Feith Blames Public For Feeling Misled About Iraq: ‘I Think They Misremember A Lot’
Feith Blames Public For Feeling Misled About Iraq: ‘I Think They Misremember A Lot’
Last night, Iraq war architect Douglas Feith appeared on The Daily Show to discuss his war apologia, War and Decision. When Stewart said that many Americans feel the Bush administration misled them into war, Feith replied, “Errors are not lies. I think a lot of what the Administration said was correct.”
Feith insisted that the entire administration conducted a “serious consideration of the very great risks of war.” When Stewart reminded Feith that those risks were never presented to the public, Feith said he was wrong, and that people who felt that way simply “misremembered” the run-up to war:
STEWART: If you knew the perils, but the conversation that you had with the public painted a rosier picture, how is that not deception? The fact that you seemed to know all the risks takes this from manslaughter to homicide. [...]
FEITH: When people read this book, I think people will be surprised to be reminded of what was actually said. I think a lot of people’s perceptions of what was said are filtered through the recent history. … I think they misremember a lot.
Watch it:
It’s Feith’s memory, not Americans’, that is faulty here. In January, a Center for Public Integrity study documented the more than 930 false statements made by the Bush Administration in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Feith has shut his eyes to the evidence for months, laughably claiming that the administration never said the war would be easy, even though the White House frequently — and famously — peddled just that notion.
As the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss puts it, “Doug Feith is only small part of a bigger story, an ideologically hidebound bureaucrat condemned to spend the rest of his life frantically and fruitlessly arguing against history’s overwhelmingly clear verdict on his incompetence and mendacity.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yeah, it’s all our fault for mis-remembering all the lies, greed and deception. Sure.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pmThat dog not only doesn’t hunt, it can’t even scratch its fleas.
The defense for the Chimpy legacy becomes clear: “The people misremember Chimpy’s Preznitcy.”
May 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pmOh. And Duck You Foug.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pmDuck You Foug?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pmI think I had that for dinner last week.
And this coming from such a believable guy!
May 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pmIs this anything like how we have “misunderestimated” GDumbya, Dougie, WolfWhizz, Little Johnny (”Got Milk?”) Bolton, Condoleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezza, Rumsfailed, Darth Cheney, et. al.?
Oh. Excuse me. There is no way to misunderestimate these Keystone Kops. There is no bar that could be set so low that they couldn’t walk upright under it with room to spare. That is just how incompetent these bozos have been.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pmOnce again, I am infuriated by the fact that Jon Stewart is the most serious, probing interviewer out there. Why aren’t the hacks in the status quo media asking this war criminal tough questions, instead leaving it to Stewart to do the real journalism? Aargh!
May 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pmfirst of all…..Jon Stewart isn’t a journalist….but completely embarrasses every journalist out there with his questions and integrity.
second, the mountain of lies that this fascist cabal has told and continues to deny is so easily dissected that only a FOOL can’t see it.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pmI saw this guy walking along Central Park South in NYC last Wednesday. He had that ridiculous grin on his face.
Earlier that same day I saw John ’stache Bolton somewhere in the 50’s.
Unfortunately I was not in a position to make a scene for either one of them.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pmFeith is wrong, he knows he is wrong. What do expect from cowards? They cheerlead an illegal war, lie all the way through it, and once it is found to be a debacle – lie your way back to the mainstream. Is we learnin’ yet?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pmIntentional errors are lies.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pmWatching Stewart grill these people is an odd experience…I honestly see it more of a platform for him to make his views known, to articulate in a public forum, than to actually get an answer….I mean, invaribaly these guys come out with some variant of a fillibustering “well you’re somewhat right but somewhat wrong…” thats a complete dodge of the questions he asked…
May 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pmYeah, Doug. It is EVERYONE’S fault, except the Bush WH, you, and the media outlets who have spun the utter BS we have been exposed to over the last seven and a half years.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:24 pmHope Doug, that you are a religiuos man. He’ll get his “reward” in the afterlife.
Rot you friggin’ scum!
ThinkProgress has never been more wrong…
There is nothing faulty about Feith’s memory. HE IS STILL LYING! He knows very well that the case for war was BS. He knew it then. He knows it now. He is a liar and a criminal.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pmI think Doug misremembers, not us.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pmSorry. 2nd paragraph, meant religious, and meant to direct the He’ll to you Doug.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pmYou’re still a POS, anyway.
Yes Douggie, they had the best mistaken intel they could fix around the premise that Iraq’s oil actually belongs to the USA.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pmChocolate Jesus Says:
I mean, invaribaly these guys come out with some variant of a fillibustering “well you’re somewhat right but somewhat wrong…” thats a complete dodge of the questions he asked…
May 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
______
After the past 7 1/2 years, do you expect anything else from the architects of this regime?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pmMark @ News Corpse Says:
There is nothing faulty about Feith’s memory. HE IS STILL LYING!
May 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
_____
In the words of Cosmo Kramer, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
May 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pmit’s NOT misremember, it’s misled you twit!
May 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pmFeith is mentally living in the days before video & audio tape, when he might have gotten away with “the public is mis-remembering” bullshit.
“Radio Days” Dougie. Cute nickname.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pmThe bastard. The murderer.
I’m gonna take a wild ass guess and say that Douggie is on THIS LIST
May 13th, 2008 at 2:29 pmFeith makes for great comic relief.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
After the past 7 1/2 years, do you expect anything else from the architects of this regime?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
____
My apologies, everyone. “Architects” was a poor choice of words – it implies a level of planning, engineering, and skill that is woefully absent from the Bush regime. Instead of “architects,” please substitute the word, um… What’s the word for people at racetracks and such who turn piles of shit into bigger piles of shit?
Let’s just go with “shit-pilers.”
May 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pmThat was George Costanza, HTH.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pmHere he is in all his glory, folks….
The man they call “The Stupidest F’in Guy On Earth”…
The one, the only… Doug Feith
May 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pmHTH ~~ perhaps fecal flingers would apply…
May 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pmY’know, sometimes I meet people who have a stupid look about them, and they turn out to be quite intelligent despite their appearance.
Doug Feith isn’t one of those people.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
That was George Costanza, HTH.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
____
Oh man I’m batting .100 today aren’t I… :(
May 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pmAh, yes…the old “Gaslight” defense. The lights aren’t really flickering and there aren’t really any footsteps in the attic — it’s all in your imagination and all your fault, poor thing, because you’re really not well. I’ve only had my — errrr, I mean your! Your! — best interests at heart all along, so how can you accuse me of being a liar?!? The ingratitude…
May 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pmHTH ~ S’ok, still time to get to the Mendoza line by the close of bidness.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pmThe person who has covered the subject of torture at Guantanamo Bay extensively and comprehensively is Phillipe Sands. He has written a book [which, I believe, is entitled Torture Team] and also an article on this topic in the May issue of Vanity Fair. In the issue, Feith claims that he had no knowledge of torture being committed at Guantanamo Bay. Sands showed Feith a memo written by Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes II, which stated that “I have discussed this [the issue of torture] with the Deputy [that would be Donald Rumsfeld], Doug Feith, and General Myers”. Sands asked Feith to comment on Haynes’ memo. All Sands could say was that Sands mispronounced his name, without ever denying the validity of what Haynes had written.
One suspects that even though Feith may know that he was caught in a lie, he probably realizes that he has nothing to fear, ever since Nancy Pelosi decided to proclaim that impeachment is off the table.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pmI have already misremembered the shrub and his corruption and his deception.He needs to swing from the gallows with the rest of Dubya`s administration.
This is a guy who is living and breathing the “noble lie”!!!!
May 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pmWhere did Bush find all of these people. None of them seemed to have a portfolio that matched up with their job description. In the end, they were all in over their heads for whatever reason. And that includes not only Feith, but also Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney. The only reason I leave Powell out is because he was marginalized and not part of the inner circle and the reason I leave Bush out is because he is unqualified, except by age and residency, for the job of President of the United States. Because nobody had the gravitas, huge and repeated blunders were made and are still being made. For instance, why does the United States not honor the cease-fire recently agreed to in Iraq.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:40 pmYou know, I have to admit that I had to turn the channel (Sorry John) because I am so sick and tired of hearing these people spew thier (rap!
Please, someone in MSM and/or our representatives put a stop to the insaneness!
Oh well, wishful thinking.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:42 pmIS EVERYONE FORGETTING THAT CHENEY KNEW THE OUTCOME IN 1994?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
May 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pmWho in the hell has “misremember” in their vocabulary?
Misremember is defined as “to forget”.
So, Dougie boy, you think the American people forgot about what led to this illegal occupation.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:47 pmYou think we forgot about all the deaths, injuries, and human rights?
WRONG bucko!
It is you that has misremembered. It is you that has misconstrued. It is you that has lied, again and again.
#34 , see #22
May 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pmThe chapter “No Authority, Direction, or Control” of George Tenet’s memoir deals with the prewar government debate about alleged connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda. According to the Washington Post, Tenet’s memoir paints an “unflattering portrait of Feith as a man eager to manipulate intelligence to push the country to war.”[28] Tenet refers to Feith’s office as “Team Feith,” writing that he saw their criticisms about the CIA’s Iraq-al Qaeda work as “complete crap.” He added that “when the Pentagon inspector general issued a report in February 2007 calling some of Feith’s efforts ‘inappropriate’, Feith shot back. He said peddling his alternative intelligence was simply an exercise in ‘good government.’ -Wikipedia
Feith peddled his ‘errors’ intentionally.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pmI hope Big Bubba misremembers to use KY jelly on Feith when he’s in the slammer.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:53 pmPersonal responsibility, Neo-con GOP style…it’s not our fault for spinning you, it’s YOUR FAULT for being spun…
May 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pmPeople can disagree about the Bush Administration.
But, I suggest this:
Let’s put our disagreements aside and tackle something that I hope most would agree is in all of our collective interests.
Let’s reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
Let’s encourage conservatives to accept the importance of conservation.
Let’s encourage progressives to permit drilling in Anwar.
Let’s encourage conservatives to accept higher fuel standards.
Let’s encourage progressives to permit new refineries.
Let’s encourage conservatives (and progressives) to accept higher taxes on fuel use (to help promote conservation and promote more efficient alternatives).
Let’s encourage progressives to support new nuclear plants.
Let’s convince the conservatives that more emphasis on alternative energy (wind, solar, hydo, etc) will deny our detractors the power they have over us.
We can spend all of our time lamenting mistakes of the past, but how much will that benefit us?
We have an opportunity to unite on this issue. Bush (and Cheney) are obviously not the leaders to guide us through this dilemma. But, can we unite and push our future leaders on a path that most could agree upon? An issue that is really important to all of us?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:56 pmSometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.
Mark Twain
May 13th, 2008 at 2:58 pm.
So Doug,
There were WMD’s?
There was Yellow Cake uranium from Niger?
There was aluminum tubes for centrafuges?
There was links to Al-CIA-duh and 9-1-1?
There was an imminant threat?
There were suitcase nukes and mushroom clouds?
… ‘Cause you couldda fooled me…!
.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pmbackup Says:
People can disagree about the Bush Administration.
But, I suggest this:
…
We can spend all of our time lamenting mistakes of the past, but how much will that benefit us?
Absolutely, Cap’n! Let’s pay no attention to the damage that the right wing has done to our nation and agree to come together to repair that damage without any understanding of its cause or accountability for those who caused it.
And maybe we can even try the same right-wing techniques that failed us for the last seven years! That would be a particularly nice “bi-partisan” gesture, wouldn’t it?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:01 pmWe don’t have the same disease that the repugs have, the disease of ‘misspeaking and misremembering’. It’s only contagious among the neocons and theocons and the rest of the republicans.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pmIt is sad that such a cretin was allowed to work outside the animal slaughter industry. One can hope it will pay for it’s crimes by being executed, by it’s friends. I can’t imagine having to pay for it’s life behind bars.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pmbackup Says:
Try the kook aid, seems to work for b-up.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pmre:
*******
*touches nose* Very good, Grasshopper.
Dougie’s not fooling anyone – we knew he was full of s**t before he even opened his mouth!
Still, it was funny watching Jon Stewart make him put his lies right out there in the open again – and hearing the laughter whenever he said something ridiculous and expected people to believe it.
Personally I think the audience was probably asked to show respect before Feith came on – because they were polite to him, and I KNOW there had to be some like me who, if they’d not been restraining themselves, would have been yelling “BULLS**T!” every few minutes.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:10 pmI think they misremember a lot.
No, I think the 28%ers misremember a lot. You on the other hand, lie a lot.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm#42-backup
Your comments make very little sense. Why would you advocate that drilling should take place in ANWAR since that would only provide approximately six months of additional oil relief to this country? You correctly note that alternative energy sources should be explored but you also believe in the use of nuclear power. As Three Mile Island and Chernobyl should have proved, the possibility of a nuclear power plant breaking down is all too real, as the citizens of Chernobyl had sadly discovered. Attempting to safely get rid of nuclear waste is practically impossible. Ask the residents of Nevada if they want Yucca Mountain to be used as a nuclear dumping ground.
This country needs to lessen its dependency upon fossil fuels, as drilling at ANWAR will certainly not remedy the situation. Using a potentially dangerous product like a nuclear reactor for energy is not the wisest thing that presidential candidates should be doing.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
– George Santayana
vs.
“Never mind!”
May 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm– Rosanne Roseanna Danna
Nice try Cap’n Tanmastic.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pmHow about agreeing that a Kennedyesque 10 year national project to develop solar, wind and hydrogen power sources, including electrovoltaic cells on all roofs in America be our number one national priority.
Feith and his fellow PNAC thugs planned the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq long before 9/11, yet not a single one of these murderers are being held accountable. PNAC is never mentioned, never identified, and never exposed by the mainstream media. The wars have disappeared from the news broadcasts completely. Duh!
See if the cable ‘news’ folks mention any of the important stories the public should be hearing…the news that IS being reported on alternative news sites on the net…but not reaching enough people. Check one of them out here:
May 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pmhttp://tvnewslies.org/tvnl
Oh! So now, it’s OUR fault…?
I knew they’d get ’round to blaming us eventually. *eyeroll*
May 13th, 2008 at 3:18 pmFeith Based Initiatives don’t work, anyway you spin them.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pmUntil we get a party with a shred of integrity and balls to go after these b@stards, we’ll continue to circle the drain.
Consider that one of the accessories to the greatest foreign policy horror in US history is making money off of wiping out 1 million people, covering for a group of oil execs, and baldly lying to the public again and again. Feith should be arrested on-air and shipped to Abu Ghraib.
Thanks to Pelosi and Reid and Conyers and their cowardly politicizing ilk. Would that we could return to the days of tarring and feathering.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm“misremember” is not a word. Feith’s primary loyalty is not to America but to the overseas garrison nation known as Israel. Therefore, he is a traitor and should suffer the consequences.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pmI misremember Rumsfeld saying stuff like this…
I also misremembered administration apologist Ken Adelman saying
Unfortunately, when I go to the original article there’s nothing left but the headline and byline:
So obviously Feith is right Adelman must never have said anything of the kind.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pmAnd backup…?
Your little preachyspeech is exactly like the fox – with blood and chicken feathers stuck to his muzzle – telling the remaining hens, “Yeah, let’s just forget the past! We can all be friends now and work together!”
Get a clue, you stupid barstid.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pm>After the past 7 1/2 years, do you expect anything else from >the architects of this regime?
Although this adminsinistration has made dissembling an art form, I dont think its anything particularly unique to them. to me , politics essentially seems to revolve around taking as long as possible to NOT answer a yes or no question..
May 13th, 2008 at 3:26 pmbackup, NIMBY’s come from all walks of life and political groups.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pmralph. I understand your desire to right perceived wrongs of the past. I’m not saying you should ignore them.
But, as we are busy battling each other, what do our enemies in the world think?
They are probably happy that we are divided.
We have a choice, as to what we focus on. Honestly, for Americans, what would be the most productive choice? Focusing on a partisan and divisive issue that will separate us, or on an issue that we can unite on, that has bi-partisan appeal?
When we attack each other as enemies, or global detractors delight.
If, however, we recognize that we have differences – that we are willing to subjugate to our common interests, our global enemies would be apprehensive and in a less powerful position.
I like the French. They meet 70% of they energy needs with nuclear. That seems like sound energy policy.
I admire Brazilians. They don’t import any oil. They run their cars on sugar cane.
They are not dependent on OPEC nations with questionable objectives in regards to us. They are independent.
We can spend our time embroiled in partisan bickering about which party has failed us in the past, or we can unite and demand our independence, despite our differences.
The choice is ours. Which choice makes more sense to you?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:32 pmOh, and by the way Cap’n, howza bout donating a couple of hundred thousand dollars to the treasury in reparations for supporting BushitCo and his minions in their war of occupation in the Middle East?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:32 pm4 out of 5 Neocons lie…the other pleads the 5th.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:33 pmSorry backup. No sale. We remember the errors because if we learn the lessons embedded therein we will not repeat them. We will not buy into the right wing fear machine telling us to sacrifice everything good about our country in the name of some illusory promise of security. We will not buy prepackaged candidates with manufactured achievements and fabricated blue collar appeal. We will not elect a continuation of the failed Bush administration based upon an unwarranted reputation as a maverick. We will look forward for the solutions to the problems created, exacerbated or ignored by the current regime but we will never forget the errors of the Bush cabal or the unconscionable misfeasence of those who allowed those errors to occur.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm” Misremember” this is the same word Roger Clemmons used and we know how that all turned out for him. Georgetown University hired this man, they sanctioned his lies by giving him credibility and a job. Any employer who had checked references would NEVER hire any one from the Bush administration. They ALL need to die horrible horrible deaths of dismemberment but not before ole Dougie and the rest have a moment of realization of the horror he help bring to our military and the people of Iraq. NO Spin will EVER make what they, he and every one past and present who has worked or spoken on behalf of George W Bush, right good or correct. “I wanna kill” just put me on the Group W bench jeez I can’t stand them any more.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pmThe whole neocon agenda is based on machivellian/straussian/orwellian deception. Do not expect any truth, it was all about finding a way to do it and the agenda pre-dated 9/11.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:38 pmBackup, as long as you continue to be an apologist for evil, you will get no quarter from us.
So take your sanctimony and shove it.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:39 pmRUCerious. I am agreeing to something very much like this. A Kennedy moment where we sent a goal for energy independence.
A call to compromise from both ideologies, with a goal to be energy self sufficient in 10 years.
What it would take is conservation, higher fuel standards, promotion of alternatives, more domestic drilling, more refineries, and more nuclear plants.
We can still disagree on everything else. But, we are still Americans (I apologize to my foreign friends present). Let’s do something that is in our national interest – that will also please most of our (non-opec) neighbors.
If we bicker among ourselves, we are likely to get nothing accomplished. If we unite for this goal, maybe the world will be cleaner, maybe there won’t be an interest in the middle east for it’s oil, and maybe our economy will be stronger (in the long run).
We can choose to band together to get something done. Or we can continue the tit for tat, that results in nothing. The choice is ours.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:40 pmBackup, as long as you continue to be an apologist for evil, you will get no quarter from us.
So take your sanctimony and shove it.
Annie.
If you want to blame Bush and republicans for the past and/or for our current predicament, have at it.
It doesn’t matter to me. But, why not take this opportunity to ensure we aren’t in the same predicament (or worse) 20 years from now?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pmIt is the depravity of the Republican party and their operatives that must be remembered first, last and always. I spent a good deal of my life dealing with both street level and white collar criminals. Never have I felt so dirty or debased as listening to the filthy lies and vile excuses that have come from these scum.
It is one thing to argue for your course of action. It is another to shamelessly lie, distort and dissemble. We have the record of this administration which proves that they are dishonest. We see it in the concept that the public mis remembers what was said about the war during the run up to the Iraq invasion. Yes, it would take weeks not months; major troop withdrawals would begin within three or four months after the invasion; we do not need more troops; it will only cost 30 billion; we will be greeted as liberators and: “And Oh, by the way, this will be difficult” said in a low voice without any context or quantification to offset the glowing, psychedelic mushroom fed visions that were provided by our leaders.
We need an opposition party that will start calling these cretins out for what they are. We need a media to start accusing these vermin for the traitorous fools that they have been. DO WE HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THIS COUNTRY WILL GROW STRONGER, RE-ESTABLISH ITS DEMOCRACY OR REIN IN FUTURE LEADERS FROM THE ASSAULT ON OUR FREEDOM, VALUES AND CONSTITUTION WHEN WE FAIL TO CALL OUT THESE OUTRAGES FOR WHAT THEY ARE?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pmpaleolib.
I’m not advocating McCain. Obama could be the one. But, can we encourage Obama into energy independence?
(Independence will require more than conservation and eco friendly alternatives.)
May 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pmWhy am I reminded of the words of the Lord of Swamp Castle who, after Sir Launcelot cut a wide swath of destruction through the wedding preparations of Prince Herbert and Princess Lucky, said soberly:
“Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who.”
May 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pmExcuse me, but Feith headed the made-up Office of Special Plans whose job it was to fabricate the reasons for the invasion.
From Mother Jones’ article The Lie Factory, Jan. 2004:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html
May 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pmI paid at least that in Federal taxes since the invasion. Now, are you accountable for the failed war on poverty since Johnson?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pmThis administration causes me to remember George Orwell’s Animal Farm with alarming frequency. Feith reminds me of Squealer, reminding the rest of the animals how Napoleon fought bravely at the Battle of the Cowshed, and that Snowball was a traitor. Of course, the sheep bought that bill of goods with nary a protest.
Unfortunately for Feith, we have a few things they didn’t have on Animal Farm. Recordings. Videotape. Film. A paper trail. It’s a little easier to prove or disprove what was said.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pmOK, let’s begin our energy independence by nationalizing the oil companies.(Most civilized nations have.)
Then, let’s remove oil from the speculative commodities market.
(That will save us 30% immediately.)
Next, let’s tax the shit out of fuel inefficiency; SUV’s, sports cars, pickups the size of apartment buildings.
Ban NASCAR, et al. Watching rednecks make left turns at 180mph isn’t a sport, it’s Romanesque.
Then, drive the speed limit.
(I’m saving 10% right now doing that.)
Tax incentives for hybrids or alternative fuel vehicles.
(Vegetable oil can replace gasoline.)
Fund Hydrogen fuel cell research.
Fund air car technology.
Regulate the airline, trucking & cruise industries.
I could continue, but I want backed-up to absorb this.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:52 pmRole In Going To War: As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Feith spearheaded two secretive groups at the Pentagon — the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans — that were instrumental in drawing up documents that explained the supposed ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. The groups were “created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true.” Colin Powell referred to Feith’s operation as the Gestapo. In Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack, former CentCom Commander Gen. Tommy Franks called Feith the “f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” [LAT, 1/27/05; NYT, 4/28/04; New Yorker, 5/12/03; Plan of Attack, p.281
Their bubble is getting smaller by the minute and they are desperatly deluding themslves… HANG THIS BASTARD!!!!
May 13th, 2008 at 3:52 pmZimzone.
I am agreeable to many of the propositions.
The point is, compromise.
If we are all willing to compromise to some degree, maybe we can arrive at energy independence.
The flip side to your proposals are new nuke plants, drilling in Anwar and off the coast of florida. More refineries.
What do you think?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:56 pmCaptainMantastic, this thread is about Feith and the 935 recorded lies taking us into this fiasco.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm“I think they misremember a lot”
Feith has invented a new Orwellian technique!!!
Big Brother usually just rewrites the history books, erasing all inconvenient content. Feith is trying to erase our memories. This is Brilliant!!!
May 13th, 2008 at 4:06 pmBackup, exuse me, for shouting but you seem to be *very* dense.
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK I’VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 7-ODD YEARS??
I have been working as hard as I can to make damned good and sure that the abomination that is the Bush administration NEVER EVER happens again.
Furthermore, I strongly believe that jailing the perpeTRAITORs of this vast abortion and trying them for war crimes and crimes against humanity might go a very long way toward prevention, yanno?
So, if you want to make nice, fine. Just stop being stupid and friggin’ sanctimonious about it.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:06 pmZimzone Says:
tax the shit out of fuel inefficiency; SUV’s, “sports cars”….HEY NOW, my corvette gets 27 miles per gal highway, 18 in the city.
LoL, and yes it does, amazing that it does, but true.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:07 pmNo new nuke plants until we figure out how to dispose of waste.
Anwar is off limits. 5% of our fuel needs versus the last pristine wilderness isn’t trading; it’s raping.
Big Oil hasn’t built a new refinery since the ’70’s. Why? Because bottlenecking it assists in controlling the market. I would support States building & controlling refineries, however.
Wind can supply 30% of our energy needs within 2 decades.
Solar can supply up to 25% of our needs if funded.
We need to combine wind / solar at the same collection point.
(Wind turbines with solar arrays. The same transmission grid can then carry both sources.)
Hydraulic tidal pumps.
Upgraded photovoltaic cell technology.
Nanocell converters, converting bio-energy to usable energy.
We’ve got a long way to go. All Bush has done is set us back decades. We need a Progressive with the integrity and balls to overcome corporate, entrenched monopolistic controls.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:08 pmThanks for pointi ng that out, Keith. It was just beginning to dawn on me that the Cap’n had launched an extensive diversionary post.
“Pay no attention to those crimes and catastrophes of the past! Let’s all work together to create a Brighter Future™!”
May 13th, 2008 at 4:11 pmBuckie Boy,
27 mpg at 127 mph? WOW!
Actually, I’m envious. Always wanted one, never had one…I did have a ‘63 1/2 2 door Fairlane 500 with the 390 cubic inch Mercury, but a ‘Vette? No.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm>From Mother Jones’
great resource, very informative magazine..
check out http://www.motherjones.com/greystone
May 13th, 2008 at 4:14 pmI am great with the concept of promoting energy independence backup. I just don’t see a good reason to walk into the sunset holding hands in the passionate throes of bipartisanship. If a Republican has a good idea (stealing Iraq’s oil – or any other country’s resources – does not qualify) it should be incorporated. I haven’t heard any good ideas from the Republicans recently, just more calls for corporate welfare for oil companies who should have lots of incentive to drill on their own dime (they don’t want more refineries by the way, makes it harder for them to manipulate the price when supplies are up). The past 7.5 years just don’t give me much confidence in good ideas coming from the right.
Back on topic, amazing how nobody wants to defend Feith, no?
May 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pmThe Feith guy is too much. Must really think we’re stupid. He can bray all he wants – we know he’s one of the reasons we are where we are. In fact, the more he denies culpability, the more we realize just how culpable he is. He’s lucky he can walk down the street without a bodyguard.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pmDougie is just trying to save feith.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pmKeith, you’re right. I’m off topic. sorry.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pmpaleolib. I’ll give it a shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg&feature=related
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Most agreed that Saddam was a threat prior to the invasion. Since it became unpopular, they try to spin that they were opposed to it from the start. Hindsight is not leadership.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:27 pmFEITH: When people read this book, I think people will be surprised to be reminded of what was actually said. I think a lot of people’s perceptions of what was said are filtered through the recent history. … I think they misremember a lot.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction that they knew existed, mushroom clouds over New York, we would be welcomed as liberators, the war would pay for itself. Who then was saying all this?
http://progressiveworldreview.com
May 13th, 2008 at 4:35 pm“Most agreed that Saddam was a threat prior to the invasion.”
Only the brainwashed ones and/or those who can’t think for themselves.
Iraq was slowly being strangled by UN sanctions. And meanwhile they were reporting in the news for at least six months before we attacked Iraq that the U.S. had intensified their flights through the no-fly zone. Probably trying to provoke them while gathering info for the bombing runs they’d been planning for….years.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:36 pmCaptMantastic says: Most agreed that Saddam was a threat prior to the invasion.
B.S. Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, etc. did not think Saddam was a threat. The vote in the Security Council was going to be 11-4 against the invasion. That is why the administration withdrew the proposal. The only way an invasion can be legal is if it was passed by the Security Council.
I believed the weapons inspectors who were in Iraq trying to find something and could find nothing. They said Iraq had nothing.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pmMost agreed that Saddam was a threat prior to the invasion.
But not a threat, great enough to justify invasion.
Try again.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pmHey backup, maybe if you’d move forward you could remove your head from you a$$.
Yeah you’re off topic, like you didn’t know you neocon twit. Flag the troll, he’s stinking up the place.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pmMary, we already got the evidence that our planes were trying to provoke a response. And the planes were to be made to look like UN planes.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm‘The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
“None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels,” said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith’s authority without having to fill in the usual forms.
The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel’s Likud party.’
There’s more…a lot more.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pmMary. If you reference my second link in the previous post, that would include:
Bill Clinton, Madaline Albright, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Jay Rockefeller, Henry Waxman, Robert Byrd, and Hillary Clinton. (Obviously, many more).
May 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pmBoth Feith and backup think we’re all as dumb as Fox News viewers and will believe they crap they’re selling. Shove it back up backup.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:41 pmNobody needs to reference your post, nobody gives a crap what you have to say. Don’t go away mad, just go away.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:42 pmThat’s your best shot?
The demonstrated cherry-picking of intelligence, facts fixed around the policy and outright lying to justify an invasion that had been promoted for years by PNAC was okay, because people “thought Saddam was a threat”?
What about the marginalization and demonization of any voices who argued against the invasion? The soft-peddling of risks that Cheney himself had outlined almost a decade before? Not to mention the massive fraud and waste that almost universally benefited corporate friends of the administration, often to the detriment of our troops?
If that’s the best you can do, Cap’n, perhaps you’d better stick with off-topic posts.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:42 pmTo be fair, Obama did not support the invasion of Iraq.
But, if the situation in Afghanistan (and possibly Pakistan) fails, would you give Obama similar scrutiny (in hindsight)?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/01/obama-would-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/
May 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pmThanks Keith. I’d forgotten about the “UN” planes.
From my link at #100:
‘A former senior CIA official insisted yesterday that Mr Feith, at least, was “finished” – but that may be wishful thinking by a rival organisation.’
Yep, I guess it WAS “wishful thinking” since Feith is still making money peddling lies.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pmYes, ralph. The best I can do is present actual quotes of politicians (that now demonize Bush’s decision to act) that advocated Saddam as a threat that needed to be dealt with, before it became unpopular.
What more would you like?
May 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pmback-up’s right. I need to add “and cowards”.
Because all of the politicians worth their salt knew that the “reasons” were all bullcrappola but were too cowardly to speak up. Everyone was getting whipped up into a nationalistic frenzy and the politicians knew that they’d probably get knocked out of politics forever if they didn’t go along.
I don’t excuse ANY of them. If little ol’ me knew that it was crap then so did they.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pmThis is nonsense. How exactly was Saddam a threat in 2003? The WMD experts in the country trying to find something could find nothing. We and the British controlled half his country. He had no Air Force nor Navy. We spent 700 times as much on our military as he did. Close by, Israel had over 200 nukes. In early 2001, Condi Rice and Colin Powell said he was well contained and a threat to noone. The vote in the Security Council was going to be 11-4 against. Etc., etc.
The Niger Document was a lousy forgery (known 11 months before the State of the Union Speech). The aluminum tubes was a lie. The mobile weapons lab was a lie. The meeting in Prague was a lie. The drones was a lie. The shack in the north was a lie. The ties to al Qaeda was a lie. Curveball was a proven liar before Powell’s UN speech.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pmCap’n, again you demonstrate your limited ability to construct reasonable arguments.
If Obama as president assembles a massive and sophisticated team dedicated to building a case for invading Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ignores all intelligence that undercuts that goal, and the operation turns out to cost the nation half a trillion dollars and thousands of servicemember lives, THEN you can equate the two situations.
“Support” can mean almost anything (especially in the mouth of a neocon) and “thought he was a threat” can indicate anything from “rhetorical target” to “agent of immanent destruction”. Given that Clinton (and by extension, Gore) kept Saddam under control without invading Iraq, it’s likely that their rhetoric about the threat he posed would not rise to the level of an invasion. Not so the Shrub.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm‘Feith’s office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith’s activities as “an alternative intelligence assessment process.”’
snip
‘In his defense, Feith told the WaPo yesterday, “This was not ‘alternative intelligence assessment.’ It was from the start a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance.”
That may be the funniest spin I’ve heard in a while. Feith was manipulating intelligence, spreading lies, and making a bogus case for a disastrous war — but he wasn’t “endorsing” the lies, he was just offering them to others.’
snip
‘The next question is whether Feith and the OSP broke any laws while they were orchestrating their con.’
The snippets above are from Feb. 2007. I wonder when Feith began his book.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9877.html
May 13th, 2008 at 4:56 pm#105-backup says that “To be fair, Obama did not support the invasion of Iraq.” But to be equally fair, this alleged agent of hope and change has voted each and every time to continue to fund the occupation in Iraq. Not exactly the best way to support the troops nor is it the best way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pmWe need to give ANYONE scrutiny, lots of scrutiny, before we let them take us to war. They say, “Trust us! We see things we can’t show you so you’re just going to have to trust us.” And it turns out they were all lying all over the place.
We as a country can’t afford to be taken down that path again. Now they’re trying to do it with Iran.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pmmary. In hindsight, it’s easy to see the invasion of Iraq as based on ‘crap’.
But, at the time, many (most) people were concerned about more 9/11 type attacks. They were concerned about terrorists getting their hands on WMD and using them against the west.
At the time, the idea of pre-emption made sense to alot of people. And the idea that Saddam had WMD and the motive to pass them on to be targeted at the U.S., seemed plausible.
In hindsight, you’re right. But, at the time, the case wasn’t as black and white as many want to remember.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:27 pmSure backup, but it was clear to the group that was falsifying the intel. Damn you’re stupid.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:30 pmralph.
Clinton and Gore didn’t lead a post 9/11 U.S.
If the situation were so contained, why the concern that led the U.N. to the 16 unheeded resolutions for weapons inspections?
May 13th, 2008 at 5:33 pmbackup says:…They were concerned about terrorists getting their hands on WMD and using them against the west.
If that were true, then we most certainly would have invaded Pakistan and not Iraq! Pakistan actually had WMD and was a base for the ones who actually carried out 9/11. There is a lot of evidence that Pakistani intelligence was involved in 9/11. Iraq did not have WMD and was an enemy of and buffer against bin Laden and al Qaeda. But Iraq did have the oil and Pakistan did not.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:39 pmIraq met the resolutions for wmd inspections. They allowed the inspectors back in (taken out by the US who wanted to bomb again), they had no WMD, and they accounted for past WMD.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:41 pmI think the toilet is backed up in here. It needs a good flushing.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:43 pmIf Iraq was not contained, then why did Rice and Powell say they were? Nonsense. Given Bush’s standards for “WMD”, a country could not have a middle school chemistry lab.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:45 pmNo, Cap’n, what is easy is to dismiss the criticisms of Bush Iraq policy as “hindsight” when in fact many people were aware of these truths IN FORESIGHT but they were ignored, marginalized or ridiculed by those of you who were so “concerned about more 9/11 type attacks”.
“The case wasn’t as black and white as many want to remember”???
Do you remember “You’re either with us or against us”??? How much MORE black and white can you get?
It’s said that “hindsight is 20/20″ but Cap’n, I’m afraid your hindsight may have cataracts.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pmYou mean, Clinton and Gore didn’t preside over a nation that was ripe to have its trauma exploited for the militaristic and financial goals of a hard-core group of zealots? True.
And as Keith pointed out, if Saddam was NOT so contained, as you suggest, why did both Rice and Powell say the opposite?
Given the complete absence of anything linking Saddam to 9/11, did the administration work overtime to make that case? Why do you continue to try to link the two today?
May 13th, 2008 at 5:52 pmKeith.
There is truth to this. There was more to Iraq than WMD.
He was a tyrrant, that abused his own people. We believed he had WMD. After Gulf War one, he had motive to retaliate. 9/11 made terrorists with WMD a plausible threat. Iraq was a neighbor to Iran. The administration hoped to sandwich Iran with democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq (to propose an alternative to an intolerant Islamic theocracy in Iran). The importance of oil made Iraq more consequential than other countries. Saddam was disregarding the terms of the ceasefire from Gulf War one. And disregarding the 16 U.N. resolutions to admit weapons inspectors.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:55 pmralph. I’ve got to go, but I’ll try to respond later.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:57 pmSaddam did admit the weapons inspectors, dammit. And he was not the one who made them leave at any time–it was the US. He let them look anywhere they liked. They could find nothing. They ran out of places to look. One resolution was that he must account for past WMD. He did. He turned over about 10,000 accurate pages. Two minutes later, the WH said “not true”. Who is misremembering, me or you? Silly question.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:05 pmCap’n in order to credibly make the “he was a tyrant” argument and make it stick, you’ve got to have established some sort of track record of going after other tyrants JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR TYRANNY. The current military junta in Myanmar springs to mind.
See, if you go after tyrants regardless of their strategic value, THEN you can play the “he was a tyrant” card. But if the only tyrants you go after are those who coincidentally sit atop great oil reserves, or who stand in the way of some strategic objective, you’re cynically draping a humanitarian cloak over a policy move. And you lose the ability to justify it by “getting rid of tyranny”. At least, among thinking people you lose it. It rings hollow.
Th fact is, all of the arguments you make to justify the invasion are based on FEARS, DELUSIONS or GREED. (Except, of course, for the UN rationalization, which, given Bush’s disdain for that body is laughable.) Your attempt to dress all of those threads up in a pretty patriotic bow is absurd. No one is buying it.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:07 pmSaddam strongly suppressed the intolerant Islamic theocracy. This is why he was the enemy of groups like al Qaeda. Now they are running Iraq. Why are you so blind to this?
May 13th, 2008 at 6:08 pmYes, it’s all the public’s fault for taking in all that false information they were being fed on a daily basis by this lying jerk and his cronies.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:20 pmIt took YEARS before the media began to admit they aided and abetted the Bush crime family — Fu(kin’ Feith is trying to squeeze a few more bucks from the sales of his book of lies and revision.
Stewart exposed him last night, but Stewart is too charitable to have taken it as far as he could have considering the fount of lies that spewed from Feith over the years.
backup: Yes, ralph. The best I can do is present actual quotes of politicians (that now demonize Bush’s decision to act) that advocated Saddam as a threat that needed to be dealt with, before it became unpopular.
What more would you like?
Your snopes link clearly states that many of the quotes are taken out of context. So, you’re here defending Bush’s lies with out-of-context quotes from democrats? Why am I not surprised?
May 13th, 2008 at 6:20 pmIt wasn’t just that Saddam was a tyrannt. It wasn’t just because he sat on a huge reserve of oil. It wasn’t just because most believed he had WMD that he could pass to terrorists. It wasn’t just because he was a neighbor of Iran (the main Islamic theocracy in the area). And it wasn’t just because Americans felt more threatened after 9/11.
Like many decisions, it wasn’t one issue. It was the many issues in total.
I’ll post it again, because Hillary Clinton did a better job of justifying the invasion than George Bush ever has:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg&feature=related
And, Keith.
Because you make a poor decision, that turns out bad, is it really criminal?
Bush thought the effort in Iraq would be easier than it turned out to be. And the idea of democracies competing along side of theocracy, seemed like a good idea as an alternative to intolerant Islamic fundamentalism.
The effort has not been successful, but criminal?
I’ll believe that it was criminal when Bush is impeached, the evidence laid bare and he’s put in prison. It should be easy with a democratically controlled congress, probably a future Democrat President, and a public that overwelmingly disapproves of the war and the president. Until then, the charges seem hollow.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:28 pmbarfly. I was unable to cut and paste it, but go to the origins section after the quotes.
The quotes are accurate. Some were made in a larger context of opposing the war. Some were truncated. In general though, the quotes paint a picture that Saddam was a significant threat.
I will concede that Democrats were more hawkish under Clinton than Bush, when you consider the quotes from 1998.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:37 pmWe have 935 recorded lies, dammit!!!
May 13th, 2008 at 6:41 pmWho forged the Niger Document? Why was W allowed to use it in his State of the Union Speech as proof eleven months after it was known to be a very poor forgery? The next line about the aluminum tubes was also known to be false eleven months before the speech. Ditto the meeting in Prague, the drones, the shack in the north, the mobile weapons labs, etc. Powell’s UN speech was entirely based on Curveball. If you saw the “60 minutes’ show on him, you know that it was known that he was lying before Powell’s speech, but Powell was allowed to go ahead anyway.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:47 pmKeith. I believe that you have powerful and compelling evidence.
But, ask yourself this:
If it’s so compelling. And the public is so opposed to Bush. And overwelmingly opposed to the war.
Why doesn’t the Democratically controlled congress impeach and imprison Bush and Cheney and right this wrong?
It would/should be easy to do, considering the circumstance.
I am only suggesting that your compelling evidence, is only a selective, partisan view of the facts. A view conceived in the absense of other viewpoints.
If it were more than that, the Democrats would act. It would be their responsibility to act and it would be in their own self interest. A no-brainer.
They don’t act, because it’s not really as you see it.
If we do get the impeachment and criminal convictions, I would concede I was wrong. It’s very possible. Until that time, however, it’s hard for me to understand how Bush really is a criminal and Democrats fail to act.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:00 pmYes, some Dems (NYTimes, WashPost, etc.) were fooled by the B.S. coming out of Feith’s Office of Special Plans, but then you use the fact that some Dems believed it as proof that Feith did nothing wrong! You are really spinning yourself into some kind of Alice In Wonderland!
May 13th, 2008 at 7:03 pmKeith,
I’m heading out again, but I would really like to consider your information.
Do you have links to information that might change my mind?
(I know, assuming my mind can change).
May 13th, 2008 at 7:07 pmSome Dems are opposed to impeachment because they think it would be bad for their party. The other Dems see that, without them, they do not have the numbers.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:07 pmApparently, absolutely nothing would change your mind. You can spin anything into anything.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:08 pmAbout Feith’s office:
Mother Jones’ article The Lie Factory, Jan. 2004:
http://www.motherjones.com/ news/ feature/ 2004/ 01/ 12_405.html
May 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pmIt is if there is negligence involved, or outright fraud.
Where you see a “bad decision” most of us see the result of deliberate manipulation of intelligence, in the service of a long-expressed goal of an important part of Bush’s support base, the Neocons. The fact that so many of these people benefited handsomely, from Cheney’s former employer getting free access to our national treasury, to Bush being able to exploit the patriotic fervor of a nation “At War” in eeking out a second term in office, should give pause to anyone with a reasonable sense of skepticism about government, which most conservatives claim to have.
The “reality-based community” so famously derided by an unnamed WH staffer, saw the falsehoods and the cooked books before the invasion was launched.
It takes a lot of good will to see the Downing Street Memo and the Sixteen Words and No WMD and Colin Powell before the UN as a series of bad breaks that just didn’t go our way. You, Cap’n, apparently have that much good will to spare for the president and his people. Most Americans are fresh out of “benefits of the doubt”. With good reason.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:53 pmralph.
I pulled this from the first of the DSM:
My question is this: If everyone knew there were no WMD, why was the British SECDEF considering the consequences if Saddam used his WMD ‘on day one’ or ‘on Kuwait’ or ‘on Israel’?
May 13th, 2008 at 8:14 pmAnd this is from Jack Straw in the DSM:
Another way to say it: The threat may not have increased, but people’s awareness (or perception) has changed, because of 9/11.
If you become aware of something, you shouldn’t address it, because it was there a long time before you recognized it?
May 13th, 2008 at 8:20 pmThe only only only only way it would have been legal is if it passed the UN Security Council. When we found out that the vote would be 11-4 against the invasion—forgetting that only one of the Big Five need to oppose, and remembering that we had their phones tapped so we knew how they would vote—-then we withdrew the proposal.
We could not even bribe Turkey with many billions of dollars just to allow our troops to pass thru their country. Does that sound like he was a threat to his neighbors?
Do you know how many thousands of nuclear weapons the US has? How many tons of chemical and biological weapons we have in Fort Detrick MD and Anniston Alabama alone?
Since when is one country allowed to disarm another country for twelve years before invading, occupying, and taking control of their vital resources? The Bush administration is full of war criminals and Feith is one of the major ones.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:43 pm(banging head on desk) Misremembering?
Gee, lying has a new moniker. Brilliant you piece of $hit.
o/t: Did you know that many in the Bush Administration have been charged with war crimes? Read it now!
May 13th, 2008 at 8:49 pmbarfly. I was unable to cut and paste it, but go to the origins section after the quotes.
The quotes are accurate. Some were made in a larger context of opposing the war. Some were truncated. In general though, the quotes paint a picture that Saddam was a significant threat.
I will concede that Democrats were more hawkish under Clinton than Bush, when you consider the quotes from 1998.
No, truncated, with no context provided.
From Snopes:
Origins: All of the quotes listed are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaked was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the US. Moveover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by US and British forces during operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S, Cohen and Gen, Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in “degrading Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”
Try again.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:51 pmHow the FU(K do you confuse “tolerance” for a threat with “awareness” of a threat?
This is typical of your arguments, Cap’n, and it’s why I have so little respect for your contributions here — your moderate attitude notwithstanding. You take a quote about lessening of tolerance (meaning, presumably, less patience and a greater desire to act) with the dawning of a new “awareness”.
They way you characterized the Secretary’s quote was not at all accurate, and I suspect at least a little dishonest.
You are one of the very few conservatives here who is willing and able to engage in discussion, but your arguments are so often flawed like this that it’s very frustrating for those of us who would enjoy a good debate. It’s why you get called a troll. Usually I think that tag is unfair to you but I admit there are moments…
May 13th, 2008 at 11:53 pmI think they misremember a lot.
~Douglas “the f***ing dumbest man on the planet” Feith
Yeaah, because you know only Feith’s recollections are correct. All those people both in the US and abroad who remember the WMD, the “Iraqi gathering threat”, the Nigerian uranium, the meeting in Germany by the plotters, etc. etc. etc. are wrong because all those events are “misremembered”.
Feith really does think the rest of us are about as stupid as he is.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:35 amI watched this blowbag on TV and thought I would spit out my dinner when he said the ‘misremember’ line. Mr. Feith, you will be condemned for eternity for what you have wrought…even more so because you fail to acknowledge your involvement and even more than that because you fail to accept any responsibility. The greatest hallmark of this administration with its vaunted loyalty will send you to the deepest pits of damnation.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:42 amAnd yes, he does think we’re stupid.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:42 amralph. Here’s the quote in question:
…the world having witnesses on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate.
You focus on the change being tolerance. I see that. But, what you aren’t focusing on (present in the same quote) is Jack Straw’s assessment that people had witnessed what determined evil people can perpetuate.
How far is that off from saying the people’s awareness had changed? Of that their perception of the world had changed?
I believe part of our disagreement comes from what we see in the very same information. You see Straw’s comment and conclude that there wasn’t a threat and only American’s had become intolerant. I admit you could gleen that from the first part of the quote. But, what I see (and you didn’t address) was the second part of the quote; that I still stand by. Straw’s comments (2nd part) imply that for the first time people had witnessed what evil determined people could perpetrate.
Those are two different ideas contained in the same quote. You see the idea that conforms to your view, I see the one that that conforms to mine.
Again, I think that is were some of our disagreement on the issue stems.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:24 amDenial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:20 pmdon’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:14 amWhat a lying sack of shit.
What else would you expect from a republican?