Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Of course, the administration never claimed that Saddam was behind 911

That's right, they never directly claimed it, because they know that it's not true. Nonetheless, they led almost half of the voters to believe it, as the polls show.

As for lies, one good example is the statement that Maliki is "the right man for the job". If Bush wasn't lying when he said that, then he's an idiot. And no one should believe that Bush is an idiot.

Posted by at August 15, 2007 07:32 AM

Nonetheless, they led almost half of the voters to believe it, as the polls show.

How did they do that? They have repeatedly stated that it's not true. What more do you expect them to do? It's not their fault that many people are idiots. Are you going to blame them for the number of people who believe we never went to the moon, or that the government was behind 911, too?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 07:41 AM

Why don't the locals stand up and start killing the bombers? 200 people today again...

Posted by mz at August 15, 2007 07:42 AM

Why don't the locals stand up and start killing the bombers?

They often do. Many such plots have been thwarted. But they can't be perfect. The nature of entropy is that it's a lot easier to bomb than to build, and to kill than to save. Until their leadership is taken out completely, such incidents will continue. But it's getting much more difficult, and things have been quiet in Anbar and Diyalah for some time now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 07:59 AM

How did they do that?

They insinuated it by flipping between 9/11 and Iraq in a host of speeches. These insinuations were thicker on the ground than admissions of the truth.

It's not their fault that many people are idiots.

In the roll up to the war in Iraq, 40% of the voters believed that some of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi and that Saddam Hussein was involved. And it was an outright majority of the Republicans. Now, if you are given to hardline hyperbole, you could call a majority of the Republican base "idiots" and claim that it's not the fault of the Republican leadership. Nonetheless, it is their fault for exploiting this "idiocy".

Posted by at August 15, 2007 08:05 AM

They insinuated it by flipping between 9/11 and Iraq in a host of speeches. These insinuations were thicker on the ground than admissions of the truth.

Can you provide an actual example?

Now, if you are given to hardline hyperbole, you could call a majority of the Republican base "idiots" and claim that it's not the fault of the Republican leadership.

I could. I'm not particularly impressed with the acumen of voters of either major party, though the Democrats tend to much more demagogic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 08:13 AM

I've always been puzzled about that linkage. I've supported the effort since the beginning, and I've never had any real doubt that Saddam didn't know about 9/11 before it happened. He had at best a loose alliance of convenience with AQ, and hadn't fully developed it (yes, they hated each other, but they hated us a lot more--remember that we fought with Stalin against Hitler) when 9/11 happened. Doesn't change the fact that he still had to be taken down, or the promise that a functioning democracy would show against AQ's core beliefs.

Posted by Big D at August 15, 2007 08:35 AM

Can you provide an actual example?

No problem. For example, Bush said in 2002, "And if an emboldened regime [in Iraq] were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors." This was part of a calculated program of topic-flipping between 9/11 and Iraq --- because obviously the majority of the Republican base got the idea of a direct connection from somewhere.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

And, just as important as what Bush and others said directly is what their proxies such as Fox News said. For example, there was a report by Brit Hume in 2003 entitled "The connection between 9/11 and Iraq".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97063,00.html

Again, if you could fairly blame people for watching Fox News at all --- dumb television is certainly largely the fault of the viewers. Even so, it's an "idiocy" that the leadership abetted and exploited.

though the Democrats tend to much more demagogic.

Well, you have given many arguments over the years that most Democratic leaders are just plain bad people. But at the moment that's off topic.

Posted by at August 15, 2007 08:38 AM

For example, Bush said in 2002, "And if an emboldened regime [in Iraq] were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors." This was part of a calculated program of topic-flipping between 9/11 and Iraq --- because obviously the majority of the Republican base got the idea of a direct connection from somewhere.

That does not "insinuate" that Saddam was responsible for 911. Sorry.

And whatever you think of Fox News or Brit Hume, they do not speak for the administration, and anyone who thinks they do is an idiot. Still waiting for an actual example.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 08:46 AM

> , they hated each other, but they hated us a lot more--remember that we fought with Stalin against Hitler

Bad example - lots of folks in the US liked Stalin. To this day, you'll find defenders of Stalin and other leftist mass murderers. (To see it, ask why we go after ex-Nazis but not folks who ran communist gulags. One of the rationalizations that you'll get is that the US should go after some internal crime first, but that excuse doesn't apply when "rightist" crimes are involved.)

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 15, 2007 08:54 AM

"In the roll up to the war in Iraq, 40% of the voters believed that some of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi and that Saddam Hussein was involved. And it was an outright majority of the Republicans."

And currently about 30-40% of US citizens think Bush was behind 9/11, and the vast majority of them are democrats.

At least when Republicans believe something it is a plausible something rather than an outright lunatic fantasy.

It is easily provable who is behind the "Bush did it" lunacy, left wing nut job democrats, but you have yet to provide an example of Bush's linking Iraq to 9/11. And you won't provide one because such does not exist.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 15, 2007 09:02 AM

The Fox News link is to a September 11, 2003 article--many months after the debate, declaration of war, and invasion. How that tricked us into invading earlier in the year is beyond me. But I have basic cable. Perhaps premium TiVo users can call up shows from any point in the calendar year.

As for the article itself, the headline is sensationalistic but the text itself only asserts links and contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime--not Iraqi help in executing 9/11. I didn't think that was exactly controversial.

And the whole point is discussing Iraq and 9/11 was that in light of what terrorists could do with box cutters on 9/11, we could not take the chance that an enemy like Saddam could pass on even worse weapons to terrorists.

People may (and do) disagree about that logic but it is perfectly reasonable to me. For people who want to destroy our economy in an effort to shut down CO2 output just in case global warming is as harmful as the alarmists state, the inability to see the dangers of even a small chance that Saddam would have provided gas, bugs, or dirty bombs to terrorists is beyond me.

So, no time travel, no lies, and no reason to continue to try and criminalize political disagreements.

Posted by Brian J. Dunn at August 15, 2007 09:12 AM

That does not "insinuate" that Saddam was responsible for 911.

It doesn't work as an insinuation for you, but that's because your stance at the moment is that there was no direct connection. The fact is that a majority of the Republicans did make a connection. And the fact is that topic-flipping a standard method to insinuate connections in general.

As for Fox News, I didn't mean to say that it "speaks for" the administration. What is true is that it shills for the war in Iraq. The administration is generally happy with Fox News, regardless of who speaks for whom. That is why, for example, Dick Cheney has his hotel rooms prepared by turning all the channels to Fox News. It certainly isn't because he thinks that Brit Hume cuts a handsome figure.

Posted by at August 15, 2007 09:17 AM

It doesn't work as an insinuation for you, but that's because your stance at the moment is that there was no direct connection.

No, it doesn't work for me, because I'm logical.

Here: "If an emboldened regime in North Korea were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors."

Would you conclude from that that North Korea was responsible for 911?

Or: "If China were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors."

Would you conclude from that that China was responsible for 911? Would the speaker of that statement be "insinuating" such a thing?

If you think so, your thinking mechanism is broken.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 09:23 AM

As for Fox News, I didn't mean to say that it "speaks for" the administration.

Then your comment about Fox News is irrelevant, since the subject was how the administration had somehow duped the American people into believing that Saddam was responsible for 911. Not surprising that you change the subject, though, since you still can't come up with an actual example. It's also not surprising that you post this illogic anonymously.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 09:25 AM

The Fox News link is to a September 11, 2003 article

That was just one example. Here is another link from 2002: "Rice: Iraq Providing Shelter, Chemical Weapons Help to Al Qaeda"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64110,00.html

And, more significant than specific, dubious claims about chemical weapons training, Rice in this article made open-ended claims about "contacts" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So of course the base is going to believe that 9/11 was included in those contacts. That is really as strong an insinutation as anyone needs. We were attacked on 9/11, and by the way Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda have been talking behind closed doors for many years.

Posted by at August 15, 2007 09:35 AM

Then your comment about Fox News is irrelevant, since the subject was how the administration had somehow duped the American people into believing that Saddam was responsible for 911.

The polls show that the majority of the American people certainly were duped, and the administration both abetted and exploited the deception. If the question is whether they directly claimed a connection, no they didn't. But they did insinuate it. If the question is whether they were solely responsible for the big lie, no they weren't. But they did cooperate with other shills and deceivers, such as Fox News.

(I said before that it was just a majority of Republicans, but eventually it swelled to 7 in 10 Americans.)

Posted by at August 15, 2007 09:43 AM

Rice in this article made open-ended claims about "contacts" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So of course the base is going to believe that 9/11 was included in those contacts.

There were contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Was the administration supposed to deny this, because some logic-challenged people like you would infer from that fact that Saddam was involved in 911?

The polls show that the majority of the American people certainly were duped, and the administration both abetted and exploited the deception.

You can continue to repeat that, but repetition of The Big Lie doesn't render it true.

The administration said many times that Saddam was not behind 911. If they were trying to "deceive" people otherwise, that seems like a strange way to go about it. I guess that's just part of the evil genius of Karl Rove.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 09:49 AM

Okay, let's back up and look at what Rand Simberg said about Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in 2001:

Well, actually, Chris, we'll be doing it for Saddam's complicity in what happened on September 11--he was one of Osama's accomplices. Or have you already forgotten that little meeting in Europe between Mr. Atta and the Security Minister of Iraq? We just haven't been making the case strongly, because we didn't want to have to deal with Iraq until we get Afghanistan well on its way to civilization.

Again, if you are into clumsy hyperbole, you could call someone an idiot for believing that Saddam Hussein was complicit in what happened on September 11. But even "idiots" get their ideas from somewhere. This particular chain of logic, involving Atta's phantom meeting in Prague, was hawked by the administration.

Posted by at August 15, 2007 09:57 AM

Rand 7, anonymous coward 0.

Every single point attempted to be made by "blank" has been refuted by Rand, yet "blank" will never concede. Thus is America today; the left is stuck on their BDS nonsense and logic, facts and the simple truth means nothing to them.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 15, 2007 09:59 AM

Again, if you are into clumsy hyperbole, you could call someone an idiot for believing that Saddam Hussein was complicit in what happened on September 11.

That was based on the knowledge available at the time. I certainly wasn't saying it in 2002, or 2003.

This particular chain of logic, involving Atta's phantom meeting in Prague, was hawked by the administration.

You mean the administration that has long since expressed doubt, on repeated occasions, that this occurred? Again, a strange way to persuade people that it did.

Give it up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 10:02 AM

That was based on the knowledge available at the time. I certainly wasn't saying it in 2002, or 2003.

It's true that as of 2003, you had switched to this contradictory statement about whether Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11: "Of course, no one has ever claimed he did--that was always a strawman." So you're right about one thing, you did change your mind, in fact to the point of amnesia. But 7 in 10 Americans, not surprisingly, retained their old opinion a little longer than that.

Again, a strange way to persuade people that it did.

Absolutely not! A standard way to let yourself off the hook from a falsehood is to take it back --- and act like you never said it in the first place. Especially if the polls tell you that people still believe what you said the first time.

Posted by at August 15, 2007 10:18 AM

Too many Progressives have been duped into believing that President Bush and his administration drew a connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Posted by Leland at August 15, 2007 10:23 AM

Especially if the polls tell you that people still believe what you said the first time.

And when did they say it the first time? We're still waiting for an actual example. I suspect we're going to wait a long time. (Note: I have never spoken for the administration, either.)

And even if you find one, your position is that if they mistakenly did it once (as I did) that the public would only pay attention to that, and not all the other times that they explicitly denied it?

Please.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 10:24 AM

I find it strange that there is no mention of Saddamn's support of terrorists. If memory serves, he was writing a $25k check to very suicide bomber's family in Israel after 9/11 and prior to the invasion.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the murderer of the people on the Italian cruise ship living in Iraq even after the invasion?

Also, what about the chemical weapons that were used in the attempt to decapitate the Jordanian government? They were traced to Syria. Where did they get them?

All things that those with short memories lose.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 15, 2007 11:21 AM

Blank's makes a statement that has a ring of truth to it. I summarize what he/she asserts: "Without actually saying there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, the administration talked about both of them in the same context so much that ingnorant people were bound to draw a connection between the two" This statement is true as far as it goes.

However, Blank makes a little leap of logic whan he/she asserts that the administration did this on purpose to subtly give ignorant people the impression Saddam was somehow behind 9/11. It is just as likely that the administration wanted to convince people that something like 9/11 could easily happen again if Saddam were in power. Its also likely that many in the administration wanted to convince people that something like 9/11 could happen again, but were also happy to let ignorant people draw additional conclusions about Saddam and 9/11 based on the fact that they were talked about together so often. However, since we can't read minds, it is hard to say which is true. Of course people that don't like the administration are going to assume to worst (that the deception was a deliberate act), and people that like the administration will assume the best (the administration was very clear and shouldn't be restricted as to what arguments they make just because some idiots equate association with causation.)

Posted by Chris at August 15, 2007 11:46 AM

As far as Fox News is concerned, of course it has a conservative bias, just like CNN and especially MSNBC have liberal biases.

There is no such thing as an unbaised media outlet. Those who think there is have been brainwashed by whatever outlet is their favorite unbaised news source. Fox News is good because it serves as a counterpoint to liberal MSM outlets on cable. It good to switch around between media outlets and get lots of points of view. This is a painfull process for anyone that is strongly on the left or strongly on the right, but it is important to maintaining a healthy perspective.

A sure sign that someone does not have a healthy perspective is that they have become a conspiracy theorist. This happens when the ideas of a group of people become so alian, so unfathomable, and so vilified in your eyes that the only way you can explain why they still have support and people don't see the obvious is that there must be some big conspiracy.

The conspiracy theories that are true are likely the ones you've never heard.

Posted by Chris at August 15, 2007 12:03 PM

The misperception that "" claims was a Bush administration strategy is actually a meme that Al Gore and other Democrats planted.

Seared, seared (mind you) into my memory is the summer of 2003, when Democrats on the Hill started saying that the Bush Administration "failed to make the case that the threat was imminent".

This claim, while factually accurate, is misleading. President Bush, in his SOTU address, had EXPLICITLY stated that the threat was not imminent, but that if we await an imminent threat, it will be too late to act.

Al Gore, roughly contemporaneously [" ", that big word means "during the same time period"] started talking in the passive voice (I paraphrase) [" ", THAT big word means "maintain the meaning of, without duplicating the exact words"] that "people were being misled into believing that Saddam was involved in 9/11".

Left unexplained was who the "people" were, and who was doing the misleading.

In reality, it is clear that the Democrats were doing the misleading, and that the "people" were the Democrats' useful idiots on the left. Why were they doing this? To win the 2004 Presidential election -- an election that Gore had not yet decided not to compete for.

What are so many leading Democrats so willing to betray the security and well-being of the rest of us? *shrug* Maybe because we won't submit to their claims to a right to rule.

" ", I think you need to return to your mother's teat for a while. You are clearly unready for mastication.

Posted by MG at August 15, 2007 12:12 PM

PS: " ", that final word in my previous post? It means "chewing". I like to be helpful, dontcha know?

Posted by MG at August 15, 2007 12:13 PM

And when did they say it the first time?

On December 9, 2001, Tim Russert asked Dick Cheney, "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" Cheney's answer was, "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." So right there, Cheney endorsed evidence that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Not coincidentally, it was the same "knowledge available at the time" that led Rand Simberg to conclude that Saddam definitely was complicit.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html

Even if you haven't ever said yourself that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, it would be arrogant to dismiss 70% of American voters as "idiots" for all believing it. On the other hand, I concede that it is not as simple as a cabal of ideologues planting a falsehood in the minds of Americans. As soon as 9/11 happened, most Americans believed that Saddam was probably involved. They believed it not because of any real "knowledge", but because they wanted to believe it.

Rand Simberg's words are a case in point. Even if Atta had met with some Iraqis in Prague, that isn't any kind of proof of Saddam's complicity. After all, Rumsfeld met with Hussein in Baghdad in the 1980s, and shook hands and smiled in a famous video, but does that "prove" that Rumsfeld was complicit in Saddam's poison gas attacks in that year? If Atta had met Iraqis in Prague (hypothetically), they might have told him that they didn't know him from Adam, that they didn't want to be involved, and that he should get lost.

But given that most Americans did already believe that Saddam was complicit in 9/11, it would have been obvious to the Administration that their chronic topic-flipping would play to that impression and reinforce it. These are seasoned politicians who know how to speak with elliptical references. They are not losers who have no idea what the public thinks. Fitner is wrong to reduce it to a one-sided lie; the public was complicit in the false impression. Even so, what a shabby and dishonest way to sell a war, on the basis of an unfounded public suspicion that should only have been embraced by "idiots".

Of course, a lot of people in this forum have trouble believing that Bush is ever deeply dishonest. It would be bizarre for Bush to be a big exception among politicians in this respect; nonetheless, people here want to call him honest but misguided. But if he really were Mr. Honest, why would he repeatedly call Vladimir Putin a friend who tells the truth? How in the world could he come to that conclusion? Is it a stupidity or a lie? And if Bush can say something that ludicrous about Putin, why wouldn't he mind false insinuations about Saddam Hussein?

Posted by at August 15, 2007 07:49 PM

As for Fox News, I didn't mean to say that it "speaks for" the administration. What is true is that it shills for the war in Iraq.

Mostly it's product differentiation. There was a large underserved portion of the market made up of religious fundamentalists, rabid foaming at the mouth republicans (democrats seem to hang out at Kos), those for indiscriminant revenge slaughterings of towelheads, and anyone in the late night stoner crowd who is hypnotised by shiny graphics.

Murdoch couldn't care less about editorial bias in either direction, so long as it keeps the revenue pouring in

Posted by Adrasteia at August 15, 2007 08:02 PM

blank: "So right there, Cheney endorsed evidence that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 attacks."

No, becaus ethe very next words out of his mouth, which you so carefully avoding posting here, were:

"Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

And then Cheney had to reel in that war mongering Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: What we do know is that Iraq is harboring terrorists. ....
If they're harboring terrorist, why not go in and get them?

CHENEY: Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists. That wasn't the question you asked the last time we met. You asked about evidence involved in September 11.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 15, 2007 08:47 PM

Sure, Cecil, right after laying out his cards, Cheney retreated to a wink-wink, nudge-nudge disclaimer. But you didn't even have to be as smart as Rand Simberg to connect Cheney's dots: "We'll be doing it for Saddam's complicity in what happened on September 11--he was one of Osama's accomplices." The real disclaimer that Cheney should have given is that it certainly wasn't "pretty well confirmed" that Atta met any Iraqis in Prague. It turned out that it wasn't confirmed at all; calling it "pretty well confirmed" was a fabrication.

But again, if you have so much trouble believing that Bush and Cheney could ever be dishonest --- unlike all other major politicians --- how do you explain Bush's fawning over his "friend" Vladimir Putin? When he said that Putin is a truthful man, was that a lie or a stupidity?

Posted by at August 15, 2007 09:09 PM

Oh, and absolutely, at that time Tim Russert was being played by the Iraq war shills. He was practially one of them. That's how far the media has to go in order not to have a "liberal bias".

Posted by at August 15, 2007 09:11 PM

Sure, Cecil, right after laying out his cards, Cheney retreated to a wink-wink, nudge-nudge disclaimer.

This is why you aren't being taken seriously here. You say some statements are to be considered while ignoring adjecent statements because there is nudging and winking going on.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at August 15, 2007 10:12 PM

Karl is dead on. Is it any wonder that "" refuses to sign his/her name to such asinine statements?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 16, 2007 05:15 AM

It was not the way they "sold the war," Anonymous Troll. At the time they were "selling the war" the official position of the administration was that Saddam was not involved in 911. This was never used a justification for his removal. If you're going to attempt to rewrite history, you could at least have the courage to use your real name.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 16, 2007 05:35 AM

You say some statements are to be considered while ignoring adjecent statements because there is nudging and winking going on.

There is nothing to ignore. Cheney described this meeting in Prague as "pretty much confirmed" and "an avenue to pursue", when in reality the meeting never happened at all as far as anyone knows. Americans wanted to know who attacked us on 9/11, which was a fundamental question. Cheney was playing to a false suspicion that he full well knew was held by most Americans. Even Rand Simberg was one of those Americans. This was blatant manipulation of public opinion; no disclaimer from Cheney then or now makes it wash.

What I meant by "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" was that Cheney's dissembling speaks to the truth that he was playing up a bad lead.

It was not the way they "sold the war,"

It was the way they sold the war. Some in the Administration began to plan for the war in Iraq on September 12. Certainly by December the sell had begun, and after that it never stopped.

In fact you only have to look at Rand Simberg's own pronouncements to see it. The "axis of evil" speech that fingered Iraq came in January 2002. As late as March 2002, Rand Simberg was still hawking the "Prague meeting" as proof of Saddam Hussein's perfidy. There was an overlapping chain of accusations and condemnations of Iraq, from 2001 on.

Really the axis of evil speech lays down the philosophy here as well as anything else. An axis is an alliance. But there was never any alliance among Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, nor even among any two of them. North Korea isn't even Muslim. But the philosophy is that being an adversary of America is by itself is a unifying trait. It's the philosophy of "the" enemy, singular, or "the" devil, singular. It's dangerously incompetent as a foreign policy, but it is a good way to win elections, at least before you put your plans in action.

Posted by at August 16, 2007 08:58 AM

It was the way they sold the war.

It was not.

Some in the Administration began to plan for the war in Iraq on September 12.

Of course they did. But not because they thought that Saddam was responsible for it. In any event, there were probably plans for a war in Iraq prior to 911. Hell, we have plans to invade Canada. People who make this claim foolishly confuse "plan" with "intent."

Certainly by December the sell had begun, and after that it never stopped.

Yes, but not because it was assumed, or stated that Saddam was behind it. Many reasons existed for removing Saddam that had nothing to do with whether or not he was involved with 911, and they were the ones used to "sell the war." But clearly, you are not going to be shaken from your Bush-Cheney-deranged delusions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 16, 2007 09:10 AM

Yes, but not because it was assumed, or stated that Saddam was behind it.

You really explained it properly yourself in that post in November, 2001. First, Saddam was complicit in 9/11. Second, even if he wasn't in on it that time, 9/11 is a call to action to get rid of him. It was both arguing in the alternative and the philosophy of El Diablo --- all enemies are equivalent. Your statements are a good representation of what the Administration wanted people to think, because really in foreign policy you and they aren't all that far apart.

It was dishonest of Cheney and others to argue in the alternative about Saddam's complicity in 9/11. The accusation of dishonesty seems to bug people more in this discussion; instead of accepting dishonesty as nearly universal among politicians, you're treating it as an unforgivable sin and a monstrous accusation. Once again, if Bush really were Mr. Sincere, how could he have possibly called Vladimir Putin a "friend" who tells the truth, as he has done on many occassions?

But the greater problem is the philosophy of El Diablo, that even if Saddam wasn't in on 9/11, he might as well have been. The philosophy of El Diablo is why the Iraq war can't possibly have a good outcome. The American position in Iraq is to defeat "the" enemy; in reality Iraq has a civil war between Sunni enemies and Shiite enemies, which the Shiites will eventually win.

Posted by at August 16, 2007 09:52 AM

Once again, if Bush really were Mr. Sincere, how could he have possibly called Vladimir Putin a "friend" who tells the truth, as he has done on many occassions?

On "many occasions"?

Very easily. I think that on the subject of Mr. Putin, Mr. Bush is naive, and overconfident in his ability to judge character by looking in someone's eyes.

And yes, I do grow tired of the left constantly accusing the administration of "lying us into war," when there's zero evidence that they did so. I think it's projection, myself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 16, 2007 10:09 AM

in reality Iraq has a civil war between Sunni enemies and Shiite enemies, which the Shiites will eventually win.

Not if we bite the bullet and partition Iraq which in my mind is the only sensible thing to do. And then we have a friendly Sunni state in Anbar that we can give arms and alms to.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 16, 2007 10:18 AM

On "many occasions"?

Yes, if you Google whitehouse.gov, you will see that Bush has called Putin a friend, and Russia a friend, in every year of his administration and dozens of times in total.

Mr. Bush is naive, and overconfident in his ability to judge character by looking in someone's eyes.

It is true that Bush is naive and Putin played him. But it's not as simple as that, because Putin did not cast a mind spell that caused Bush to forget that Russia is building Iran's nuclear reactor. Bush knows full well that Russia is doing this, and obviously a good friend would not build a nuclear reactor for an avowed enemy. So it may be true that Bush was simply naive when he first made up his mind about Putin. But once Bush's mind is set, he's perfectly willing to trample the truth in order to pretend that he has good judgment.

Posted by at August 16, 2007 10:26 AM

...in reality Iraq has a civil war between Sunni enemies and Shiite enemies, which the Shiites will eventually win.

You spend all this time defining how the American people were deceived and bought the whole story, then come back with the last statement that shows you've been deceived and bought the whole story about civil war.

Posted by Mac at August 16, 2007 10:29 AM

Not if we bite the bullet and partition Iraq which in my mind is the only sensible thing to do.

Alas, Toast_n_Tea, there isn't a happy outcome in that direction. Iraqis don't care about dividing the geometric shape of their country as drawn on a map. They want to share, or not share, their water and their oil. If we partitioned Iraq, the Sunni Arabs would just be left with a lot of sand, which is exactly what the Shiites want. The Sunnis would starve in the desert, or flee. Partitioning Iraq amounts to handing victory to the Shiites.

Posted by at August 16, 2007 10:34 AM

Yes, if you Google whitehouse.gov, you will see that Bush has called Putin a friend, and Russia a friend, in every year of his administration and dozens of times in total.

I was referring to the part about him telling the truth.

You seem to be operating under the delusion (one of many) that I think I think (or ever have thought) Bush is a good president. I just disagree that he lied us into war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 16, 2007 10:35 AM

I was referring to the part about him telling the truth.

That hasn't been as thick on the ground, but yes, Bush has also said that several times.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010618.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-2.html

You seem to be operating under the delusion (one of many) that I think I think (or ever have thought) Bush is a good president.

No that's not the point. Your position is that Bush is well-meaning but naive. You don't want to believe that he is ever deeply dishonest, whether or not you're happy with him. But it's just a mistake to treat dishonesty in politics as unforgivable sin --- unfortunately, very few politicians are honest.

I just disagree that he lied us into war.

It's a hard point to argue with you, since you generally want to believe the same distortions about Iraq that the White House endorses. For instance, when Cheney said "Prague", you said "Saddam is complicit!" (Actually you were earlier than Cheney by two weeks, but the synchronicity was still clear.) So it's like trying to warn Amway fans that Amway is dishonest. Instead of listening to reason, they're offended by the slight on their judgment.

Posted by at August 16, 2007 10:55 AM

You don't want to believe that he is ever deeply dishonest, whether or not you're happy with him.

It has nothing to do with what I want to believe. If this is your attempt at psychoanalysis, I'd stick to your day job.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Bush is dishonest, if I were ever presented with some compelling evidence to that effect. But all I see is confusion from leftist loons between being mistaken, and lying. And I've noticed that when it comes to rhetoric and debate, leftists tend to cry "Liar!" as a first resort, not a last one. Again, I think that it's projection.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 16, 2007 11:10 AM

coward: "Yes, if you Google whitehouse.gov, you will see that Bush has called Putin a friend, and Russia a friend, in every year of his administration and dozens of times in total."

Do the same for Clinton/Yeltsin/Putin/Russia, same result.

Your point?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 16, 2007 11:32 AM

Do the same for Clinton/Yeltsin/Putin/Russia, same result.

Well, both Clinton and Bush are bending the truth about Russia in a big way, and for the same reason. They play to the simplified world of friends and enemies, when they both know that the truth is more complicated than that. I have no trouble believing that both Clinton and Bush are dishonest on many issues. Sometimes they have to be, and sometimes they do it anyway.

At the same time, there is a real difference in style. When Clinton called Yeltsin a friend (I'm not sure if he ever said it about Putin), it didn't seem like he believed it or wanted to believe it; it was just the usual white lie of diplomacy. But with Bush and Putin, there is all of this nauseating effusion, with statements like: "I looked into his eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul." Bush has described a world of friends and enemies, with nothing in between, on every side of his foreign policy. It seems that he really wants it to be true. There is a difference between bending your own words away from the truth and trying to bend reality to a false world view. The latter is more sincere, in a way, but it's much more dangerous.

Posted by at August 16, 2007 11:51 AM

Actually, what I am saying isn't entirely inconsistent with Rand's summary of these matters. In Rand's analysis, nothing is worse than telling everyone else the complete opposite of what you privately believe. On the one hand, it's an unforgivable sin and Clinton is guilty of it. On the other hand, it's a monstrous and unfair accusation when the accused wants to believe his own words, as Bush generally does.

But my position is that very worst thing is to first fool yourself and then everyone else by extension. When Bush says that Nouri al-Maliki is "the right man for the job", I personally would hope that Bush knows that he's spouting garbage. I would prefer it to be a brazen lie than a brazen delusion.

Posted by at August 16, 2007 12:06 PM

"both Clinton and Bush are bending the truth about Russia"

NO. They were both, and I am upholding Clinton here so mark your calender, simply being naive.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 16, 2007 12:23 PM

If we partitioned Iraq, the Sunni Arabs would just be left with a lot of sand, which is exactly what the Shiites want.

Rubbish. We would have another dependent state, like Israel, but less costly to the American taxpayer. That's about it, unless those rumored about oil reserves in Anbar are discovered, in which case the love affair with Anbar will deepen and the Sheiks will get an American style full body massage.

Partition the bloody place and get it over with.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 16, 2007 12:32 PM

to " " and others --

You are evaluating President Bush using inappropriate criteria.

In foreign relations and diplomacy, that which is publicly visible is rarely the totality of that which actually exists. Please, try examining foreign policy statements of ANY president though the lenses of international relations and the obfuscations of diplomatic language.

You will get far closer to reality if you at least TRY to penetrate the Byzantine intrigues of policy making.

OR,

You can continue with your childish "Yes he did, no he didn't" twattle.

For example:

President Bush, early on, affirms his closeness to President Putin. Why would he do that?

1. Set the stage for private disagreements. By making a public pronouncement of friendship, he can approach Vlad (can we call him Vlad?) on issues of conflict without generating as much tension.

2. Send the Chinese government a message.

3. Give President Putin political prestige at home, enhancing his ability to effect domestic political change.

4. Sucker Vlad into responding less aggressively, as the US peels off the periphery of the Russian empire, and integrates it into American led security and economic organizations.

Posted by MG at August 16, 2007 12:48 PM

We would have another dependent state, like Israel, but less costly to the American taxpayer.

A separate Anbar would be nothing like Israel and far more costly to the American taxpayer. For all the talk about American subsidies to Israel, they only about $3 billion per year in guaranteed loans, or about 2% of Israel's GDP. Israel is a Westernized nation with a thriving, independent economy.

Iraq, on the other hand, is a classic oil welfare state. Virtually all Iraqi economic activity, other than the oil industry itself, is a corollary or construct of oil money. Or, now, American aid and military salaries. Without oil, all they can do is revert to subsistence farming. So an Anbar without either oil or water would be as pathetic as the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, except with 100 times as many people. Unlike the Sioux Indians, it would also retain a faction of Islamic jihad. There is no way that the Americans would foot the bill indefinitely; they would get sick of it and leave.

Posted by at August 16, 2007 12:51 PM

Iraq, on the other hand, is a classic oil welfare state.

Yup, but if their people had economic freedom, which they will if we complete the job, they will crawl away from poverty into prosperity.

Walter Williams explains:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/poverty.html

There it is.

Posted by Mac at August 16, 2007 01:01 PM

Yup, but if their people had economic freedom, which they will if we complete the job, they will crawl away from poverty into prosperity.

Mac, neither "economic freedom" nor Western economic productivity is for us to give to Iraq. We can give them fish, but we can't teach them how to fish; they have to learn it for themselves. We tried to teach the Phillipines for 32 years, but they didn't learn all that well. And the Philippines was a walk in the park compared to Iraq. We're not going to prop up "fragile victory" for 30 years, at a cost of $100 billion per year.

Posted by at August 16, 2007 01:15 PM

Wow, Anon, are you really that sure that America can't do a damn thing right? Do you really hate America so much? First off, the last bit first..

We tried to teach the Phillipines for 32 years, but they didn't learn all that well.

And since Iraq is a suburb of the PI, this means what? Apples and oranges, different times as well. This example lends nothing to the argument.

Mac, neither "economic freedom" nor Western economic productivity is for us to give to Iraq.

You're right, we can't give it to them, but we are in that they are more free now than they were. If we continue to support a new democracy, then they in turn allow more freedom, both economic and otherwise to their citizens. Gee, I guess we CAN give them freedom.

We can give them fish, but we can't teach them how to fish; they have to learn it for themselves.

This is a beautiful signpost to stupidity. We can't teach them because they have to learn on their own...huh? Are they too stupid to teach? Are they too busy cutting up in class to learn? Are we incapable of teaching? Just because you were a failure in the Democrat led classrooms of our country doesn't mean others can't learn more effectively than you. The first step to learning is to listen, which Iraqis are. You won't ever learn because you don't listen, because you can't hear for all the loud drivel escaping your face.

Posted by Mac at August 17, 2007 06:13 AM

> Rice in this article made open-ended claims about "contacts" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So of course the base is going to believe that 9/11 was included in those contacts. That is really as strong an insinutation as anyone needs. We were attacked on 9/11, and by the way Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda have been talking behind closed doors for many years.

After Pearl Harbor, the US govt pointed out that Japan and Germany had cooperated and would likely continue to do so.

I'm sure that we could have found some people who believed that Germany helped Japan with that attack. Do those US govt statements insinuate/imply that the Germany was involved? Are those statements in any sense responsible for that belief?

Yes, I know that WWII is completely different - wars with Dems at the helm always are.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 17, 2007 05:45 PM

Post a comment