Patterico's Pontifications

2/21/2007

L.A. Times Again Fudges the Content of the “Sixteen Words” — This Time, We’re Going for a Correction

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 9:20 pm

An infobox in an L.A. Times story on the Scooter Libby trial today says:

In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush said Iraq had sought uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, in West Africa.

He did??

Here, once again, are the sixteen words from Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

I just read that phrase five times straight and didn’t see the word “Niger” anywhere. (By the way, other African countries sell uranium, including the Congo.)

Now, really. Is this truly so difficult that paid, professional journalists can’t keep track of it? Has nobody ever explained this to them before? Really?

Well, I think it’s high time someone tried, then. It’s about time we saw the facts on this stated clearly, in print, in the pages of this newspaper. I’m writing the Readers’ Representative tonight and politely demanding a correction.

Even if I don’t get one, the response should be entertaining.

52 Responses to “L.A. Times Again Fudges the Content of the “Sixteen Words” — This Time, We’re Going for a Correction”

  1. In a few years, the statement will expand to:

    In his January 2003 State of the Union address, prior to serving plastic turkey to American troops and while biding his time for a hurricane before he could dynamite levees around New Orleans, President Bush said Iraq had sought uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, in West Africa where Halliburton hide its obscene profits to accelerate global warming.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  2. Patterico: Are you one of those people who hit themselves in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  3. At least they said “sought” instead of “bought,” the distortion I’ve seen most often.

    Ralph L. (03a14b)

  4. Of course the entire statement was fudged. Bush was told the CIA disputed this matter and so quoted just the British report leaving out CIA reservations. Later his administration smeared someone who told what he did not find in Niger and outed a CIA agent in the process. Did Bush lie in order to justify an ill fated war? Well I guess it all depends on whether gross omission and selective quoting are lies..but of course its not as servious as lying about a BJ with an intern!! Now thats really serious!!!

    PS I see Prince Harry is going to Iraq. I wonder when our royal family is going to do the same,,and not just secretly visit the green zone for a high profile photo op. I guess the Bush and Cheney kids have priorities other than fighting this “noble war” for freedom! Oh!!the hypocrisy of it all!!

    Charlie (55cd2b)

  5. Charlie, Wilson reported back to the cia that niger thought iraq wanted to buy uranium. Then he wrote something different in the nyt. So I ask, who lied?

    joe (5c4c82)

  6. Charlie -

    Bush accurately characterized British conclusions, as later confirmed in the Butler Report, produced by a panel headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell. Wilson’s posturing statements have since been debunked and repudiated, as can be read in the July 7, 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee Report. That same US Senate Report noted that the no CIA analysts or officials had told the NSC that those “16 words” should be removed.

    The word “outed” contains an erroneous assumption and thus your statement is inherently false. Your “BJ” sally shows you place little or no value in honor and integrity. Your “PS” is just simple screed.

    Spring is not far off now. Could you come talk all over my yard?

    jim (a9ab88)

  7. If you guys weren’t Americans – I’d be laughing my ass off at your c-o-n-t-i-n-u-a-l efforts to whitewhash the crimes of this administration. You make me sick.

    Why don’t you consult with George Tenent?

    And, Jim, get off the “honor” and “intregrity” bandwagon – those words are from Bush’s 2000 campaign. We know that you bought them back then, but you’d have to be a retard to buy them now.

    Brent Mack (832394)

  8. (Notice here, folks that Brent really adds nothing to the discourse, just yada yada…. “whitewash … crimes … retard” … He is slinging frustrated emotions as meaningless dogma– no facts, of course. just ignore him; he’ll fade away.)

    Deb (bdc0ca)

  9. Well, at least Brent knows how to spell “continual”. That should at least count for something.

    Markus Merrill (ee090a)

  10. bush lied about the wmd’s. he lied when he promised no nation building. he lied when he said “mission accomplished”, and he lied when he said the “mission accomplished” banner aboard the aircraft carrier he landed on was put up without white house input.
    the fervor of his supporters in denying these facts and attacking those who speak the truth is almost pathological. it’s certainly comical.

    assistant devil's advocate (fbb4a4)

  11. Charlie & Brent:

    Do you think the LAT should issue a correction? Yes or no?

    sorry Deb

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  12. Google Tuwaitha Yellowcake Barrel. You will find articles from summer 2003 about yellowcake residue poisoning Iraqis in Tuwaitha. Some of these articles are by leftist sources such as Greenpeace!

    In other words, Saddam DID have yellowcake! What difference does it make WHERE he got it? This simple fact undercuts all the stupid Plame/Wilson complaints. I don’t know why more people haven’t pointed this out. :(

    QF (72be5d)

  13. To call these 3-year-old-talking-points-spewing idiots “trolls” is an insult to deformed, semi-retarded knuckledraggers living under bridges. Royal family? George TENENT? Mission Accomplished? These are truly the Tampa Bay Devil Rays of lefty rhetoric.

    Bender Bending Rodriguez (106e1d)

  14. Jim wrote: “Bush accurately characterized British conclusions, as later confirmed in the Butler Report, produced by a panel headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell.”

    Lord Butler was appointed by Tony Blair and his Intel review was only supported by one political party — his own!

    Andy D (be597c)

  15. Brent and ADA -

    I cited two non-Administration sources in support and you both just waved your hands – and not well at that.

    As for honor and integrity, Clinton showed he had none with BJs in the White House by a young intern and his infamous “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Sadly, I believed him then, as I could not imagine the President of the United States and a married Rhodes Scholar would fall so low and lie so baldly. It turns out that there were other such improper relationships followed by lies, e.g., Gennifer Flowers.

    It troubles me that someone with such low morals and poor judgement might hold the powers of the Presidency. That is why I researched the claims of lies and bad deeds made by anti-Bush folk like the two of you. So far, despite all the smoke coming out of y’alls’ ears, I have seen no confirmed fire sightings.

    jim (6482d8)

  16. Andy D -

    You’re grasping at micro-straws. I named Lord Butler (instead of just referencing the British effort) for a reason. Look up his service.

    As for the Butler Report, it laid out the bases for its conclusions and stands on its own. Have you read it?

    jim (a9ab88)

  17. Now, really. Is this truly so difficult that paid, professional journalists can’t keep track of it? Has nobody ever explained this to them before? Really?

    C’mon, you know better than that.

    That quote is fake but accurate, like the 60 Minutes TANG memos.

    What matters is the truthiness of the larger narrative.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  18. P — From your highlighting and comment, it appears your quibble is about “Africa” as opposed to “Niger.” So you can point us to credible accounts of Saddam seeking uranium from the Congo or another African country?

    Otherwise, just another stupid and disingenuous straw man argument.

    And the underlying point — Do you really excuse Cheney, Rove and Libby?

    [You're not much for following the links in a post, are you? -- P]

    nosh (ee9fe2)

  19. “P — From your highlighting and comment, it appears your quibble is about “Africa” as opposed to “Niger.” So you can point us to credible accounts of Saddam seeking uranium from the Congo or another African country?” -nosh

    Well nosh, honestly I was more taken aback by the uranium for nuclear weapons part…

    G (722480)

  20. Actually, Deb – I mentioned that you should get the “straight scoop” from George Tenent.

    He’ll tell you that he was apalled that the reference to yellow-cake made into the SOTU speech.

    Yada-yada-yada…

    Brent Mack (832394)

  21. Look, Deb, I’m back again!

    As someone astutely pointed out – you Bush apologists are trying to score micro-debating points over the tiny distinction between Niger and West Africa?

    Just STOP!

    You’re embarrassing yourselve.

    Brent Mack (832394)

  22. “So you can point us to credible accounts of Saddam seeking uranium from the Congo or another African country?”

    Well I don’t really think of Wilson as ‘credible’, but he did say that he spoke to the former Prime Minister of Niger and that the former Prime Minister of Niger had discussions with a high ranking Iraqi minister which the former Prime Minister of Niger believed suggested a desire for uranium. This was solidified by the failure of the Iraqi minister to work to secure trade for other things after that was made clear.

    Sebastian Holsclaw (f01cac)

  23. In addition to the 500 tons of yellowcake stored at al-Tuwaitha, a coalition operation in June 2004 recovered 1.7 tons of highly enriched uranium. The intent should be clear to the WMD deniers.

    jhstuart (481cf7)

  24. Is Brent Mack satirizing leftists? I don’t know him, so I can’t tell.

    But that last comment, with the line about the “tiny distinction between Niger and West Africa” makes me think so.

    If the comment is deliberate satire, it’s pretty good. I especially like the switch from “Africa” to “West Africa” and the phrase “tiny distinction”. And getting Tenet’s name wrong is nice touch, too.

    If it is not deliberate satire, it is still funny, but if I were Mr. Mack, I would refrain from posting comments until I knew more about the subject.

    Going back to subject of the post, let me wish Patterico good luck in getting this correction made. In my experience, it is very difficult to get “mainstream” news organizations to accept corrections — when those corrections come from outside the organization.

    Jim Miller (d419c8)

  25. tiny distinction between Niger and West Africa

    West Africa? Where did Bush say that in the SOTU speech, Brent?

    Do you write for the LAT?

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  26. Wow, and so the meme replaces the truth. That seems to happen more and more often these days…

    David N. Scott (71b49c)

  27. Its amazing how much the “Bush bots” buy into his lies..Wilson was right.there was no attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger..Bush was wrong..Now smear and spin all you want but those are the facts and the result is a war a hell of a lot worse than Clintons escapades which you were so outraged about. And all your pathetic BS that Wilson was debunked ..( by who Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity!!! ha ha) and to even accuse the CIA of making a false story and insisting that Valorie Plame was NOT a secret agent..just shows your dedication to Bush and your willingness to make any excuse for his lying incompetence. You havent found anything even closely resembling what you insisted was in

    And yes the LA Times should correct its story. Words are important and should be correct. Bush should do the same too..

    Charlie (55cd2b)

  28. Its amazing how much the “Bush bots” buy into his lies..Wilson was right.there was no attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger..Bush was wrong..Now smear and spin all you want but those are the facts and the result is a war a hell of a lot worse than Clintons escapades which you were so outraged about. And all your pathetic BS that Wilson was debunked ..( by who Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity!!! ha ha) and to even accuse the CIA of making a false story and insisting that Valorie Plame was NOT a secret agent..just shows your dedication to Bush and your willingness to make any excuse for his lying incompetence. You havent found anything even closely resembling what you insisted was in Iraq and if you gave a damn about the soldiers and the civilians that are being killed and put them ahead of your love for the Smirking Incompetent that started all this you could see what a Bozo Bush really is.. He is destroying this country and ought to be removed from office on charges of gross malfeasance!

    And yes the LA Times should correct its story. Words are important and should be correct. Bush should do the same too..

    Charlie (55cd2b)

  29. Wilson was right.there was no attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger

    In his own book, Wilson acknowledges that he never debunked the claim.

    And he only examined the Niger attempts. Not the attempt to buy uranium from the Belgian Congo.

    Tenet said that the 16 words should not have been included because the CIA could not independently confirm the reports. Not that the CIA knew the reports were false.

    Later, the White House admitted that the 16 words should now have been included because of the above standard.

    But the British government stands by the claims.

    Because they’re true.

    SteveMG (95feed)

  30. [...] Don’t miss his attempt to get the LAT to “correct” their misstating of what Bush said about Saddam trying to get uranium from Africa. [...]

    “Okie” on the Lam » The LA Times — Screwin’ Up — Again (e2cef7)

  31. I understand that they think there is uranium in Darfur.

    Neo (cba5df)

  32. Why are libtards long on hot air and short on substance when it comes to the realities of Iraq and WMDs?

    Is it nature or nurture?

    Then again the libtards couldn’t possibly see a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda either…:lol:

    juandos (8d769f)

  33. So you can point us to credible accounts of Saddam seeking uranium from the Congo or another African country?

    Here you go, cupcake (from something you should read):

    “503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

    a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

    b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring
    uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

    c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government
    did not claim this.”

    What President Bush said:

    The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

    Your Progressive “truthiness” is indefensible.

    Case closed.

    Abraxas (db3144)

  34. Bush was such a weasel for phrasing his empty WMD threat in such a misleading way in the first place. I can’t believe you’re willing to defend such a pitiful dodge.

    Psyberian (de47c4)

  35. Joe regarding your charge in post five..why would he do such a thing?

    Look Bush butt kissers…the fact is this..whether you realize it or not Bush is the President, and that means the responsibility for what he does belongs with him. No matter how you spin it and no matter how you make excuses, Bush got us into a war for WMDs that have never been found. That was the cause of the war and it has proven faulty. Now thousands have died for this ( mistake/lie however you think of it) and all your attempts to justify this negligent act will not change the fact that this was a Bush decision..he and Cheney are the ones that whipped us up into a fearful frenzy over false information and they are responsible.

    The result is not only thousands dead, but also the military in horrible shape, the real terrorists in Afghanistan on the rise, international animosity towards us as never before, massive debt plagues us and a legacy of antagonism toward us has been created that will be a breeding ground of terrorism for years.

    Now I wonder if anyone can really and truly tell me that if Clinton or any Democrat had done the same thing that you would not be all over them with your criticism. If you say you would not then I dont believe you!! Your kidding yourself.

    What do you say to the spouces and daughters and sons of anyone who died thinking they were fighting to destroy WMDs? Opps! Mistakes are made!! Sorry?? Our evidence was selective because we thought we knew better? We ridiculed our allies and now are like beggars with hat in hand looking for more help. We are putting more lives and money on the line while others are getting out..

    And look at the way in which the occupation has been handled..you think this is evidence of a well thought out policy?

    And what about Cheney who is really the force behind all this….Darth Vader without as much charm!!

    .Do you really believe that the British pulling out is a sign of great success? You really think this war is not a civil war between two groups that hate each other? You really believe this fiasco is making us safer? You believe we are having tremendous success? Well if you do then Bush is your man. Notice how his kids are not involved in this “noble war” and I dont think a single one of his administrations members has family fighting in this “defining moment in civilization”

    Bush has demonstrated how easily it is to whip up fear and hate and get the citizens of a country to sacrifice their own sons and daughters with less critical thinking than they put into buying a used car. Dont look at some foreign nation and think how the citizens are lied to and manipulated and willingly sacrifice all for the leader..you can look right here and see the story of arrogance, ignorance and lust for power right in your own back yard.

    I just cannot understand how a man can do what Bush has done and have even one percent of the population defend him.. its one of the great mysteries of life.

    Charlie (55cd2b)

  36. Psyberian, #34,

    When the median age for males in the world is 37 and in Iran it is 25 because Saddam Hussein wiped out most of a generation with chemical weapons over an oil-bearing island, the WMD threat from him while he was still alive was not at all empty.

    nk (79f144)

  37. Bush was such a weasel for phrasing his empty WMD threat in such a misleading way in the first place.

    Empty?

    You lose.

    Abraxas (db3144)

  38. Charlie,

    Do you actually have an argument or are you going to continue to sling ad hominem remarks all night?

    Cause we conservatives don’t have time to sift through yet another iteration of disproved garbage like yours; we don’t live in Momma’s basement and we’ve all got jobs in the morning, son.

    All I’m reading from you right now is “Bush sucks and he lied … or misled … or whipped up … something … anyway, he sucks!”. Hardly an argument – more of a fact-free, pub crawling, bowel-churning, ranting, unhinged Progressive polemic. But there are places on the ‘net for that, too.

    Sober up and come back for some debate, after, of course, rebutting the numerous links we’ve posted.

    M’kay, Pun’kin?

    Abraxas (db3144)

  39. Hey Abraxas dont smear the name of Conservative buy trying to associate Conservatives with Bush..Conservatives are breaking with him because they realize he is not a conservative . He is more like a fascist..
    As far as rebutting. know from experience that that is a total waste of time…facts dont mean a thing to Bush supporters.. this is a faith based administration…they have faith in Bush AMEN. And besides we can argue the facts all day and night and not even agree on them. I say judge by the mess this man has created and whether you think it was based on lies or mismanagement the result is the same..DISASTER..THANK YOU MR BUSH AND CHENEY@!!

    Charlie (55cd2b)

  40. Charlie -

    Ah, yes, hyper-persuasive all-caps amidst ungrammatical ellipses.

    My lawn awaits.

    jim (a9ab88)

  41. Abraxas – wow. You found proof that Iraq had WMDs before the Gulf War. Good job. We all knew that.

    The issue for this latest foray into Iraq was Hussein’s WMD program since the Gulf War.

    Turns out, he didn’t have one. He could have turned his WMD program back on, but he hadn’t.

    In fact, all the pre-war intel about tons of BW and CW was false.

    Supplied by Chalabi and others who wanted Hussein’s power.

    Nice try, though.

    I’m impressed with your trying power. Most conservatives have smartly dropped the whole WMD line of debate and switched to flowery “let’s spread democracy” rhetoric.

    Rusty (fdd948)

  42. Abraxas – wow. You found proof that Iraq had WMDs before the Gulf War. Good job. We all knew that.

    Good. Then you’ve seen this, yes? Of course, “We all knew that.”

    Turns out, he didn’t have one. He could have turned his WMD program back on, but he hadn’t.

    This took me all of 3 seconds on Google. There’s more information out there. You haven’t heard it because Couric hasn’t put a nice bow around it and served it to you on a silver platter. If you’re going to make statements – make sure they’re not indefensible.

    In fact, all the pre-war intel about tons of BW and CW was false.

    Supplied by Chalabi and others who wanted Hussein’s power.

    Oh, hey – sorry about your being wrong. Again.

    I’m impressed with your trying power. Most conservatives have smartly dropped the whole WMD line of debate and switched to flowery “let’s spread democracy” rhetoric.

    I am absolutely *not* impressed with either your cognitive skills or your memory. WMD was never the sole reason we went in. If you had been part of the actual debate leading up to the war rather than standing on the street corner shouting “Chimphitler!” you would’ve known that.

    Abraxas (db3144)

  43. Abraxas – listen tool, even Bush and Blair admit the pre-war WMD intel was wrong. He didn’t have what we thought we he had. And while it wasn’t the sole reason to go to war – it was the #1 reason, by far. Don’t take my word for it, though:

    George W Bush speaking to the UN, 13 September 2002:

    To suspend hostilities [in 1991], to spare himself, Iraq’s dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations…

    He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

    Or

    Mr Bush’s State of the Union address, 29 January 2003:

    Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder…

    Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

    For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country…

    The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

    Or

    Colin Powell briefing to the UN Security Council, 6 February:

    The burden is on Iraq to comply and disarm. Inspectors are inspectors, not detectives…. Saddam Hussein and his regime are doing everything they can to make sure the inspectors find absolutely nothing…

    We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibilities. Clearly, Saddam will stop at nothing until something stops him.

    Or

    US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking to the press, 12 March:

    The credibility of the UN is important to the world… The question before the United Nations is clear: Is Saddam Hussein taking this final opportunity that was offered by Resolution 1441 to disarm or not?

    And the answer to the question, it strikes me, is increasingly obvious. He makes a show of destroying a handful of missiles; missiles which he claimed in his declaration did not violate UN restrictions, but now admits that they do violate UN restrictions.

    He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighbourhoods.

    Of course, you think that makes me a moonbat because I point that out. Wrong. It makes me right.

    Rusty (fdd948)

  44. [...] Patterico finds time to try to spin, for the 112th time, Bush’s lies about Hussein’s non-existent WMD program. But when it comes to the men who were maimed for those lies, Patterico has nothing to say. [...]

    appletree » Blog Archive » Just When You Thought They Couldn’t Sink Any Lower… (1dfa1f)

  45. Abraxas – listen tool, even Bush and Blair admit the pre-war WMD intel was wrong. He didn’t have what we thought we he had. And while it wasn’t the sole reason to go to war – it was the #1 reason, by far. Don’t take my word for it, though:

    (emphasis mine)

    And which of your examples have President Bush or Prime Minister Blair saying “WMD was the #1 reason we went to war.”?

    Again, your cognitive skills are not up to snuff. The answer is: none of them. How embarrassing for you that your very own examples have nothing to do with your point.

    It seems when you say “Don’t take my word for it …” what you mean is “Take my word for it.”

    Just to be clear, for the comprehension impaired (this means you too, “ALL CAPS” Charlie) – the first three examples you yourself give deal with Saddam’s compliance with UN directives. Read it carefully, or have someone read it to you. Geez, no wonder you people have to have what “is” is explained to you.

    Also – your previous post’s assertion “The issue for this latest foray into Iraq was Hussein’s WMD program since the Gulf War.” contrasted with “And while it wasn’t the sole reason to go to war…” proves two things: 1) You’re a sloppy communicator and 2) You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    (again, emphasis mine)

    All the tantrums in the world will not change the fact that Progressives are lying, have lied and will continue to lie about the lead up to the liberation of Iraq. We didn’t find nukes, so the only straw Leftists can grasp is “BUSH LIED ABOUT WMDS!!” Utter nonsense.

    And the last example? Well again, you lose.

    Of course, you think that makes me a moonbat because I point that out.

    No. You’re a moonbat because you argue from emotion rather than fact.

    You’re way out of your depth here; there isn’t a chorus of “yeah, me too!” to nurse you here as there would be under a cozy rock like DailyKos or Indymedia. Your tough-guy posturing doesn’t impress; you’re dealing with real people in the real world, now, and it’s kicking your ass.

    And the next time you want to insult someone, butch it up a little, would you? “Tool” is a bit sophomoric, even for a Leftist.

    Abraxas (db3144)

  46. Well, we see the left once again claiming, then backing off from the claim that WMD was the only reason we went into Iraq. This shows their complete dishonesty. It reminds me of the “Iraq never had WMDs”, “But he gassed his own people, so he had WMDs”, “Yeah, with WMD that WE gave him!” Game. How can they make the claim on the one hand that they never had them, but then when presented with known use of WMD they reverse themselves and use that WMD (that they first claimed they never had) as an indictment. It means they knew that they had them and when confronted with knowledge of fact they then use that fact to attack. That means they lied in the first claim. Here again, the dishonest claim by the left is challenged by fact, and then they back off that and make the charge that it was the #1 reason. Here their analysis is flawed. If I play Pinochle or Spades, and everytime you play a high card (an objection to the reason for war) and I play a trump card (to win over your objection) and I play other cards, but you only concentrate on the trump I played, you can not come back and claim I only had one suit. Bush used WMD as trump, but never left the reasons to just the one suit. He talked about other issues, other suits. Also, there was the illusion of only one issue when the press refused to discuss anything but the one issue. I remember watching a press conference where other issues were presented, but the press only asked questions about WMD.

    Saddam had the responsibility to demonstrate the destruction, without deception, of his WMDs, just as South Africa had done. He did not. The left, never having seen a socialist deception they’ve ever questioned, looked with blinders on the deceptive practices the Iraqi’s undertook during inspections. They shot at American aircraft, an act that abrogated the peace treaty Saddam Hussein signed. There was the issue of the 300,000 dead in mass graves. Heck, the left were orgasmic over doing something in Kosovo over the sexed up British intel of 100,000 dead men and boys (Blair had to correct Clinton about this overstretched claim). Off to war we went. No 100,000 dead. Clinton did not have UN support for that one, but the left remained silent for that one, didn’t they? They kept silent when infrastructure was deliberately destroyed. They kept silent when civilians were deliberately targetted. There was no direct threat to the United States there, but they sure wanted to go. The UN rejected the action. The Secretary General of the UN, Bhutros-Bhutros Gallie(sp?) condemned the unilateral action of the United States. Clinton had to drag NATO into it and he had a smaller number of countries in his coalition than Bush I or Bush II had. You didn’t heare the left howl a bit. That was just over the rumor of 100,000 dead. (For those of you that are naive, no, NATO is not a branch of the UN. Look up the UN and you will not find it in the table of organizations.)

    There were, I believe sixteen reasons for going to Iraq with WMD being the trump reason. So far, we have found some. Here again the left will attack when faced with this fact. They first claim there have been none found. Then when told there have been 500 rounds found they will attack showing that they lied when they first made the claim that there have been none found. For the militarily inept that 500 rounds would comprise the complete stockpile of weapons that had that purpose. I remember when only three were found and the left howled. The ones I talked to shut up pretty fast when I pointed out that no army buys three. The militarily inept think that was the extent of the stockpile. If the rest was destroyed, Iraq, a country that kept records like the NAZIs did, have yet to produce the proof that they did. And ladies and gentlemen, that was another trump card that Bush played. The left lies through deliberate mischaracterization and misrepresentation of that which has been said. Once caught with facts, they back up and then attack, dishonestly.

    Kerry (623678)

  47. Alright fag, I gave you quotes from your dear leader and his acolytes. All mention WMD as the casus belli for war against Iraq.

    There is no mention of “democracy.”

    You find me pre-war speech, just ONE, where Bush emphasizes brining democracy to Iraq OVER the WMD angle.

    Don’t bother – you can’t.

    And just what do you think those UN directives are for? WMDs, dumbass.

    You stupid Bush-lickers lack common sense. Why? Maybe it’s from tossing too much neo-con salad. I have no idea.

    I do know that the WMD claim was the number 1 reason for the U.S. to invade Iraq – even if Bush didn’t say it was #1, he made damn sure we were all scared to death of Hussein’s WMD.

    Mushroom clouds.

    Powell showing us imagery of “WMD facilities.”

    No mention of the joys of democracy.

    Speaking of that, how’s the “old democracy in the Middle East plan working?”

    Let’s see: democracy in Lebanon brought about the election of Hizbollah and a proxy war against Israel. Great.

    Democracy in Palestine brought about the election of Hamas, Israel’s sworn enemy. Check.

    Wow. I can only imagine the joy and wonder a true democratic Iraq will bring.

    [Tone it down. -- P]

    Rusty (2d0f25)

  48. *Yawn*

    Abraxas (db3144)

  49. Rusty, thanks for the demonstration of my points. 1) WMD was the trump reason. 2) WMD was not the only reason. 3) Press appearances where only WMD are discussed because the press only wants to talk about that aspect brings the illusion that it is the only reason to go.

    Let me present some more ideas.

    1) The story is told early on that Bush poked his head into a meeting and said that he was going to get Saddam. Something happened to cause that. What was the reason for that statement at that time? The press never at any time had any more intellectual curiosity than they laughingly claimed Bush had to ever ask what that was.

    2) Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. As part of the global war on terrorism, something had to be done about Iraq. No, Iraq didn’t have operational ties to 9/11 any more than Italy had operational ties to the attack on Pearl Harbor, but there were ties that Iraq had to terrorism just as Italy had ties to Japan. (Guess which country went down first, Japan that attacked us at Pearl Harbor? No. Germany that the allies had forged an agreement to take down first? No. Italy that was no threat at all to any major Ally power. If the left did to Roosevelt what they did to Bush, they would have called Roosevelt a coward for going through Italy first.) Just like in WWII in dealing with the Axis, Italy was dealt with, so Iraq had to be dealt with in the war on global terrorism.

    The left on this issue again have blinders on. Oh, it was al-Qaida that did 9/11 so al-Qaida must be the only terrorist organization that must be dealt with. No, George Bush, in his speach, said that we would start with al-Qaida and then deal with other terror organizations and state sponsors of terrorism. The left appears to believe that al-Qaida is the whole of it, all of it.

    3) The left of today would be unable to win any conflict that it or anyone else started. The Revolutionary war saw years of defeats of the American forces. The left of today would have surrendered before action started. The left during the Civil War were claiming that we could not win the war. Clement Vallandigham got a peace plank placed in the 1864 Democrat national platform ” . . . declaring the war a failure and demanding an immediate end of hostilities.” Sound familiar folks? After WWII ended there were attacks by holdout NAZIs. Guess what? People were claiming then that “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”
    (As quoted in Life Magazine) Sound familiar?

    Kerry (623678)

  50. It is easy to shut down lefties in this debate.

    Tell them to search:

    A. Q. Kahn, Libya, Iraq

    M. Simon (99264e)

  51. I’ll quote steve from a comment on a different story. He points out that the White House long ago stipulated that Bush meant Niger in his SOTU reference:

    “As I said in the briefing on Friday, that the recollection — and Steve Hadley is here to talk at more length about this — that his own recollection of the conversation we reported between himself and Director Tenet was focused on the fact of the single sourcing of the 550 tons of uranium from Africa, which was Niger, and that there was a concern about the sourcing, the single sourcing in a speech like this. And that’s what I explained then; it’s what other administration officials explained.”

    - Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director (July 22, 2003)

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030722-12.html

    And National Security Adviser Steven Hadley told the same press gaggle of “British reporting on attempts by Iraq to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa, which I understood to involve Niger.”

    Jamie McCarthy (336fdf)

  52. [...] As expected, Patterico wouldn’t let it slide. [...]

    BizzyBlog » The Press Can’t Get Over Its ‘16 Words’ Fixation (34f45e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3398 secs.