Who Is Really Lying?
Wall Street Journal Opinion: Who's Really Lying?
The quotes below come from Norman Podhoretz opinion in today's Wall Street Journal that came out this weekend on another news source. He step by step demolishes the idea that Bush falsely lead us into war in Iraq. Clearly logical, soundly backed with evidence, putting the blame on lying to America square on those who deserve to be outed, a few key Democrats.
On another more irritating note. Check this out!
Fox News Sunday Transcript of Senator Jay Rockefeller
I'd like to focus on this particular quote by Senator Rockefeller:
"I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11." Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV
What is infuriating is that this occurred prior to President Bush's final decision to invade Iraq. Who does he think he is, tipping the leaders of that region of our intentions? Is this not criminal, expecially with SYRIA"S connection to Saddam? It's time we raise hell about this! Is this not a seditious act by Senator Rockefeller? Is there anyone out there in blogland who understands the laws of sedition?
I'm so mad I could...I'm sorry, I can't go there.
posted by Underground Logician @ 11:10 PM
23 comments
23 Comments:
Interesting and thought-provoking article from the WSJ. I found this little jem particularly amusing, however:
Now, as it happens, Mr. Libby was not charged with having outed Ms. Plame "but only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that she worked for the CIA."
I wish these same people would have said the same thing when Clinton was "only charged with having lied." Hah.
Makes me laugh.
Have you seen this about Rockefeller:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005802.php
Treason? Treason, anyone?
James:
Clinton did lie. He was convicted of lying. He lost his law license. Libby is still indicted. We'll see where the evidence stacks up. Also, cute little twistings and turnings go on in the media that I'm sure you don't notice. When talking about outing Plame, the press inflates the issue by saying Libby was "indicted in the Valerie Plame case." They have this sneaky way of implying Libby outed her. That is why you see the "only" in the phrase. It's to correct the record. With Clinton, lying to a grand jury was the issue.
It's the same method when the press errroneously says Bush connects 9/11 with Saddam. They exclude the fact that Saddam harbored known terrorist who may have plotted in 9/11. They jump a few stages to make Bush look like an ass. Typical media irresponsibility.
AE:
I tried the URL, Captain must be working on his site. I can't get in right now. I'll try later. I think Rockefeller is an oligarchical snake in the grass. I'd like to know why he seems to get a pass.
UL:
Well, the "jury is still out" on Libby so to speak. He still could be convicted of perjury, or not.
So yeah, we shall see.
By the way, I do realize that the media plays twists and turns on the truth. And whether or not the reporter was correcting the record he shouldn't have said "only lying." Instead, should have said, "but with having lied.."
It's just just my opinion.
I usually agree with you (and I think Rockefeller is a weenie) but the truth is, he was just stating a fact: Bush was considering it (it's been admitted since) and Rockefeller 'warning' them could possibly have prevented the war if they'd turned around and told Saddam "Hey! Heads up! You might want to think twice!" So, I'm not taking that as seriously as you are.
Saur:
I'm a bit surprised. You see, it wasn't altogether clear at the time. Even so, for Mr. Rockefeller to go to one the heads of state that sponsor terrorism to tip our hand is altogether irresponsible. It's a violation of the Logan Act which prevents private citizens without government permission to intervene in disputes of state.
Syria was a known state sponsor of terror, the head of Syria in friendly relations with Saddam. This is altogether inexcusable and something needs to happen.
UL, but when you say:
It's a violation of the Logan Act which prevents private citizens without government permission to intervene in disputes of state.
isn't Rockefeller a government official, and not a private citizen?
Either way, I don't see it as intervening in a dispute. Perhaps a warning would be a better term.
But how come Jessie Jackson hasn't been hauled up in court over all his completely idiotic attempts at intervention where he's not wanted? That's a rhetorical question, BTW.
Logician, Clinton was never convicted of anything. He pled down. The charges facing Libby are the same that faced Clinton. And I must give a chuckle at "Saddam harbored known terrorist who may have plotted in 9/11." Even if that is correct, it's circumstantial at best.
The official findings of the 9/11 Commission concluded that no direct link between Iraq and 9/11, or any cooperation with bin Laden could be determined. However, direct links between Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and countries in SE Asia were found and substantial and very well documented. Those are the official findings of the US government, Bush's government that is.
Was Saddam a terrorist? Absolutely. Just not the one responsible for 9/11.
Saur:
I'm upset that Bush has been so quiet about it all. And, I agree with you about Jackson. He needs to keep his pinko mouth shut! There have been times when he has received government approval to go to other countries. Other times, he went on his own too.
I'm not so hot on this "new tone" BS. It's more being a pushover or naive than being collaborative. Bush needs to finish out his term in office as a real hard-ass, I'm serious buns of steel, tear their hearts out with his bare-hands tough! Grrrrrrrrrr!
MJ:
Your argument is a red herring. The 9/11 connection is NOT THE POINT! The point is that now that we have been attacked, terrorism is a HUGE concern for us now more than ever. With that, the urgency that the Clinton administration had in trying to convey to us all the danger of Saddam had become exponentially higher. With the proven capacity to attack our shores now, terrorists have the organization and the cash to do deals with rogue states to help accomplish their evil plans. Saddam's connect with Al-Qaida is more than circumstantial, it did occur, especially with his sons at the helm.
Remember, the requirement to attack only those who were responsible for 9/11 is a red herring created by the liberal establishment to circumvent the war effort. It's an extremely narrow approach that overlooks the entire scope of world terrorism and the new threats that face our nation. 9/11 has changed our world forever; if Bin Ladin falls by the wayside and is replace by Zarqawi, or Mohammed Skyhook Habib! it doesn't matter. Islamo-fascism is our enemy, which is the hand inside these evil puppets.
I would be very interested in seeing your proof that Saddam did have connections with bin Laden, either via his sons or himself directly. The US government concluded there were no links.
Yes we have been attacked, and my argument is not and has never been that we shouldn't have went after Saddam, but rather that we should focus on the threat that caused 9/11 first and then go from there. A post 9/11 world would not tolerate Saddam, and I'll agree all day long that he had to go, but with so much more evidence directly linking other states and players to bin Laden, turning our attention to Iraq so fast did not make sense.
To me the narrow scope that you talk about is more accurate when applied to the argument and support of attacking countries with, at best, circumstantial evidence linking them to those responsible for the carnage of 9/11. I'm not sure how much more narrow of a scope the war in Iraq is and it's certainly allowed bin Laden to fall by the wayside like you argue against.
Again, though, by your logic that since we have been attacked that we should go after whomever supports any kind of terrorism is stronger when applied to Iran, Syria, SE Asia, Egypt and militias in Montana.
And certainly my argument that others have much greater links to bin Laden than Saddam ever did is no red herring.
MJ:
The red herring is that we ought not to have gone into Iraq because there was no 9/11 link. A 9/11 link was not the point in the first place and that is not why we went in. It is a side issue. Iraq was one of many terrorist strongholds, and there are more, I know. We have our work cut out for us.
If you want to make a point that we go after those who were involved with 9/11, certainly, let's do it! Come to think of it, we are dealing with Al-Qaida right now in Iraq, with a new general of this terrorist movement, Abu Skyhook Zarqawi. Al-Qaida is coming after us over there.
Now, I prefer that we find them where they are and "deal" with them there, then have to shoot down jetliners here before they crash into skyscrapers.
My main point to you is don't buy into the red herring.
Again, logician, I must respectively disagree. I did not say that we should have not went into Iraq. There is no inference on your site or anywhere on mine that I have ever argued such. So the red herring of which you speak, according to your wording, has nothing to do with the debate between you and I.
I am still very interested in seeing the evidence of your insistence that Saddam and/or his sons had links to bin Laden.
And still, I must argue that if we are in Iraq not because of links to 9/11, then that argument would be much stronger if used for Syria, Iran, SE Asia, Pakistan, Egypt and militias in Montana.
MJ:
If you're interested, click on the Logic Tutorial site and go to the "test" section. Scroll down and look at the number of fallacies it deals with; click on the "quick review" selection and you'll get a definition for each. 'Red Herring' falls under "evading the issue." All a red herring is is an argument that is immaterial to issue at hand that is meant to divert attention away from the initial argument. That is precisely what the liberal establishment did by creating the 9/11 connection criteria; then when the 9/11 commission did not find a connect to Iraq, they say, "See, Bush said Saddam was connected but we found otherwise!" Then they 'can' call Bush a liar with hopes of bringing him down. The whole thing was a ploy to divert our attention from the real reason why Bush chose to go to Iraq.
Remember, lawyers know how to use fallacies to sway juries. And if the American public is a jury, lawyers in the liberal establishment know how to sway us. Arm yourself with knowledge and fight these scoundrels' fallacies!
First of all logician I'm not a liberal and I'm not buying into anything. Where did I ever say that we shouldn't be in Iraq? You are either confusing me with someone else or have nothing else to argue your point.
What issue is it that I'm evading?
If I remember correctly, my first comment was garnered at your "They exclude the fact that Saddam harbored known terrorist who may have plotted in 9/11," comment. It appears to me that you are the one who keeps bringing up the 9/11 connection, not me.
I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. I'm asking for evidence of your existing argument.
MJ:
You said, "Was Saddam a terrorist? Absolutely. Just not the one responsible for 9/11."
Why is this pertinent?
Again, that's in reference to your "They exclude the fact that Saddam harbored known terrorist who may have plotted in 9/11," from the very first comment of mine. It's pertinent only because you still haven't answered it and keep bringing up the 9/11 connection.
I'm still waiting on your evidence.
MJ:
Okay, let's recap and be done. I said that the Dems tried to pin a lie on Bush by saying he led us to believe a direct link of Saddam to 9/11. Bush never said there was a direct link. I then said he "harbored terrorists that may have plotted 9/11," alluding to the disturbing information discovered initially by the Weekly Standard, if you haven't already seen it already:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
And you stated you "must give a chuckle" to my statement, which I thought odd. I never said there was a direct link. And, I too, am not aware of any hard evidence that gives a high degree of probability for a connection. So why the chuckle?
Be that as it may, I'm glad we agree on the importance of Iraq.
For another link as to the Iraq/terrorist connection go to the director of National intelligence regarding a letter sent from an Al-Qaida leader to Zarqawi:
http://www.dni.gov/letter_in_english.pdf
So, that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11...not a factor.
That there is no clear evidence that Saddam and Bin Ladin planned 9/11 together...not a factor.
There is some probability that terrorists who slinked in and out of Iraq were Al-Qaida who may have plotted 9/11. Possible. That terrorists have connected with Saddam and will in the future, major factor.
That we take seriously after 9/11 the danger Saddam poses to the West, in conjunction with what the Clinton administration was trying to tell us previously, major factor.
Should we have waited on Iraq and go after Al-Qaida directly? I say I don't know. Where would we have gone, and where would we be today had we done so? What are you saying?
UL, I agree that Bush is a Wimp Deluxe. But, I think that's his nature. And truthfully, he's not a good orator so if *I* were his handler (and remember that I used to be a political handler) than *I* would advise him to keep his mouth shut except whenever necessary. He seems like the type that can't memorize well-written lines (as Reagan could) and better safe than sorry...
Then I'm glad we agree that there was no link between Saddam and bin Laden and the probability of a connection is circumstantial at best.
I also agree with the seriousness of Iraq and that a post 9/11 world would not tolerate a terrorist of his kind.
And I do believe that we should have captured or killed bin Laden first and then went after Saddam. To me it only makes sense to go after those directly responsible for 9/11 first, and then turn our attention elsewhere. I think the American public is also thinking along these lines as well.
Thanks for your time and space. I enjoy the conversation.
Your welcome! Thanks for dropping by. I will only say one more thing; do not rule out the "possibility" of a connect between Saddam and Bin Ladin. Read my latest post today, check out tommorrow's Weekly Standard and judge for yourself.
Saur:
Wimp delux! No. Ill advised, yes. I think he's trying to hold out the olive branch to his political enemies, hoping for a change in tenor. I don't think he's afraid of a fight. He's too nice.
He should spend the rest of his days in office acting like he won the damn election. Let the losers kiss his behind for once. See how they like it. The Repubs in general have been so used to losing elections in the House and Senate for the past 7 decades, they have this loser mentality, ever since 1994. I think Fridays 403-3 vote against immediate withdrawal is great medicine, a bit late, though. They too, along with Bush, need to act morally "with abandon!" To coin a Vince Lombardi-ism.
Post a Comment
<< Home