Patterico's Pontifications


There’s a Third Thing That’s Certain, Ben: Death, Taxes, and Glenn Greenwald Lying

Filed under: General,Scum — Patterico @ 12:40 pm

The sky is blue, time is still moving forward one second at a time . . . and Glenn Greenwald is still being dishonest.

Regarding Dave Gaubatz, who claims that Saddam really did have WMD, Greenwald says:

This is the individual to whom Glenn Reynolds, Powerline, Michelle Malkin’s blog and scores of others are pointing as the Iraqi Weapons Expert who knows the Real Truth behind Saddam’s Missing WMDs.

Let’s look at the evidence Greenwald cites to prove the assertion that these individuals are swooning over Gaubatz’s claim.

First, here is Glenn Reynolds:

“I FOUND SADDAM’S WMD BUNKERS:” Er, wouldn’t this be news if it were true? Maybe not, these days. . . .”

Here is “Michelle Malkin’s blog” (actually Allah at Hot Air):

Melanie Phillips’s new piece in the Spectator is making the rounds so I might as well toss up a link. This story isn’t new — FrontPage was writing about Gaubatz last April and the Times featured him in a story about diehard WMD believers in June. He seems credible, but I must say, stories about the continuing hunt for WMDs at this point seem to me like a right-wing version of Trutherism. Besides, even if Gaubatz is right about the weapons having been moved to Syria, we’ll simply never know unless Assad ups and admits that they’re there. And if he was going to do that, odds are he’d already have offered to do it in exchange for whatever concessions he might want from the Bush administration.

Still an interesting read, though.

Maybe somebody needs to explain to Greenwald what “Trutherism” means. Hint: it ain’t a compliment.

Greenwald quotes the part about how we’ll never know unless Assad admits it — but doesn’t quote the part about how he probably would have admitted it already, if it were true. Greenwald thus implies Allah believes Assad has the WMDs, when Allah was actually arguing the opposite.

Allah is so interested in “promoting” this story that he titles the post:

The obligatory “Dave Gaubatz found Saddam’s WMDs” post

If you read Allah, you know that this approach (“The obligatory ______ post”) is the one he takes when he doesn’t really believe something, but is linking it because everyone is talking about it. (By the way, that is a perfectly legitimate thing for a blogger to do — as long as they offer an honest and reasonable opinion about it . . . which Allah does.)

Finally, we have Power Line’s Scott Johnson, who merely says that the article is very interesting.

So, to recap, as Rick Ellensburg might say:

One of the three bloggers says the article is very interesting. The other two, Glenn Reynolds and Allah, actually cast doubt on Gaubatz’s claims.

Yet, despite the clear evidence that Allah and Reynolds don’t buy the theory, Greenwald nevertheless claims that Allah (and Reynolds) are both pointing at Gaubatz as the “Iraqi Weapons Expert who knows the Real Truth behind Saddam’s Missing WMDs.”

This is who Greenwald is. And this is what he does.

P.S. Greenwald also accuses Pajamas Media of proclaiming the truth of Gaubatz’s claims:

Scores of other right-wing blogs — including right-wing “news site” Pajamas Media — have excitedly linked to the article in order to suggest or even proclaim to their readers that Saddam really did have WMDs all along but that fact has been covered up by a vast conspiracy.

Let’s look at the entire Pajamas Media post, to see how they “suggest[ed] or even proclaim[ed] to their readers that Saddam really did have WMDs all along but that fact has been covered up by a vast conspiracy”:

‘I found Saddam’s WMD Bunkers’ — Dave Gaubatz
PJM Barcelona
April 20, 2007 9:58 AM

(Melanie Phillips @ The Spectator)

Yup, that’s it.

But we already know that, when you actually follow one of Greenwald’s links, the link most likely will not support his premise.

P.P.S. Last night a friend of mine (who is not one of the people Greenwald criticizes in his post, by the way) asked me:

Do you think he’s dense or just a hack who doesn’t care if he’s right?

What do you think my answer was?

23 Responses to “There’s a Third Thing That’s Certain, Ben: Death, Taxes, and Glenn Greenwald Lying”

  1. …And these are the people whose worldview has been governing our country for the last six years and who have been treated with the utmost respect, even reverence, by our national media — the fact which explains, more or less, everything…

    That statement alone shows that Greenwald is a pathalogical liar who believes that saying something makes it true.

    dubya (c16726)

  2. The thing is that leftists like Greenwald will jump on any conservative blog that doesn’t completely shoot down a story as evidence of a right wing echo chamber. Most of the 911 conspiracy nuts are founnd on the left side of the political divide but I don’t see conservatives lumping every liberal blog with Rosie O’Donnell.

    Regarding WMDs in Iraq, for those that don’t believe they existed no proof is enough to change their minds. For those that do believe WMDs were there, we are still open to the evidence.

    Donald Zeiter (f08d8d)

  3. Patterico, maybe Greenwald does think “Trutherism” is as much a compliment as believing it’s “truths” is rational. That certainly fits with all the other silly things he believes.

    Dusty (e28a9f)

  4. Do you think he’s dense or just a hack who doesn’t care if he’s right?


    Pablo (08e1e8)

  5. Who all do you think had dealings with A. Q. Kahn? Certainly not Sadam… oh no, no chance! Kahn wouldn’t deal with a nut case like Khadaffi either.

    dubya (c16726)

  6. Both, but did you know that Glenn had written a book?

    More on topic is that I don’t believe that the WMD labs and supplies just evaporated into nothing. If there was a way to arrange that, in and of itself it would be a WMD.

    htom (412a17)

  7. On this blog in the past days there have been numerous comments stating that Saddam had WMD’s and that Al Qaeda and Saddam were in cahoots.

    Are we done yet?

    AF (d700ef)

  8. On this blog in the past days there have been numerous comments stating that Saddam had WMD’s

    Uh, thats well established fact, the question is what happened to them. Some believe that Saddam, a notoriously corrupt liar, destroyed them when he was told to do so. Others think he didn’t. What’s your point?

    Taltos (c99804)

  9. Greenwald is a knee jerk reactionary – not the imaginative thinker he sees himself as. His posts are defensive, obsessive, predictable and very badly sourced and construed. It’s pretty brutal how easy it is to pick his posts apart.

    Topsecretk9 (a75687)

  10. It’s pretty brutal how easy it is to pick his posts apart.

    And it’s just as sad that he has an audience that sees them as delivered wisdom. PT Barnum probably had no idea how right he was.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  11. Patterico:

    1. Did Saddam have WMD?
    2. Were al-Qaeda and Saddam involved?

    The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2)

  12. LA, are you saying that Saddam didn’t have WMD? What do you suppose happened to them?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  13. David Blaine made Saddam’s WMD’s disappear with his street magic. Few people know about this. Blaine can do anything. Hot Air has got a video up of some of his latest stuff. I’ll bet Greenwald hasn’t watched it yet!

    daleyrocks (906622)

  14. So, simply linking to a story implies unreserved agreement with it? Can we apply this logic to Greenwald?

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  15. Let me see, we’ve encountered dumb and dumber, so this guy has to be the dumbest!

    Sue (af7b95)

  16. Greenwald quotes the part about how we’ll never know unless Assad admits it — but doesn’t quote the part about how he probably would have admitted it already, if it were true.

    That’s not what Allah wrote. He wrote that if Assad intended ever to admit it, he would have done so by now. The correct conclusion is not that the story probably isn’t true, but that Assad probably has no intention of ever admitting it, whether it’s true or not.

    Milhouse (95fb82)

  17. Did Saddam have WMD?

    BILL CLINTON: I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks…

    “Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

    “Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
    “What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
    “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
    “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
    “Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998
    “Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
    “I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
    “Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
    “I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
    “Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
    “As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
    “Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    “Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
    “Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

    some dude (a5eca6)

  18. 2. Were al-Qaeda and Saddam involved?

    Ever hear of Abu Sayyaf? Of course not. You’re a lib. A.S. was the Philippine arm of AQ and Saddam was their principle funder. SH also gave 25K to the Pali suicide bombers. HE WAS A FUNDER OF INTL. TERRORISM, MOOOOOROONNNS! GET IT? No, of course not.

    Oh, why is AQ in Iraq today? The Falafel? Just asking…..

    some dude (a5eca6)

  19. Ironically, “death” is less certain than the other two, or potentially so.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  20. […] posts about the media’s “complicity” in demonizing the alien hordes. And probably misrepresenting a post of mine in the process. digg_url = […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » DoD consultants: If aliens invade, U.S. must wage jihad (d4224a)

  21. P.P.S. Last night a friend of mine (who is not one of the people Greenwald criticizes in his post, by the way) asked me:

    Do you think he’s dense or just a hack who doesn’t care if he’s right?

    What do you think my answer was?

    My guess is; “Both”.

    What do I win?

    Freelancer (cb897a)

  22. […] From one of the great practitioners of the art of unraveling Sock Puppets (second only to me) Patterico: […]

    A Second Hand Conjecture » A New Submission to the Geenwald Carnival of Fisking (f55714)

  23. 1. Did Saddam have WMD?

    He certainly did at some point. He used poison gas against the Iranians and the Kurds. Now, he might

    2. Were al-Qaeda and Saddam involved?

    Actually, those links have never been ruled out. It is undenaible that Sadaam supported some terrorist groups like Syria and Iran currently do. Could any of these groups be considered part of al Qaeda? The problem with that question is multiple. First, you have to define “al Qaeda,” which has several loosely affiliated groups. Second, you have determine which groups Saddam actually supported. Third, you have to determine whether any of those groups could be considered al Qaeda.

    In the end, the core of Al Qaeda and Saddam were not affiliated.

    MnZ (0617e9)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0999 secs.