the rewriting of history continues apace

[rone]

"I want you to keep focused on what you are doing here," [Condoleezza] Rice told the diplomats and troops who gathered in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces. "This war came to us, not the other way around."

Fuck you, you lying hag.

Comments

[nothings.livejournal.com]

man

[opadit.livejournal.com]

War is peace! Double-plus-good spike heels and designer suits!

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

You didn't include the even worse line which followed. They're STILL saying that Iraq caused 9/11.

The United States, along with the rest of the free world, believed somehow for a number of years that people in this region didn't care about freedom… We cared about stability. And what we got was neither. We got a malignancy that was growing that came to haunt us on the fine September day.

Do you recall Roosevelt calling press conferences in 1944 to announce that Japan most certainly *did* attack America at Pearl Harbor? No. Nobody had to give any speeches about that, because it was already true.

Our lady doth protest too much.

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

Sure-- Japan attacked the US, which is why it seems so natural in retrospect that our next actions were to declare war on Italy and invade Morocco.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Japan declared war on, then attacked, the USA on December 7 1941. The USA and England jointly declared war against Japan the following day, on December 8 1941. Germany declared war on the USA three days later, on December 11. America responded the same day by declaring war against Germany and Italy (http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html), citing the German/Italian declaration as caussus belli.

Do you actually claim that, at some point between the morning of December 7 and the afternoon of December 8, our "next action" after Japanese attack was to declare war on Italy? Or are you, like Ms. Rice, manufacturing a history of trivially refutable lies to support your wrong-headed world view?

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

Argh, caught in a web of lies *again*! And I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for you darned kids.

Actually, I was hinting at the broader point which is not conclusively proven either way-- the possibility that Al Qaeda is just one element of a massive if not totally organized international campaign of terror against the west, with Iraq being yet another element. True, there's not Tri-Powers Pact (whatever it was called) between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, but perhaps, in light of recent events, we can decide that we can't tolerate one any more than we can tolerate the other, and in that they are connected.

Speaking of trivially refutable lies, when are the lefties on the internet going to conclusively prove that the Bush Administration actually credited Iraq with 9/11? The worst I've ever seen is a shortish list of innuendos and the poll results indicating that a bizarrely large portion of the population is said to believe that.

[waider.livejournal.com]

Speaking of trivially refutable lies, when are the lefties on the internet going to conclusively prove that the Bush Administration actually credited Iraq with 9/11?

You're trolling, right?

Q So there is a direct -- as far as the administration is concerned, there is a direct link between al Qaeda and Iraq, are they working under Iraq's direction, or what?

MR. FLEISCHER: You have heard this on the record many times before.

I presume this is the sort of "innuendo" you're referring to.

(p.s. why do "internet lefties" have to come up with this? why not "concerned republicans who think their party has been hijacked by a bunch of fundamentalist nutbars with no respect for anything, including the people who put them in power"?)

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Actually in that quote Fleischer isn't actually doing anything but setting a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a NULL, and hoping that no one dereferences it and segfaults. No one ever claimed that Iraq planned 9/11 - but everyone claimed that *some other person* planned it, and that they agree with that imaginary person.

Their deception was intentional.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Tom Tomorrow tries to put a finger on "*some other person* (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18951)."

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

I was hinting at the broader point which is not conclusively proven either way-- the possibility that Al Qaeda is just one element of a massive if not totally organized international campaign of terror against the west, with Iraq being yet another element. True, there's not Tri-Powers Pact (whatever it was called) between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, but perhaps, in light of recent events, we can decide that we can't tolerate one any more than we can tolerate the other, and in that they are connected.

Neocons appreciate shrill, alarmist, hand-waving predictions about the future because, unlike piddly details such as "why we went to war" and "what George Bush said vs. what was known" you can't disprove the future. You can cast it in deeply serious doubt, though.

Osama stated that his reason for 9/11 was to retaliate against the USA for our support of totalitarian, secular Arab rulers. (Also, support of Israel and troops in Mecca.) Saddam was a secular, non-beard-wearing Sunni whose wife (singular) looked like Nancy Reagan. Osama was a religious, beard-wearing Shia whose wives (plural) wore veils. Secular Saddam was actively at war with Religious Osama, and succeeded in keeping Al Quaeda out of his country except for training camps in the north, which was controlled by the Kurds and *not* Saddam because our no-fly-zone was there.

Saddam and Osama were working completely across-purposes. Osama's other stated goal was to unite the Middle East under a "Mighty (religious) Caliphate" and bump the price of oil up to $200 per barrel. Saddam's goal was to drop US sanctions, resume Western trade, and start selling oil at market rates. These guys were enemies. The only thing that's been able to bring them together is the occupation of an Arab nation by a Western army, which is so offensive to Arabs that it cuts across traditional secular/religious party lines. Bush is truly "a uniter, not a divider", at least among our enemies.

You might as well decide that if we hadn't defeated Hitler, Germany would have teamed up with the Soviet Union in the cold war against the United States. "Russia hated the USA and Hitler hated the USA so Russia and Hitler are friends, QED." It's *remotely possible* if you completely ignore the fact that the Soviet Union was fighting *against* Germany, Russia had as much to do with Germany's defeat as the USA did, and Hitler siezed power by blaming the Reichstag fire on Communists.

Speaking of trivially refutable lies, when are the lefties on the internet going to conclusively prove that the Bush Administration actually credited Iraq with 9/11? The worst I've ever seen is a shortish list of innuendos and the poll results indicating that a bizarrely large portion of the population is said to believe that.

You're absolutely correct: like used car dealers trying to sell you a lemon, the Bush Administration filled and continues to fill their sales pitch with totally false implications, without actually claiming much of anything, and 51% of the public buys it. (Rice is still doing it - see above.) This is perhaps the most outrageous point of all, because it proves that their deception is intentional. If a majority of Americans in 1941 - or in any time in the future - thought that Germany planned Pearl Harbor, the President would have made a State Of The Union speech to clear up such a dangerously major misconception. Bush has not, because his misleading statements and the deception of the American people is exactly what he wants.

We'd have articles of impeachment against Bush - and they'd stick - if the Neocons didn't also control the Senate and House.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Oops, minor correction. Saddam Hussein had three wives, not one. Mea culpa.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I think it's worth pointing out that the USSR and Nazi Germany started out on the same side in WWII.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Not saying I know this to be untrue, but in what way were they on the same side? From my understanding Hitler hated the Communists, socialists, and pretty much everything Liberal. Germany and Japan were united against Russia as early as 1936, in the Anti-Comintern Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Comintern_Pact).

Please elaborate, because if I'm wrong about Hitler hating Commies I'd appreciate being corrected.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Invasion of Poland.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

"Elaborate" means the exact opposite of "use the minimum number of words necessary". Perhaps you misunderstood me.

You're saying that Russia supported the invasion of one of its border countries by a hostile nation? That's like the US being happy with Iran invading Mexico. Source?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Yes, Russia supported and indeed took part in the dismemberment of Poland. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was August 23rd 1939, the German invasion of Poland was 1st September, and the Russian invasion of the other half followed on the 17th September. The Baltic states were effectively occupied by Russia, with explicit German agreement, the same month. Russia and Germany only went to war in 1941, when Germany invaded; Stalin famously refused to believe the intelligence reports that this was imminent, thinking for some reason that Hitler was trustworthy.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

WWII isn't my area of expertise, but as far as I can tell the pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact) was a non-aggression pact between otherwise hostile countries. Stalin was still opposed to Hitler: he wasn't opposed to Hitler's invasion because he thought that war between rival capitalist countries would make it easier to turn them to communism. You might as well argue that England and Germany were also on the same side, since they also signed a non-agression pact in the previous year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement). (Of course the M-R agreement contained with secret spheres of influence defined in the event of its "political rearrangement", but both parties were still working cross-purposes and weren't on the same side. Stalin still wanted to see Germany and England destroy each other, and Hitler was still planning to attack Russia.)

To get back to our original Iraq discussion it's similar to the current "alliance" between Al Qaeda insurgents and Baathist remnants of Saddam's army. They were fighting each other before our invasion, they'll be fighting each other after we leave, but for the moment it serves their otherwise incompatible purposes to fight us.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

A "non-aggression" pact doesn't divide your neighbours up between you when you both invade one of them a few weeks later. Frankly the close timing indicates a degree of joint planning.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

True, but it's joint planning between enemies. Enemies before the pact, enemies after. Your comparison to the current Baathist/Al Qaeda "alliance" is entirely valid. Former enemies are sharing objectives when it suits their interests, but they'll be back to fighting against each other once that objective is achieved.

Or maybe they won't, and Bush's legacy in Iraq will have been to permanently unite secular and religious arabs against America. I hope not.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I don't recall drawing any comparison.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Doh! I am wrong again. Previous to your comment (http://www.livejournal.com/users/ronebofh/289540.html?thread=1498116#t1498116) was saying that antagonistic Baathists / Al Qaeda relations could be compared to Russian / German relations. You put a finer point on it, adding the "also willing to make shaky alliances of convenience before backstabbing each other" factor, making the comparison even more valid.

Seriously though, I appreciate the history lesson. I wasn't interested in history lessons in high school, but actually seeing history unfold gives me new appreciation for similar events in the past.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, i've given up on that one. Really, what's the big deal? We reëlected the man, he has a friggin' mandate, it doesn't matter if he lies, `cause he ain't runnin' again!

With the recent Snopes addition of the Ike quote regarding Social Security and Texas oil millionaires (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ike.asp), it's all i can do avoid joining the Republican party to help restore it to its former conservative and SANE glory. Christ. Or maybe i should just donate my spine and my balls to the Democrats.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Your spine and balls, why admirable in their own way, would not be sufficent to reverse the invertebration and emasculation of the Democratic Party.

I recommend torching the lot of them and activating the clones.

My Daddy called me to complain about her.

[mouseworks.livejournal.com]

Hell, even she knows she's lying on this one, I hope, but I heard from a friend of a friend who retired early from the State Department that Condi thinks the European Union will be the next enemy of the United States, especially if they let Russia in.

[agentelrond.livejournal.com]

I supported the damn thing and I can't believe this shit.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

If by "the damn thing" you mean the war, then you and I are in the same boat. I am a Bush voter who tentatively supported the war because I believed he had the goods he claimed to have. I didn't believe that Bush would be willing to destroy the credibility of the America, the Presidency, and the Republican Party by betting a war on a shaky gamble. I gave himt the benefit of the doubt, and he couldn't have burned me any worse if he'd dropped napalm on my house.

[agentelrond.livejournal.com]

Oh, see, I never put a huge amount of faith in the threat to our country bit about Saddam. I just felt he was an utter tyrant who needed to be shown the door. (It didn't hurt that my family is/was friends with a Kurdish family who saw friends and family killed by that motherfucker.)
I consider myself a strong supporter of human rights, even if it happens to fit in with Republican aims, but I'm a moderate-liberal Dem.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Saddam was a tyrant, true. Whether Saddam needed to be shown the door because of this is something that Congress needed to decide on those merits, NOT the fiction that the Bush Administration invented.

Let's say you need a new car because your old car is a piece of crap. And I have a car that I'm trying to get you to buy. I can tell you what an piece of crap I think your old car is, and I can tell you how nice my new car is, but I can't simply invent lies ("your old car will explode tomorrow!" "my car gets 5000 miles per gallon!") to convince you to buy my car - even if I genuinely believe that you need a new car.

[agentelrond.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with what you're saying. And I don't support the use of false (or, at best, mistaken) information to push for a war.
I'm just saying that I supported it, from the very beginning, for the reasons the Bush Admin started using when it turned out their original justifications didn't hold water.
And I had made the absolutely ABSURD assumption that they had concrete PLANS for what to do once they'd brought down the government besides, ya know, being greeted with flowers and gifts by the entire country.

That's not very nice

[skipernicus.livejournal.com]

To hags, I mean.

These guys operate under a time honored paradigm - us versus them (or in geekspeak, everyone else are orcs). But what baffles me is that they decided to kill a bunch of Iraqi's, but to what end? What did they expect to gain from an unprovoked war of aggression? I mean, I don't see gas prices dropping. And I know it's a tired comparison, but I think it really applies here: what's different about Bush slaying Iraqi's and Hitler slaying Jews? We make up excuses for the this war, but there is not one single fact - not one - that justifies this war, which has cost us so much, accomplished so little, and made us the enemy of the world.

According to Deputy Defense Director Paul Wolfowitz, "the war allowed Washington to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has had 5,000 troops there since the Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Saudi Arabia is home to many of Islam's holiest sites - and the presence of foreign troops was not welcome, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is considered a friendly government. The U.S. presence was a recruiting device for Al-Qaeda. The U.S. removed most of it's troops after the fall of Baghdad.

But how has the removal of these troops, ceased to be a recruiting device? What did we trade it for? The death of 100,000+ Iraqis. We have proven that our "concerns" were by and large, fabrications. There were no weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi's had not commited any terrorist acts on the U.S., and the laughable assertion that we are "protecting the Iraqi's from their own government" was dragged naked into the sunshine by the events at Abu Ghraib.

Wolfowitz also stated that "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason".

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that the WMD in question may "have been destroyed in the war". He also said that they may have been destroyed before the war. He did not, however, say that they may have never existed.

This war came to us. She lies. And then she goes on:

Referring to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Rice said, "The absence of freedom in the Middle East -- the freedom deficit -- is what produced the ideology of hatred that allowed them to fly airplanes into a building on a fine September day."

Who are "them"? Middle Easterners in general. And they had to do it on a fine day, they just couldn't wait for a rainy day when everyone was having a bad time.

It appears that these people are war criminals - and if there was any justice, they would have to answer for there acts.

To be fair though, Bill Clinton fooled around with an intern.