Sunday, November 27, 2005

Urban Legends (Dem Talking Points) About The War

This article shreds the myths about this war. They are:

Urban Legend: The Bush Administration in general, and the Vice President and his office in particular, pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to exaggerate evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Urban Legend: The President and his administration intentionally misled the country into war with Iraq—and the “16 words” that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union are the best proof of it. In the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President’s State of the Union…when he spoke the now infamous 16 words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’… As we all now know, that allegation was false….”

Urban Legend: Helping democracy take root in Iraq was a postwar rationalization by the Bush administration; it was an argument that was not made prior to going to war. In the words of a November 13, 2003 New York Times editorial, “The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.”

Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”

Urban Legend: There were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.

Urban Legend: President Bush has shown an “arrogant disrespect” for the United Nations on Iraq, according to Senator Ted Kennedy.

Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Urban Legend: Flights out of the country for members of the bin Laden family were allowed before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001; there was political intervention to facilitate the departure of the bin Laden family from America; and the FBI did not properly screen them before their departure.

Read the article for fantastic rebuttals to each of these points.

And just for good measure, here's an article showing the multiple flip-flops the NY Times has made on Iraq policy. Changing its mind so many times--it's no wonder they supported Kerry for President!

Update: Oh look, here's more good stuff--in this case, an article studying reports of civilian casualties in Iraq. Want a sample? I knew you did!

What is the source for these numbers? The most comprehensive study of civilian casualties is available from a group opposed to the Coalition intervention in Iraq called Iraq Body Count. This summer, the Iraq Body Count project published an analysis of casualties in the Iraq War that must be admired for its meticulous documentation.

This study reports 24,865 civilian deaths in the first two years of the Iraq War, an apparent ringing endorsement of the "Iraq in chaos" position. But a curious statistical anomaly jumps right off page one: over 81% of the civilian casualties are men. Even stranger, over 90% of civilian casualties are adults in a country with a disproportionate percentage of the population under 18 (44.5%).


Anonymous said...


How can you show "arrorgant disrespect" to the have to be worth of something other than whale shit to be disrespected.

Teddy must be drinking, err driving again!

Anonymous said...

I love the civilized and intelligent discourse shown here.

Walter E. Wallis said...

Bolton is the last best hope for the U.N. If he can't straighten it out, dump it.
Someone said "I'd rather be right than president." The NY Times would rather be Left than truthful.

Darren said...

I'm glad you do, Anonymous. Please feel free to participate.

Pete Deichmann said...

Darren, This needs to be required reading nationwide. While I don't agree with everything "Right", the "Left" really needs to stop the propaganda. The whole "Bush Lied" campaign is a sad attempt to promote their Socialist agenda.

Sidenote: A Twinkie stuffed, bullhorn carrying loudmouth with stock airline footage doesn't really help their "Escaping Saudi Legend".

Anonymous, C'mon we are waiting for your civilized input!

Anonymous said...

I'd participate, but I'd have to consider this discussion "to be worth of something other than whale shit" to bother with it.

Darren said...

So Anonymous, you've posted on this thread twice, both times whining and *not* contributing one ounce to any intellectual discourse.

Looks to me like the problem, if there is one, lies with you.

Anonymous said...

While i find alot of this very interesting, the idea that the UN is nothing but "whale shit" is an absolute insult and shows nothing but ignorance on the part of the writer. Certain people seen incapable of imagining that the UN might actually do something other than decide war disputes. I know it's a novel concept but try doing a bit of research (UNICEF for example) before you start embarrassing yourself by calling an organization, which you obviously seem to know nothing about, "whale shit".

Darren said...

This is a good time to bring up differences in perspective. Katherine will be interning with the UN this summer; Mike T will probably still be in the Middle East.

Darren said...

Here's one little thing the UN does that makes some of us wonder about its utility:

Anonymous said...

Darren good to know I can still start something.

Katherine B, I know whale shit actually served a useful purpose at one time…so did the UN. In time past, like the time after WWII. However, it has become nothing but a worthless group of leeches who only want to control people. Examples:

1. Global Warming. This is a theory, not a proven fact. However, the UN wants to regulate the emissions of the US and other western nations…but for some reason China and India are not a problem. Why? Because China and India won’t give the UN money like we will.

2. Human Rights. Any organization that would have Libya and Iran on its Human Right’s commission….enough said.

3. Oil for Bribes, err Food. Billions of dollars squandered by this organization. The son of the President of the UN is in the middle of the problem and this doesn’t raise an eyebrow. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but this smells.

4. The Internet. They want to control ICANN (for those of you from Rio Linda, that’s The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). This is the group that is responsible for the existence of the World Wide Web as it is known today (Sorry ALGORE, as when the Net was invented in 69, your not in this). Why? In one of the successes of the Clinton administration (and Darren will testify, I’m no friend of Slick but he got it right here…I’m reminded of the broken clock), he left the control of the internet to a private corporation set up by the US Government. And how has this worked. In a word, beautifully. Now, why would a massive international group of 3rd World Countries want to control that? It’s not to “bridge the digital divide” as they like to say. It’s to control the net. Limit the free flow of information and commerce on it. And as it has shown with Iraqi Oil, it cannot be trusted. BTY, how much of the digital divide could the cost of that bullshit conferences on “Bridging the Digital Divide” help cross? How many internet systems in 3rd World Countries, how many computers in classrooms would it have funded? Just curious.

Something you should know about Darren and I Katherine. We met at Ft Carson CO too many years ago. It’s because of men like him you can say stupid things like this. Or to quote George Orwell “"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Sleep well madam.

Anonymous said...

Darren good to know I can still start something.

Katherine B, /

Darren said...

OK, Mike, I've got to call you on this one.

Katherine is a former student of mine, one I respect tremendously. While I don't agree with her political bent at all (and she probably doesn't agree much with ours), and I don't disagree with the points you made at all, your closing was a bit too "fiery" for someone (Katherine) who has posted in a very measured, professional manner.

Katherine has a different value structure than we do, but she posts here and comports herself in person with the utmost dignity and intellect. She uses logic and facts--very rarely resorts to emotion--and I value her input even though we disagree on substantive issues.

Certain commenters on this blog (and we all know who they are!) deserve a broadside after they comment. I'm not convinced Katherine is one of them.

Darren said...

Here's a quote from UN ambassador John Bolton: "It is one reason why many people say the UN is not really useful in solving actual problems."