Who Is Lying About Iraq?

commentarymagazine.com ^ | December 2005 | Norman Podhertz

[Froufrou]

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

[massgopguy]

"It's a 'Slam-Dunk'" - George Tenent, Clinton appointee refering to inteligence gathered during the eight years of the Clinton Administration that Saddam Hussien had WMD's

"Boogie to Baghdad" - Richard Clarke, Clinton appointee refering to inteligence gathered during the eight years of the Clinton Administration that Osama Bin Laden would hide out in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussien

[faq]

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[Froufrou]

Yet Clinton did nothing. I'm beginning to think the truth is really somewhere in the middle.

[Froufrou]

Going back to DU?

[HEY4QDEMS]

Who's lying about Iraq?


Not Me!

[Froufrou]

Teehee! Love you're tagline! I just sporked myself while reading this!

[SMARTY]

What the liberals really hate so much about this war and about this President, is that the war under the direction of the current President has brought Americans together to an extent and to a degree that magnifies the discord, lack of credibility and fractiousness in the Liberal posture. The fight and its successful prosecution persistently undercuts all the social/political/cultural disunity the Liberals have worked so hard to cultivate and which is SO indispensable to the success of their agenda.

Notice, whenever the news becomes too positive, they begin again with their story about 'lies'. No one bought it to begin with and we ain't buy'n it now!

[Froufrou]

Good points! I get more stymied daily that the Libs' constituents buy their crap. OTOH, they've spent generations making the poor lazy, helpless and dumb. Using failing education systems to aid and abet them. :o(

[SlightOfTongue]

An important link to check:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/231235.shtml

Go to 'search' box, and type in 'Stephen Hayes'.

[Dilbert56]

Even Saddam's generals believed he retained WMD. So Iraq's military, the intelligence agencies of the United States and the rest of the world all believed the same thing. For the President to "lie" he would have to know the WMD were gone. Two questions.

1. How would he have known it? Was he meeting Tariq Aziz in an underground parking garage at 3AM?
2. If he knew they weren't there, why would he use them as a major causus belli? He could have just as easily said "we don't know what Saddam's up to regarding WMD" and put more emphasis on the other points.

If you say he "lied", you're saying he knew they were gone and still led with them as justification. He was simultaneously smarter than the entire rest of the world and dumb as a post. Reductio ad absurdum.

[Publius6961]

Saddam-Terrorists

[bukkdems]

Not all liberals are dumb, they just have selective perception. I used to send articles like this to some of my liberal friends (one is a physics professor) but now I have given up.

The initial split second where they recognize a publication or author as being on their "enemies" list, the entire article is dismissed. They then express sorrow over how deluded I am, but never offer any rebuttal.

[Froufrou]

"If you say he "lied", you're saying he knew they were gone and still led with them as justification. He was simultaneously smarter than the entire rest of the world and dumb as a post. Reductio ad absurdum."

The beauty of this is, of course, the abject simplicity of it. Glorious. ;o)

[Froufrou]

What gets me is the way the spew forth and insist they are right when they can't even google one of thousands of pieces to substantiate their claims. Why is there so little to derail their ilk?

Oh, sorry - you already answered that, didn't you? Because they insist on not derailing.

Maybe they'll just implode someday, starting with Ted the Toad.

[an amused spectator]

The initial split second where they recognize a publication or author as being on their "enemies" list, the entire article is dismissed.

My "enemies" list is probably ten times the size of their enemies list. It's great to be able to give the back of your hand to 70 percent of the "objective media". ;-)