27 PM on July 13, 2003


their very existence served as a catalyst for others (within and outside of their respective borders) to launch militant crusades against civilization

One might say the same thing about the US. Pre-emptive war, indeed.
posted by bshort at 5:27 PM on July 13, 2003


on preview, and what bshort said.
posted by amberglow at 5:29 PM on July 13, 2003


My take on the 20:
Most Likely Lies, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12. 16, 17, 20
The misleading statements: 1, 2, 9, 10
Uncertain: 7, 14, 15, 18, 19
Not Really Deceiving: 13

Anyway you look at it, I think we can all agree there were a number of just outright lies that have been considerably documented. To say that these lies don't matter is ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the people who are saying it doesn't matter are the same people who said we should IMPEACH CLINTON.

Accept this time, we arent talking ABOUT SEX, we are talking about a PREMPTIVE WAR THAT HAD WORLD OPINION AGAINST IT. A war that we are now being told was justified through a number of lies. And this isn't important? WTF? LIEING ABOUT A BLOWJOB REQUIRES AN INDEPENDENT COUNCIL, BUT LIEING IN THE SOTU ABOUT WAR GETS A FREE PASS?

How about the clintonesque spin on the niger claim -- changing the story every other day -- and better yet, the claim is "FACTUALLY CORRECT". You've got to be kidding me. Where did the integrity go?
posted by nads at 5:32 PM on July 13, 2003


Afghanistan and Iraq both harbored terrorists and others who sought to harm, kill, destroy, and otherwise injure America

Glad you are with me!

The drug dealers who ask me to buy crack from them want to harm America (per TV spots), so are you 100% with me on stopping these menices with arial bombing?
posted by rough ashlar at 5:32 PM on July 13, 2003


Nads, I'd lay off on the caps a little bit...although i wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying.
posted by bshort at 5:34 PM on July 13, 2003


To all those saying we are making progress in the war on terror, how can you believe anything about the status of IRAQ or Afghanistan if the president has a habit of lying about this type of stuff?
posted by nads at 5:34 PM on July 13, 2003


Why did they have to make up a bunch of lies and then try to pass them off as the truth?

Because there will always be baseless leftist extremists who are against the war no matter what. At least the lies could convince some of the short-sighted people to back the war. (The real reason - to install a democracy in Iraq as a role model for the rest of the Middle East, causing the citizens of the other totalitarian states to notice the better life that Iraqi are living, revolt, and in turn morphing the rest of Middle East into free nations - is a least a several decade long project and too idealistic and far-sighted for most people.)

But the ends always justifies the means.

No, they don't


Yes they do, as long as you define "ends" as broad as possible, to encompass all of the side-effects emerging from the "means".
posted by VeGiTo at 5:34 PM on July 13, 2003


Thank you bshort. "Why lie" IS the question. In a free "democratic" "republic," there is no way we can live with lying leaders.

Left and right agreed that Iraq was a problem, but the solution (according to the Bush Admin.) was not what it was purported to be.

There could be some quibbles about some of this list, but most of it has been substantiated by the press over the last few months.
posted by kozad at 5:34 PM on July 13, 2003


rough ashlar: why yes, in fact, I'm all in favor of ARIAL BOMBING. Those MENICES are dangerous.

ARIAL BOMBING...boy, we could have fun with that.
posted by davidmsc at 5:35 PM on July 13, 2003


Because there will always be baseless leftist extremists who are against the war no matter what.

So its ok to lie as long as you believe that what you're doing is right? Where does this end? And, if you're so sure you're right, then why not give people all the factual evidence and let them make up their own minds? Maybe if they believe you they'll agree with you.


At least the lies could convince some of the short-sighted people to back the war.

So short-sighted means that I disagree with the war? What's so short-sighted about that? Couldn't that just be my opinion?
posted by bshort at 5:39 PM on July 13, 2003


Afghanistan and Iraq both harbored terrorists and others who sought to harm, kill, destroy, and otherwise injure America

davidmsc, as you're so well-informed: how many terrorists was Iraq harboring? If you make a statement like that, then you surely must be able to answer that question.

More to the point: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Do we have figures on how many terrorists are living in Saudi Arabia now? If the numbers are comparable to or in fact greater than those in Iraq, do we invade and conquer Saudi Arabia? Oh, and by the way, have you noticed they're not a democracy and that at least half their population don't enjoy even basic civil rights? Under your doctrine of preemption, they're at least as good a candidate for conquest as Iraq was. What say you?
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:40 PM on July 13, 2003


Afghanistan and Iraq both harbored terrorists and others who sought to harm, kill, destroy, and otherwise injure America

Afghanistan yes, but there is still no evidence that this was true of Iraq.

Ex-Officials Dispute Iraq Tie to al-Qaida
posted by homunculus at 5:47 PM on July 13, 2003


George_Spiggot, I am sure that during the WWII, Germany harboured a lot more Nazis than Morocco. Why, then, was Morocco the first contry invaded in the European theatre of WWII?

Does the fact that the numbers of terrorists in Saudi Arabia is higher means that they have to be attacked first, or even attacked at all? Once our current War began on 9/11, 2001 (and by war I don't mean the Gulf War II, but the War on Terror in the larger context), the order of which country is invaded is more of a strategic question than of a morality one.

I am sure the Allies wouldn't have attacked Germany if they gave up right after we took over Morocco. If the terror-states such as Saudi Arabia gradually calm down and start progressing towards democracy, they won't be invaded. But if they don't, I'm afraid that more bloodshed will follow.
posted by VeGiTo at 5:49 PM on July 13, 2003


And besides, does Afghanistan not harbor terrorists now? Please show exactly how we've left Afghanistan unable to harbor terrorists, and back it up with some numbers. How many of those in Gitmo are actually terrorists? How many actual terrorists remain in Afghanistan? How many have gone there since and are enjoying safe haven under some warlord or druglord, given that we couldn't be bothered to secure it and it's almost entirely an open country?
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:53 PM on July 13, 2003


George_Spiggott: Indirectly, answering your question, Saudi is a major problem. Half ruled by the huge Saud family, most of whom we can deal with, some of whom are sophisticated, western educated and very friendly, some of whom are crazier than bedbugs; and the other half controlled by Wahabbi wackos--or a goodly number of them, with a large batch of moderates. It has almost reached the point where push comes to shove. Their old king is past it, and his son is decidedly anti-western, but smart enough to keep a sock in it. More than anything else he would like to keep his current job. And head.
It is a very good question whether the US will inspire him to utterly slaughter many of the radical Wahabbi faction--in an almost civil war. Right now, the Saud are cracking down big time on troublemakers using Mecca and Medina as headquarters to cut up rough from. They are taking the hint from Pakistan and committing their own police and military to take care of their own problem in the hope the US won't feel the need to do it for them, to everybody's disadvantage.
(These local police actions are majorly under reported. They fight and die in their country, then turn the bad actors over to the CIA, in some cases, not getting much if any credit for it.)

In other words, Iraq and Afghanistan were easy to figure out. Saudi will take a heck of a lot more finesse, as much of a nuisance as some of their citizens have become.
posted by kablam at 5:55 PM on July 13, 2003


kablam has made many assertions and prognostications over the past few days that, by being posted here, might as well be carved into stone. Do make a note of these for future reference.
posted by y2karl at 6:05 PM on July 13, 2003


Forget it. Those who refuse to accept the obvious will not be convinced by anyone in this thread.

But know this: The world is safer now than it was before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Iraqis are better off now than they were before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If that makes you angry, sad, disappointed, or otherwise less than happy...(shrug).
posted by davidmsc at 6:06 PM on July 13, 2003


Where did the integrity go?

it was last seen covered in oil and limping away from enron HQ.
posted by quonsar at 6:09 PM on July 13, 2003


Once our current War began on 9/11, 2001 (and by war I don't mean the Gulf War II, but the War on Terror in the larger context), the order of which country is invaded is more of a strategic question than of a morality one.

And that is why the Bush Doctrine and the neocons have to go.

But know this: The world is safer now than it was before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Iraqis are better off now than they were before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

We don't know that. Anarchy may not be any better than autocracy, unless it is a midpoint on the path to a real pluralist government. What makes you believe that end is being sought successfully?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 6:13 PM on July 13, 2003


Forget it. Those who refuse to accept the obvious will not be convinced by anyone in this thread.

So you're talking about the obvious lies? If you're not, then you should tell us why its ok for the president to lie to me.
posted by bshort at 6:13 PM on July 13, 2003


Watching cognitive dissonance play out can be pretty entertaining.

So davidmsc, how many American soldiers were choking to death on mustard gas? How many "automated biological drones" did our patriot arrays shoot down? How many thousands of liters of anthrax did we uncover from sites that we were certain were teaming to the brim with the stuff?

This was a war build on falsehoods and the rationalizations I'm hearing are far from convincing. The PNAC crowd got their war, damn the facts, damn the law, damn democracy, and damn the dead soldiers and their greiving families.
posted by skallas at 6:15 PM on July 13, 2003


Iraqis are better off now than they were before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

thanks, dad! i'm glad davidmsc is iraqs dad! don't you wish he were your dad?
posted by quonsar at 6:15 PM on July 13, 2003


Two days ago I spoke with a recently retuned British soldier, who spoke of seeing the bodies of children hanging on wires in "Police Stations", and other similar things. There is no doubt that this guy was telling the truth because he was completely choked by it and couldn't finish the story of what he had seen.
If this "war" has put an end to the administration that carried out this shit, then I, for one, think an improvement in the world has been made, and care little about articles such as this, written by pampered pussies living in the "free world".
Is there anyone here who is not thankful that the psycho has been ousted, or would you feel more comfortable if the torture and murder of children continued while you impotently split hairs?
posted by Joeforking at 6:18 PM on July 13, 2003


Good thing they avoided the serendipitous acronym at the last minute and didn't call it Operation Iraqi Liberation. Although I still get a laugh from the incredibly aptly named Operation Just 'Cause.
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:19 PM on July 13, 2003


Joeforking, spare us your lame appeal to emotion. How about the just as dead kids in Palestine? Ready to write your congressman so you can run off and fight in Israel? How about Africa? Pick just about *any* part. Ever bother to read anything published by amnesty international or do you just get your "news" from whatever hotbutton topic is today and then tow the line after hearing a sad story?
posted by skallas at 6:29 PM on July 13, 2003


Is there anyone here who is not thankful that the psycho has been ousted, or would you feel more comfortable if the torture and murder of children continued while you impotently split hairs?

Osama bin Laden never led a town, let alone an entire nation, and he organized a group to kill hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people, on numerous occasions. To say that the United States has "stopped" Saddam Hussein rather than merely remove him from the position of leader of the nation of Iraq is dangerously naive, especially if the war hawks are right and the WMD that we cannot find do in fact exist... which means both they and the man we've claimed is willing to use them are somewhere on this earth with a major chip on his shoulder and the support of thousands, possibly millions, who feel the same way after the loss of homes, water and power courtesy of the United States army.

Is there anyone not scared shitless that we have no idea where this previously-contained psycho is anymore, or would you feel more comfortable if the murder of Americans continued while you ignorantly claim evil has been destroyed?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:41 PM on July 13, 2003


Is the out-of-control direction of this thread indicative of anything? I'm just wondering. Is it Metafiler, the Internet, or the Country?
posted by kozad at 7:18 PM on July 13, 2003


kozad, surely you've seen it here before. Changing the subject is a pretty standard avoidance tactic.

Cognitive Dissonance and Thread Derailment: two great tastes that taste great together.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:21 PM on July 13, 2003


Yes, kozad. Metafilter is actually a powerful centrifuge, to be used in creating weapons of mass distraction (sometimes it gets a little buggy and everything piles up on the left side, tho', but we could fix that with some aluminium tubes)
posted by namespan at 7:24 PM on July 13, 2003


Everyone just get on the page. davidmsc is speaksensing here, just plain common sense. What he's truesaying isn't that clever, it's just sense and truth, and the communo-pacifist minddribble in this thread is sending me wildstrife.
posted by wackybrit at 7:26 PM on July 13, 2003


(The real reason - to install a democracy in Iraq as a role model for the rest of the Middle East, causing the citizens of the other totalitarian states to notice the better life that Iraqi are living, revolt, and in turn morphing the rest of Middle East into free nations - is a least a several decade long project and too idealistic and far-sighted for most people.)

you have go to be kidding. we took over a huge country just to show all the countries around it how cool a coup could be? and this is the reason why you supported the war? you have got to be kidding.

Forget it. Those who refuse to accept the obvious will not be convinced by anyone in this thread.

why can't you answer George_Spiggott's question? or for that matter, skallas's? it reminds me of a quote I saw in this very thread:

Because there will always be baseless leftist extremists who are against the war no matter what.

it seems like there will always be baseless right wing extremists who will love and believe all this administration says just to make "liberals" squeal.

Is there anyone here who is not thankful that the psycho has been ousted, or would you feel more comfortable if the torture and murder of children continued while you impotently split hairs?

for the LAST TIME: criticizing the war != hussein rules. OK? I thought we put this one to bed months ago?
posted by mcsweetie at 7:33 PM on July 13, 2003


Metafilter: everything piles up on the left side.
posted by VeGiTo at 7:36 PM on July 13, 2003


modern democracy: what we said before doesn't matter because what we did was sooo much better than what we said we were gonna do that we were hoping you'd just forget about all that crap and love us. We rule you like a king, get with the program already! Don't hate the player, hate the game, man!
posted by Hackworth at 7:44 PM on July 13, 2003


Metafilter: everything piles up on the left side.

That's a pretty lame tagline, VeGiTo. How 'bout:

Metafilter: The ends justify the memes.

Oh yeah, and one more time... opinions on why the world's better off after our pre-emptive war are irrelevant in discussing whether or not the administration lied, duh.

posted by soyjoy at 7:48 PM on July 13, 2003


Everyone just get on the page. davidmsc is speaksensing here, just plain common sense. What he's truesaying isn't that clever, it's just sense and truth, and the communo-pacifist minddribble in this thread is sending me wildstrife.

You need a spellchecker in the biggest way.

Communo-pacifist? Yeah, if "hates being lied to by the people we voted for" == "communo-pacifist"
posted by bshort at 8:00 PM on July 13, 2003


You need a spellchecker in the biggest way.

I think he left it next to your irony-detector.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:05 PM on July 13, 2003


y2karl: I will confess that a lot of my "assertions and prognostications" are based on news stories that may or may not form linkages in the way I suspect, and even if they do might not be clearly resolved. However, all told, the best generalization I can reach for the current situation is that the *world*, right now, is engaged in a "world war."
The US, and its influence, are being felt now in entire regions previously ignored and isolated, such as ALL of Central Asia, across Africa, Oceania (with South America strangely neglected, possibly due to the incompetence of Otto Juan Reich, designated mandarin in charge of that continent.)
Strange alliances are being forged, such as with Pakistan and Poland, and strange reinforcements are being made to some existing ones, such as the statements coming out of Australia these days, sounding almost as belligerent as Washington.
Just today, a flurry of news items about North Korea--bizarre stuff, really. What to make of it? They are definitely "on the radar" for "regime change", but will the US administration go that far? Even I won't try to guess that, at least yet.
Also, Tony Blair is at loggerheads, according to some news stories, with Gerhard Schroeder, over a proposal to the major European states to, along with the US, legitimize "war to overthrow governments that oppress their own people!"
Good Lord!

Now picture my frustration when someone ignorant of this and a thousand other facts and information blurts out that "Bush is stupid! The war against Iraq is stupid! They lied about WMDs! Anybody who doesn't think so is a...a...Neo-Con!" (Boy, it that a *pathetic* expletive.)
posted by kablam at 8:10 PM on July 13, 2003


Any American who can not, at this point, accept and admit the fact that our government lied to us is simply in denial. There is no doubt at this point, they did in fact lie to us. You might still think the war was a good idea, but you were lied to. Say it. Say it out loud. Say it so we know you're not crazy.

PLEASE JUST SAY IT, I'M BEGGING YOU.
posted by Hildago at 8:12 PM on July 13, 2003


what america needs is a fascist and totalitarian dictatorship. that would put a stop to all this shrill questioning of authority.
posted by crunchland at 8:13 PM on July 13, 2003


Now picture my frustration when someone ignorant of this and a thousand other facts and information blurts out that "Bush is stupid! The war against Iraq is stupid! They lied about WMDs! Anybody who doesn't think so is a...a...Neo-Con!" (Boy, it that a *pathetic* expletive.)

We don't have to picture it, you're showing it. First of all, the facts that you say others are ignorant are not facts, you're makingnothing but vague and subjective assertions: "influence is being felt", "strange alliances are being formed", "may or may not form linkages in the way I suspect".

Second, your characterization of the opposing position is rather a straw man. If you really are interested in facts, try offering some, starting with the linked article: which of the 20 claimed lies in the linked article are not lies, and by elimination, which ones are?
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:22 PM on July 13, 2003


The damage control spin is taking a very repetitive turn: all the sound bytes coming out of the administration today have the same phrase: "16 words".

Rice: 16 words dispute 'enormously overblown'

Oh, really? Gosh, well, "I did not have sex with that woman" is only 8 words. Dang, and you say an impeachment proceeding came out of it? I guess that means we'll impeach Bush twice on this one lie alone. And after that we'll still have 19 lies to get through, and nobody's even done the word count on those.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:42 PM on July 13, 2003


kablam, and the rest of you who think the Iraqis are better off now,

take a look at the latest news. Al Qaeda is now blowing up stuff in Iraq.

I also direct you to this informative article from todays observer that goes into how Al Qaeda is still operating, and how our misguided war on terror is going to cost us dearly.

Remember Al Qaeda works in two year intervals, well this Sept 11th will be two years, and Homeland Security is still an underfunded mandate from our Commander and Chief.

If you honestly feel the walkover in Iraq makes you feel safer who am I to say you don't, but they do have pills to help with delusions.
posted by jbou at 8:47 PM on July 13, 2003


This town needs an enema.
posted by NortonDC at 8:50 PM on July 13, 2003




"I, for one, think an improvement in the world has been made, and care little about articles such as this, written by pampered pussies living in the "free world".
Is there anyone here who is not thankful that the psycho has been ousted" (Joeforking)

Well, taken in isolation, I agree that that ouster of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. Again: taken in isolation.
But there are plenty of people in the US military who are appalled and angry over the mess the US is mired in in Iraq (see below).

Furthermore, there's something tragic implicit in your attitude that the proper use of overwhelming US military power can "improve" the world, because it denies human nature. At a very basic level.

Nowhere are people inclined to welcome being forcibly "improved" and - even if the US had the purest of motives, rather than being a bit fixated on Iraq's oil - it's easy to see how a few thousand B'aath party partisans could turn the Iraqi people against the Americans. All of the known cases in history in which suicide bombing has been used as a tactic have involved attempts to repell foreign occupying armies, and the US may have just seized and occupied an enourmous West Bank or Gaza Strip.

So: the critics of the US invasion of Iraq are the realists, I'd say - and of the "liberated" Iraqis? - You may not see the US army as an invading force. Well - despite Saddam Husein's very real crimes - many Iraqis would be inclined to see things differently.


Meanwhile - of the critics of the invasion and occupation of Iraq - are they all "pampered pussies"? - Ex-Special Forces soldier Stan Goff has some harsh words to say, and the attacks against US forces in Iraq are growing more frequent....To combat these problems, the US military has launched a new patriotic magazine for the troops in Iraq: "Called the "Liberator", the 16-page in-house publication carries rousing reports from the field to win over homesick troops who might be doubting the rationale for the US presence more than six months after they first arrived in Kuwait to train for the invasion.".

Many US military personel in Iraq are feeling quite disgruntled (when are they going home?), and the larger military establishmet is mad too: in the "Army Times' " June 30 editiorial (may have been "disappeared", check Google cache) - the title was Nothing but lip service: "White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day......Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones......Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof."

Yes, this sort of thing is bad for moral and leads me to wonder - does the lack of concern, on the part of the Bush Adminstration, for the financial well being of the individuals who make up America's fighting forces stem from the fact that many Bush Adminstration members served in the US military or served in combat?

Moving right along, Afghanistan is once again sinking into tribal chaos, and this year has sen a record Afghanistan opium crop ( "Afghan Poppies Proliferate
As Drug Trade Widens, Labs and Corruption Flourish" Wash. Post, July 12th 2003 ), while The Taleban is said to be regrouping and kabul
is reemerging as a terrorism hot spot

But that's old news.....

Meanwhile,the Iraqi people are not faring very well: An Austrian doctor working in Basra described a "disastrous humanitarian and security situation" in Iraq, the Catholic press agency Kathpress reported on Thursday.

Dr Eva-Maria Hobiger said a number of seriously ill children, for whom there were hospital beds in Austria, were unable to leave Iraq because they had no passports.

"There is no Iraqi authority which issues passports. The Americans and British say it's none of their business. The people are sitting in a single, big prison. "

The British are saying that the American rebuilding effort is in chaos

But what of the much touted, ballyhoo'd "War n terorism"? - Well........WASHINGTON, July 9 (UPI) -- One of the world's leading terrorism experts Wednesday told the panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks thatThe U.S. invasion of Iraq may have worsened the threat of terrorism.

"Prof. Rohan Gunaratna, giving evidence at a public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also criticized the failures of intelligence and policy he said had turned Afghanistan into a "terrorist Disneyland," and allowed al-Qaida and other terror groups "a free reign."

It's all for the best, chirps chirps Tom Friedman and Nick Kristoff, vying for the US journalism's "neo-autism"/"shrivelled perspective" award interviewed a man who lost his ear to Saddam Hussein's thuggery - a mean man, this Saddam. In bed with the devil, to be sure (but who is on top?).

But Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, et. al have long been gunnig for Saddam, and so Rummy's alleged post 9-11 quip come to mind: "The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."


Oh boy. A man, a plan, a broom - Iraq! And all the Mideast is Rummy's compliant dust.......but the dust, it seems, does have a voice and a will......

" “We will accept the Americans to come liberate us from Saddam because,” says an architect from Baghdad, “it’s easier afterward to fight the Americans than to fight Saddam. This is the way we feel. This is what ‘the silent majority’ are thinking, if you want to know.” "
posted by troutfishing at 9:09 PM on July 13, 2003


Well at least we now know who didn't have anything to do for several hours on a Sunday night.
posted by wackybrit at 9:13 PM on July 13, 2003


This just in......

Bush Aides Now Say Claim on Uranium Was Accurate
- Oh my. They are really flailing. What was it? Accurate? Inaccurate? A blatant lie? The barest shred of truth?
posted by troutfishing at 9:14 PM on July 13, 2003


Our government is telling lies to do bullying things in the name of security. Every dictator in history starts this way. And, a few things:

Is there anyone here who is not thankful that the psycho has been ousted...?

You do see that a majority of the world's population would express this sentiment were something to happen to George Bush, don't you? Here's thing I don't get. We are turning into the bad guy right in front of everyone's eyes, and most of the world, and a lot of us here in United States see it happening. Yet, so many people cannot --will not-- comprehend that Our Great Land could ever be the villain. Well, the ideal and the facts don't always match.

And then this:

Also, Tony Blair is at loggerheads, according to some news stories, with Gerhard Schroeder, over a proposal to the major European states to, along with the US, legitimize "war to overthrow governments that oppress their own people!"

A startling quote, but I think startling to me for the exact opposite reason Kablam included it. Because this only makes me want to blurt out that "Bush is stupid! The war against Iraq is stupid! They lied about WMDs!" even more than before.
posted by umberto at 9:27 PM on July 13, 2003


But know this: The world is safer now than it was before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Yes, the destabilization of an entire region has made everyone everywhere much more comfortable. I know I sleep better at night knowing that the complete, total anarchy now reigning in Iraq (and Afghanistan) has made it much easier to track down people who might be a danger to world peace. After all, we got Saddam, didn't we?

Iraqis are better off now than they were before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Yes, the total destruction of basic services in Iraq has so improved things for the average Iraqi.

So much so that I hear some Iraqis are expressing their undying gratitude in a charming display of local customs-- they're making small gift packages of metal and hurling them at our soldiers at high velocity.
posted by Cerebus at 9:28 PM on July 13, 2003


George_Spiggott: ...First of all, the facts that you say others are ignorant are not facts...

Okay, smart guy, *you* dig out the fact from the fancy in just a few of the sources I've used for my conjectures, then, if you're willing to do the reading, tell me true, what does it matter if the "20 lies" are indeed 20 lies, in the big scheme of things, i.e. a "world war"?:

The complexity of Saudi Arabia.

The North Korean situation worsens.

Iran mischief. And the US response?

How about the US as "soccer referee" in Iraq?

My argument is plain, and *not* "Neo-Con", to the twits who overuse that expression, along with "straw man" and "ad hominem." It is that you should NEVER underestimate your enemy, in the case of many of you, George W. Bush and Co., *and* that just parroting ignorant comments which in total amount to nothing more than "I hate conservative republicans", does *nothing* to either advance your cause or persuade others.

Brush aside the trivial or you will be left behind.
posted by kablam at 9:40 PM on July 13, 2003


Bush Aides Now Say Claim on Uranium Was Accurate

So why did George Tenet get canned?
posted by goethean at 9:51 PM on July 13, 2003


what does it matter if the "20 lies" are indeed 20 lies, in the big scheme of things, i.e. a "world war"?:

Uh...maybe there wouldn't have to be a huge war if we'd knock it off with the lies, maybe?
posted by umberto at 9:53 PM on July 13, 2003


Brush aside the trivial or you will be left behind

And does "trivial" mean, "anyone who disagrees with me since I have lots more guns"?
posted by umberto at 9:57 PM on July 13, 2003


Afghanistan and Iraq both harbored terrorists and others who sought to harm, kill, destroy, and otherwise injure America

Jesus, I'm glad so many people have jumped on this statement, because it just goes to show if you keep telling the same lie, over and over again, eventually really gullible people will believe it.

Iraq neither supported terrorism, nor harbored terrorists, unless you count the radical Islamic fundamentalists that Sadaam used to torture. Hardly supporting those who sought to harm, kill, destroy, or otherwise injure us.

Here, pick the true comment from other popular lies:
A. "The president of Iraq is Osama bin Laden."
B. "Iraq caused 9/11."
C. "We found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
D. "Osama bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein were captured."
E. "Our president is a crook."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:11 PM on July 13, 2003


what does it matter if the "20 lies" are indeed 20 lies, in the big scheme of things, i.e. a "world war"?:

My argument is plain, and *not* "Neo-Con",


no, it's far worse than that. what is your lie threshold? if the bush administration tells 35 lies, will you stop apologizing for them? will you hold the torch at 34 and drop it at 35?

that just parroting ignorant comments which in total amount to nothing more than "I hate conservative republicans", does *nothing* to either advance your cause or persuade others.

neither does, "if you think the situation Iraq isn't great then you're ignorant of the facts."
posted by mcsweetie at 10:18 PM on July 13, 2003


kablam,

4 out of your five links are from questionable sources, to say the least. the N Korea article was very interesting, an insane idea, but interesting. Please in the future don't link Debka, it adds nothing to your argument, and good god son, the new york sun is joke.

I find that you think the world is going to be safer because the US is attacking everyone funny, because by the time all of this mess is settled, you're going to be dead.

Kablam, You're correct, I hate the current neo-con agenda, and I'm working my ass off to make sure Bush is no longer going to be our president, and if all goes right Dubya will be sitting in Crawford in January of 05 thumbing through the classifieds looking for a job.
posted by jbou at 10:18 PM on July 13, 2003


Brush aside the trivial or you will be left behind.

Thanks, perhaps I'll catch the next handbasket. But do have a ball where you're going, really.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:22 PM on July 13, 2003


D. "Osama bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein were captured."

This is true! Here's the proof!
posted by homunculus at 10:32 PM on July 13, 2003


And this just in:

Rumsfeld Says Iraq May Need a Larger Force

"It seems to me that the numbers of U.S. forces are unlikely to go up," he said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Now, could they? You bet. If they're needed, they will be there."

There are 148,000 American and 13,000 non-American troops in Iraq now, with 17,000 more allied soldiers pledged to arrive over the summer. Mr. Rumsfeld said 28,000 of the 60,000 Iraqi police officers needed were now on the job. American occupation leaders also plan to train a new Iraqi army of 12,000 soldiers within one year, expanding it to 40,000 within three years...

On "Meet the Press," Mr. Rumsfeld warned of more American casualties, saying: "Are people being shot at? Yes. Is it a difficult situation? You bet. Are more people going to be killed? I'm afraid that's true."

posted by y2karl at 11:13 PM on July 13, 2003


Condi Rice transcript from Fox this morning. She gets put on the hot seat about midway in the transcript...we have a wee bit of buck passing going on...apparently it's not just Tenet's fault - it's the fault of the damn speechwriters too!

SNOW: As you know, I've worked on State of the Union addresses. And typically, guidance for that kind of language comes from your office, from the National Security Council. The CIA doesn't talk to speech writers, at least not very often.

RICE: No, that's right.

(LAUGHTER)

SNOW: So...

RICE: Well, in fact, what we do is that we put together a lot of documentation from all kinds of sources and give that to the speech writers as grist to write from.

SNOW: Yes, and you approve — I mean, quite often, your office drafts language. Did your talking points include mention of the possibility that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Africa?

RICE: What was given to the speech writers was, in effect, data from various sources about the nuclear activities of Saddam Hussein. The National Intelligence Estimate had references to uranium acquisition, not only to the specific source, the specific case. And that was, I understand, given to the speech writers; they wrote it.

But what we do, Tony — and I want to be very clear — is that it is also the practice, once something is written, to send it out to the agencies and to say, "Will you stand by this?"

posted by madamjujujive at 11:23 PM on July 13, 2003


y2karl, Rumsfield used those exact same words, up to and including the part about people being killed, on This Week with George Stephanopolous. Any illusion of candor is obviously rehearsed.

Aside: have you ever noticed how incredibly condescending he is? He talks as if he assumes the public is completely retarded. I have seldom seen an official so completely unable to mask his contempt for the public. But then he has reason to be contemptuous: his administration got in, and is by and large getting its way. No wonder he thinks we're ignorant and gullible. He has reason to.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:37 PM on July 13, 2003


Meanwhile his predictions today are sadly truthful, if nothing else is....US Soldier Dies, Others Hurt in Iraq Attacks.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:45 PM on July 13, 2003


at least saddam is out there keeping it real which is more than i can say for any of you folks
posted by timb at 12:22 AM on July 14, 2003


''Aside: have you ever noticed how incredibly condescending he is?'' Why, yes, George, I think I know exactly what you mean... Upon review: Hey, timb--leave the patronizing comments to Rummy, little leaguer
posted by y2karl at 12:36 AM on July 14, 2003


Well at least we now know who didn't have anything to do for several hours on a Sunday night.

What a spectacularly obnoxious and pathetic response, wackybrit. I suppose it would have been much quicker to just pull the words out of his ass.

trout, that was an amazing comment that actually addressed almost every single issue in this thread with evidence to back it up and I for one appreciate the time you obviously put into it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:17 AM on July 14, 2003


Iraq Cost Could Mount to $100 Billion
Impact on Other Programs Feared

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 13, 2003; Page A22

The cost of the war so far, about $50 billion, already represents a 14 percent increase to military spending planned for this year. Even before the United States invaded Iraq in March, President Bush had proposed defense budgets through 2008 that would rise to $460 billion a year, up 74 percent from the $265 billion spent on defense in 1996, when the current buildup began.

At the same time, the federal budget deficit is exploding. This week, officials expect to announce that it will exceed $400 billion for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, the largest in U.S. history by a wide margin. Former White House budget director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. said last month the deficit should be smaller next year, but economists at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. -- factoring rising war costs -- said Friday the deficit may climb even higher than their previous $475 billion estimate.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Republicans contended that President Clinton had stretched the military too thin with the deployment of 10,000 troops in the Balkans, Kosiak noted. Now, there are 16 times that many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, and the grumbling is beginning again. Sens. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) practically pleaded with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for a larger Army when he appeared last week before the Armed Services Committee.
(...)
"It's been hide the ball every step of the way," said Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. "They've consistently understated the cost by a factor of several-fold, and they've done everything they can not to share information."
(...)
Even Republican aides on Capitol Hill complain that the Defense Department has been far too reluctant to own up to the budgetary costs of the war.




posted by matteo at 2:22 AM on July 14, 2003


Everything I say is true.

What I just said is a lie.

But at least he's on a mission from God....
posted by charms55 at 2:28 AM on July 14, 2003


Skallas - is that all it is to you, a sad story, the only importance of which is to give you another chance to bash Bush? You don't give a shit about the people, it's just another political opportunity to you. I agree with you that Palestine etc is wrong, wrong, wrong but this thread was specifically about IRAQ. You're the bore who is pushing the hot button, I bet your heart soared when you saw this article.
posted by Joeforking at 2:34 AM on July 14, 2003


Joeforking, don't get so defensive and engage in this lame ad hominen. The intent of my post is fairly obvious: I'm criticizing your lack of rational thinking, off-topic nature of your post, and appeal to emotion. Why not address the 20 lies instead of giving us Saddam horror stories? I don't think a sad story has much in common with the article or thread.

Its a lame knee-jerk to pretend everything is all-right. Some of us take corruption, lies, war, and the death of American soldiers a bit more seriously than others I guess. I love how the war went from "imminent and real threat" to "ousting a dictator" when the cameras went live.

The slight suggestion that anti-war = pro-Saddam is sickening and insulting.

Also you forgot to add, "He gassed his own people!!"

> You don't give a shit about the people, it's just another political opportunity to you.

Sure Joe. Am I running for office or something?
posted by skallas at 2:55 AM on July 14, 2003


Who keeps using the word lame? That's ad hominem, boy.
Are you running for office? I hope not.
posted by Joeforking at 3:06 AM on July 14, 2003


Or how about this one:

"....you have 48 hours...."

But Bush was elated when he was told there was a chance to kill Saddam on the eve of the scheduled start of the war. On March 19, he made a last-minute decision to launch airstrikes on a Baghdad bunker where U.S. intelligence agents had just learned Saddam was spending the night. link

Oops! Just kidding!

Now, I am unconcerned about our lies to Saddam....(except how many civilians were lost in that premature raid) it is the lying to Americans, the UN, Congress, Parliament, et al that is the concern. Above all, to the American public. And does anyone think that goes unnoticed even by the unwashed masses under the thumb of some thug someplace? We once believed we were above that....This sounds just like the podium pounding of any tin-horn dictator, complete with cooked evidence or outright lies.

What's more, the dissembling doesn't stop there. The above posts about Rumsfeld et al waffling about how much force is necessary or "we will find/won't find WMD"....shoot they're everywhere!

He destroyed them before we attacked...let's see....wasn't that the purpose of inspections held under the THREAT of violence?

By attacking, one could argue, we actually over-played our hand. Trumped our partner's (the UN) Ace. And taught North Korea a valuable lesson: It is far better to have WMD than not.
posted by charms55 at 3:22 AM on July 14, 2003


Well, thanks to matteo's WaPo link, we now can link direct to
the Cost of the War in Iraq embed counter and watch our tax dollars burn, baby, burn....
posted by y2karl at 3:32 AM on July 14, 2003


Iraqis are better off now than they were before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Just not 6000 dead ones.
posted by adampsyche at 3:38 AM on July 14, 2003


Now envision another counter for the Cost Of War In North Korea and another for the Cost of War In Iran--a couple of more wars and we'll be the mightiest has been hyperpower in history, just like that.
posted by y2karl at 3:39 AM on July 14, 2003


This patently mistitled piece on the BBC, has some few things to say about Iraqi acceptance of the quisling government being set up by the british-american occupation forces:
"Perhaps most damning is the almost total lack of belief that people seem to have that the council will be able to act independently of its' American masters.
Maybe it is the hulking presence of US tanks and armoured cars on street corners; maybe it is the vacuum in authority left by the collapse of a totalitarian regime.
But there is precious little faith amongst Iraqis that this council represents the beginning of an era of self government.
For most Iraqis, the bottle is most definitely half empty."

Iraqis are better off now. Some disagree:
-In fact, I spoke to one family yesterday who said, you know, that they were no supporters, by any means, of Saddam Hussein, but on the other hand, at least Saddam Hussein provided water, provided electricity, provided schooling, provided subsidised medical care.
- Now, with her mother and father ill and her 20-year-old sister - who is taking care of them - vulnerable to the hordes of criminals roaming the streets, Raji said she believes that in some ways they were better off under Saddam's rule.
- "The Muslims want to destroy us," said Amira Nisan, 38, Essa's wife. "I think we were better off under Saddam."
Such a sentiment is voiced increasingly today among Iraq's 800,000 Christians.
- At the orphanage the Assassins supported, the director, Bayan Hasan Ali, thanked the soldiers for their help-and later said she believed “the Americans started the looting and let everyone else do the rest.” And she claimed the orphans had been better off under Saddam, who gave them one million dinars a year (about $800). “Every orphan here has a bank account,” Ali says.

These are people that say that even Saddam Hussein (for chrissakes) was better than foreign occupation.
Let's see then, we have no idea about the number of people in the Iraqi resistance being killed by American/British troops, we have no idea about unlawful arrests that take place in Iraq, we do know that there is popular resentment for the occupation, despite hatred for Saddam, we do know that there are power shortages, water shortages, problems in schools, in hospitals, everywhere. In what respect is their current situation better, and more importantly based on what criteria is this assessment made? Because Poland was not a democracy before Hitler invaded [/godwin]. Neither was China when the japanese invaded either.
Do you think that Iraq will become a multi-party democracy? With free elections, with the will of the Iraqi people expressed do you think that the resulting government would be likely to de-nationalize the oil-fields? Don't you think that it would be anti-israel? Or do you think that any person not involved with the resistance today will have any legitimacy at all or will be likely to get elected?
posted by talos at 4:46 AM on July 14, 2003


Politicians lie?

I don't know who to believe anymore...
posted by stavrogin at 6:20 AM on July 14, 2003


Was Japan better off one month before or one month after 8/6/45? One year? One decade? Which time frame matters? Probably the more convenient one?
posted by shoos at 6:21 AM on July 14, 2003


Was Japan attacking the US one month before 8/6/45 or do we just use the part of the analogy that is more convenient for our means?
posted by magullo at 6:26 AM on July 14, 2003


If the statements in the linked article are not, in fact, lies, then doubtless their proponents will be happy to provide some justification for them in response to that baseless accusation.
posted by walrus at 6:38 AM on July 14, 2003


XQUZYPHYR - Thanks. I should have used spell check though, and mis-spoke - I mean to ask - "does the lack of concern, on the part of the Bush administration, for the financial well being of the individuals who make up America's fighting forces stem from the fact that FEW Bush administration members served in the US military or served in combat?" - I'm surprised that this story isn't getting more attention ( except in the Blogosphere ). The Bush Administration sends over a hundred thousand troops into battle and simultaneously move to roll back increases in immanent danger pay and family separation allowances, and has fought military tax relief measures.

But....stiffing surviving family members US military personnel who die in active duty? That is just bizarre, and ugly - "White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty." (from a US Army Times Editorial, June 30 2003. See link below) The editorial continues:

"....talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately......Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas....puts it this way: “American military men and women don't deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.” "

Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks. There you go: The US Army Times calls the Bush administration Full of Shit.

Back to the "20 Lies"e; - I think that as a general operating principle, it works really well to take whatever the Bush Administration says and assume that they either they are blatantly lying or that intend exactly the opposite (or something very different) of what they say. So - "We honor the US military personnel" actually means "We have contempt for them and intent to cut their pay". "Bringing Democracy to the Iraqi people" actually means "Wolfowitz has this "Democracy-Domino effect" theory about Iraq, that a Democratic Iraq would inspire the emergence of Democracy throughout the Mideast. How is that actually going to work? We'll talk up that line, but we're actually not really sure. Be quite clear on this though: Democracy or not, we're holding onto those oil fields."
posted by troutfishing at 7:04 AM on July 14, 2003


that wasn't my argument, magullo

I was attempting to point out that it is peculiar that at this point in time people are drawing conclusions about whether or not as a result of the war Iraq will be better off.
posted by shoos at 7:10 AM on July 14, 2003


Was Japan attacking the US one month before 8/6/45 or do we just use the part of the analogy that is more convenient for our means?
Well not directly attacking the US, but a few refused to give up.
posted by PenDevil at 7:15 AM on July 14, 2003


Gah! Borked the link. Correct link here:Japanese Holdouts after WWII.
posted by PenDevil at 7:18 AM on July 14, 2003


You know, if everyone in the U.S. was on Mefi, the contents of this thread alone would be enough to start an impeachment hearing. This whole 'did he or didn't he' lie stinks of the beginnings of the Clinton impeachment, only this time there's infinitely more than one man's loyalty to his wife at stake.

The continued 'flailing' (as one of you above has called it) of the White House over whether it did or did not lie absolutely kills all hope of this administration being credible for the remainder of Bush's stay on Pennsylvania Avenue. I've never known so many people in my neighborhood to seriously consider the credibility of the president (especially when he happens to be a Republican, for some reason). But these recent actions, press statements, and all around amateurish handling of life and death situations has made them consider running to Canada, or further. American refugees may result as a side effect of these actions. So get ready for some fat imports, world... our leader has done us wrong for the last time.
posted by phylum sinter at 7:38 AM on July 14, 2003


To take the wider lies about Afghanistan and Iraq:

"The War on Terrorism is going well" - Not.

Al Qaeda is reemerging in Afghanistan,
the Taleban is regrouping, and
opium production has hit record levels.

Even our allies, the British, say the
Iraq is falling apart, and A major humanitarian crisis is emerging as millions lack enough food, clean water, or medicine. Children are suffering: "Since the collapse of the regime, homeless children, often drug-addicted and hungry, have become a common sight on the streets of Baghdad" (CNN)

Attacks on the US troops in Iraq are increasingly well organized.........

Meanwhile, The WMD's are nowhere to be found

And the
Rest of the world increasingly looks at US as a threatening rogue nation

The occupation of Iraq will take more troops, more money, and more time.....nobody really knows how much more troops money and time, because the Bush Administration really doesn't have a clue about how to manage the situation.

Analysis: the War in Iraq is not over. It is in a new phase, the low intensity guerrilla war of attrition phase, which Saddam Hussein is currently winning.

Meanwhile, the threat of terrorism may have increased as a result of the Bush administration's actions, says one of the world's top terrorism experts (UPI July 9, 2003) , and Osama Bin Laden runs wild and free....

What an ugly mess. Hey, I've got a great idea - Let's start a war with North Korea!
posted by troutfishing at 7:41 AM on July 14, 2003


And people said Metafilter doesn't do politics well. Shame on them.
posted by deadcowdan at 7:42 AM on July 14, 2003


I'm starting to think that none of you have a very firm idea of exactly what constitutes ad hominem.
posted by aramaic at 7:44 AM on July 14, 2003


phylum sinter: you're quite right: it's an unprecedented mess. At least I live in the UK where we have leaders who don't ... erm ... oh shit.
posted by walrus at 7:46 AM on July 14, 2003


troutfishing - you're grabbing articles from the future again... that last link isn't going to be true until next week.

aramaic - a simple refresher, then?

walrus - follow me to New Zealand, then! [advertise]where kiwi is more than a fruit![/advertise]
posted by phylum sinter at 7:50 AM on July 14, 2003


It seems that the war is not the only issue being lied about. The economy has been a victim throughout the GWB regime.
posted by adnanbwp at 7:51 AM on July 14, 2003


I'll bite. Ad hominem means, essentially, an attack against the person rather than the argument. Like asserting that a bunch of people are incapable of understanding a concept instead of rebutting what they are actually saying.
posted by walrus at 7:52 AM on July 14, 2003


And New Zealand does sound incredibly pleasant.
posted by walrus at 7:56 AM on July 14, 2003


I think Troutfishing should get a big gold star for his comment in this thread.
posted by bshort at 7:59 AM on July 14, 2003


I'm starting to think that none of you have a very firm idea of exactly what constitutes ad hominem.

aramaic, it appeared twice in 100+ postings, and in the first it's talked about rather than used, in much the manner that you have. (What is actually said about it is quite stupid though.). You're right about the other usage, it is entirely incorrect. But to use that as the basis for saying "none of you" shows no better grasp of logic than you're suggesting.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:02 AM on July 14, 2003


shoos, the U.S. war objective for Japan was to beat the crap out of it, not to surgically remove hirohito and liberate the Japanese people from his rule. Different criteria apply in the two cases.

IOW, how long does it take after you drop two nuclear devices on civilians for that society to start benefiting from it? Or why is the US so scared of nuclear terrorism when it worked so well in the long term for the Japanese?
posted by magullo at 8:07 AM on July 14, 2003


Not to put too fine a point on it but... troutfishing's Hey, I've got a great idea - Let's start a war with North Korea! is the same link as kablam's The North Korean situation worsens.

It never hurts to click on the other guy's links.

On the other hand, it never hurts to actually communicate a slight hint of a link's content--something that eluded kablam in this particular instance, so troutfishing performed a public service in double posting here.
posted by y2karl at 8:33 AM on July 14, 2003


Magullo, U.S. vs Japan in WWII : U.S. vs. Iraq in Gulf War II was not the analogy. I used the example of Japan/Hiroshima simply as an example of a country in a situation that was at one point very f'd up, incomparably in the case of Japan circa 8/45.
posted by shoos at 8:38 AM on July 14, 2003


phylum sinter - That US News and World Report" about the new Pentagon plan to deal with North Korea - "Elements of the draft, known as Operations Plan 5030, are so aggressive that they could provoke a war, some senior Bush administration officials tell U.S. News. "

The July 21, 2003 date made me blink until I realized that "US News and World" is a weekly......but then again maybe they are releasing a pre-prepared story 'accidentally' for the same reasons as Apple "accidentally" leaks news of a new product line - to build buzz. Or, in this case, to soften us up, to get us ready for a new war which will distract us from the old war, which distracted us from the economy and all the corporate scandals, which distracted some from Bush Adm policies on the environment and inaction on Global Warming......
posted by troutfishing at 9:02 AM on July 14, 2003


Who wants to bet that the nation will be put on Orange Alert in the next week or so?
posted by bshort at 9:17 AM on July 14, 2003


Actually, weeklies like US News and Newsweek always have online stories with funny "future" by-lines. It just indicates when they will run in the mag., probably for citation purposes. Sometimes the "post-dated" material has spelling mistakes and so forth (or even a little extra content) that don't make it to the newsstand.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:24 AM on July 14, 2003


XYZZYZYYZXXX said: What a spectacularly obnoxious and pathetic response, wackybrit. I suppose it would have been much quicker to just pull the words out of his ass.

Thank you for following my lead and injecting yet more yellbaiting minddribble to dilute the speaksense. You are, Sir, most worthy of joining the ranks of the MeFiTrollesque.
posted by wackybrit at 10:18 AM on July 14, 2003


Ari: "a bunch of bull"
posted by muckster at 10:36 AM on July 14, 2003


You can't even compare Japan in WW2 to modern Iraq. Iraq has never directly attacked the United Sates. The Japanese, in addition to attacking Pearl Harbor, also dropped fuel bombs on the west coast to start forest fires, and distract manpower from the war effort.

Japan had a standing army of millions of soldiers, not to mention the six million korean slaves that would have been forced to fight with spears if the US tried a beach landing, so the cost of life would have been unfathomable if the US tried to invade Japan. Japan was also a world power at the time, controlling vast amounts of China, Korea, the Philippines, and the Pacific.

Iraq, however, was a small, broken country with less than 200,000 people in its military, which was horribly out of date. They never directly attacked the United States, and every terrorism connection is sketchy, at best. And Iraq, is not a world power like Japan was.

Magullo, U.S. vs Japan in WWII : U.S. vs. Iraq in Gulf War II was not the analogy. I used the example of Japan/Hiroshima simply as an example of a country in a situation that was at one point very f'd up, incomparably in the case of Japan circa 8/45.

This connection is still tenuous at best. Japan was not fucked up before World War 2. In fact, ever since the Meiji restoration in 1865, Japan had been doing pretty well.

Japan had around 90,000,000 people (I believe) after WW2. They were a very industrialized nation, where as Iraq is crippled after 12 years of sanctions and can barely keep the electricity running, with far less of a population. I also don't see anything like the Marshall plan being enacted for Iraq, which gave (gave, not loan, not an oil buy back program) Japan billions and billions of dollars to rebuild their country.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:36 AM on July 14, 2003


Dear Mister Gaorge Bush:

Please keep this in the strictest confidense. You do not know me, but my name is Umbuto Johnson, and I am the grandson of Ashtari P. Johnson, in charge of the nuclear programme of the African country of Niger.

For severale years, my grandfather had been secretly selling radoactiv materiels to the little known country of Iraqe. He was given the sum of twenty million dollars by Saddem Hussan, of Iraqe, for this materiels. When my grandfather was discovered, two years ago, he was shot by the government. The money from those sales however remained hidden to all.

Before he was caoght, my grandfather shared with me his secret, and gave me instructions on how to move the moneys out of the country. In order to do this, I need the help of a trustworthy American friend and this is why I am seeking to write to you today.

In order to recieve the moneys I must pay a fee bribe of twenty thousand American dollars. I do not have this moneys. If you can send to me these moneys, I will split my grandfathers moneys with you.

Please tell nobody of this message, for I fear I will be in grave danger if it is known. I am relying on you, George Bush, to keep my secret. Respond to me and I will tell you how to send the moneys to me.

Your frend,
Umbuto Johnson
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:53 AM on July 14, 2003


Ari: "a bunch of bull"

Funny, that's just what Colin Powell said.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:13 PM on July 14, 2003


monju-bosatsu: Since troutfishing already got the gold star, I guess you get the happy face.
posted by caddis at 12:28 PM on July 14, 2003


Umbuto Johnson.
Best.Post.Ever.
posted by ElvisJesus at 12:56 PM on July 14, 2003


You can't even compare Japan in WW2 to modern Iraq.

You just did, using a perverted interpretation of my analogy.
posted by shoos at 2:08 PM on July 14, 2003


Nice timing on Ari's part -- he's leaving today.
posted by muckster at 4:38 PM on July 14, 2003


MoveOn.org's petition for an independent investigation has 330,000 signatures so far, and their new TV ad is streaming at misleader.org.
posted by muckster at 4:53 PM on July 14, 2003


Core of weapons case crumbling: Of the nine main conclusions in the British government document "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction", not one has been shown to be conclusively true. (...) President Bush and Prime Minister Blair will be meeting in Washington later this week when they will discuss their strategy to justify the claims.

Kristof: What troubles me is not that single episode, but the broader pattern of dishonesty and delusion that helped get us into the Iraq mess — and that created the false expectations undermining our occupation today. (... ) A group of retired spooks issued an open letter to President Bush yesterday reflecting the view (...) that the central culprit is Vice President Dick Cheney. The open letter called for Mr. Cheney's resignation.

Krugman: How did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn't an isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence.
posted by muckster at 10:21 PM on July 14, 2003


You just did, using a perverted interpretation of my analogy.

You know exactly what I mean. Your lack of refutation speaks louder than your knock on my argument.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:37 PM on July 15, 2003


« Older the short but happy life of eric humphrey gordon   |   Stairway to Heaven Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments