Billmon’s triumph
Who would have ever guessed that something as simple as keeping a record of public statements would have had this effect? Billmon has sparked a lot of attention for this post, which documents the Bush administration’s bold assertions about the existence of WMD and the subsequent backpedaling that has ensued now that the war is over and none have been found.
It’s really quite good. It all starts back in August…
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
Then it gets a bit more insistent as war looms on the horizon.
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003
Then falls back to a less insistent—but still confident—posture.
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003
Then, not with a bang but simply a whisper, admissions of truth start to come forward.
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
Billmon’s list is, of course, much longer and more detailed (and people are contributing even more good quotes in the Comments section), so be sure to get it from the source.
Sigh. If only our mass media would do their job, Billmon wouldn’t have to.
What it actually demonstrates is the power of wishful thinking. You can easily collect a series of answers to varied questions, over a period of time, present them out of context and without the original questions, and make anyone look like a liar - at least at first glance.\r
\r
That libs are drooling over this only shows how desparate they’ve become. You’re all so full of hate that you’ve lost any semblance or reason.\r
\r
The reason that the press hasn’t done “their job”, is that, unlike bloggers, they can actually be held accountable for deliberately misleading readers. They know that this oh-so-carefully edited and arranged series of quotes was crafted by someone with a specific, hate-filled pov, and designed only to reflect their agenda. Adding the required context to these quotes would show what a charade this is, and they want nothing to do with it.\r
\r
If Billmon weren’t so quick to delete posts and block dissenter’s IPs, you might see an entirely different reaction. However, like most liberals today, he has no stomach for a real argument.\r
\r
What it actually demonstrates is the power of wishful thinking. You can easily collect a series of answers to varied questions, over a period of time, present them out of context and without the original questions, and make anyone look like a liar - at least at first glance.\r
\r
I believe Billmon provided links to his sources. If you believe that he is deliberately trying to take these quotes out of context, you can easily go back to those same sources (many of which are from the White House itself, so you cannot possibly claim anti-Bush bias) and show, quote for quote, where Billmon is wrong. \r
\r
Adding the required context to these quotes would show what a charade this is, and they want nothing to do with it. \r
\r
So do it.\r
\r
I admit, I have not done this myself, but I am willing to take Billmon at his word for it, in part because the U.S. media have almost fully discredited themselves by shying away from asking tough questions and their outright servile, fawning behavior with respect to Bush himself. It is difficult to blame the media for this, however, because it is clear that the Bush administration seeks to punish those who do not accept whatever it says. \r
\r
Another reason I find Billmon’s lists of quotes rather credible is the way he came down hard on the Guardian for taking Wolfowitz’s quote about Iraqi oil out of context. If the liberals were really clutching at straws, as you suggest, many of them might have taken the Guardian’s report at face value, but Billmon did not. He did his homework and refuted it--in very strong terms.\r
\r
No, I believe these quotes show precisely what Billmon implies: that the White House is backpedaling on its once-insistent position that Iraq’s WMDs are an immediate threat.\r
\r
More than a few polls suggest that Americans do not care if WMDs are never found, but the problem is that the JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ was predicated, in part, on the threat of these weapons:\r
\r
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated...\r
\r
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region...\r
\r
WMDs were the rationale for the war. Without the threat they represented, I doubt Congress would have passed the resolution.
As I said, the press apparently doesn’t think it’s worth the effort, and neither do I. You can hardly make a case that they’d deliberately ignore an opportunity as spectacular as you claim this one to be, so, what’s your theory on why they haven’t jumped on it, or concocted one of their own? \r
\r
Which is to say, I know they’re not interested, just as you and Billmon do. The difference is, I’ve followed that disinterest to its logical conclusion; you won’t. You prefer the comforting delusion that the same liberal media that has for years ruthlessly pursued every conservative foible and malaprop with gleeful gusto, has somehow been transformed into a legion of “fawning” Dubya Dupes. An absurdity that would be offensive, if it wasn’t so delightfully Pythonesque.\r
\r
You can lift a series of quotes from the bible and make JC himself look like a liar. Such semantic tomfoolery never illuminates anything but the heart of the Tom Fool. Mainstream media doesn’t engage in that practice for one reason - accountability.\r
\r
I’m hardly the only reader to point out Billmons penchant for Soviet-style censorship and its irreparable damage to the alleged credibility of his left-wing hateblog. It’s his blog; he can do what he wants with it - except pretend that it’s fair or balanced. That on selected occasions he exhibits some measure of balance is at most a minor mitigation of his otherwise uniformly vicious and unprincipled behavior towards anything remotely Bush. \r
\r
As for the truth you all believe these passages illustrate, now there’s where the power of hope shines brightest. To make the case that this administration first lied, and is now executing a carefully staged retreat, you must first overcome a fairly significant logical hurdle. Everyone - Clinton, Blix, Ritter, Daschle, Pelosi - is on record at one time or another, acknowledging the existence of the WMD’s in question.\r
\r
Where did they go? Distributed in Iraqi MRE’s perhaps? Did the Sarin Fairy take them away? Where are they, and why are rational people who should be concerned that we haven’t found them, instead delighted that we haven’t? Aren’t any of you just a *little* afraid that these things do exist, that they may have already been distributed to “enemies of our enemy”? Al Queda and the WMD’s are real, and I could never make myself hate any one politician enough to ignore that reality just for the sake of some chimpish turd-flinging.\r
\r
Is it going to be the Blogosphere that so many of you envision, or just another internet Pet Rock? I don’t know, but all of these “He-man Bush-Haters” clubs masquerading as forums aren’t helping.\r
\r
You can hardly make a case that they’d deliberately ignore an opportunity as spectacular as you claim this one to be, so, what’s your theory on why they haven’t jumped on it, or concocted one of their own?\r
\r
Uhm, how about the administration’s well known “with us or against us” position on just about everything? Its use of so-called “patriotism” as a bludgeon to stifle dissent? Its vindictive tendency to punish those who do not agree (and often those who do, but are simply of the wrong political affiliation)? The fact that it restricts access by the press to such basic functions as asking questions during a press conference (of which this administration grants far fewer than any previous administration in modern times). You don’t have to be Nostradamus to predict that anyone who says anything against this administration will immediately earn its undying enmity.\r
\r
Hell, you’ll get threats from Cheney’s lawyers just for poking fun at his wife, for crying out loud!\r
\r
You prefer the comforting delusion that the same liberal media...has somehow been transformed into a legion of “fawning” Dubya Dupes.\r
\r
If the media were really so liberal, do you think the Republican-dominated FCC would plow over the objections of its Democratic members (and the vast majority of public opinion) in favor of expanding the media’s desire to further consolidate control over news channels nationwide?\r
\r
You can lift a series of quotes from the bible and make JC himself look like a liar.\r
\r
You keep saying this, but haven’t done it yet--to Billmon or Christ. Do you intend to show me how right you are, or just prattle away until I lose interest? \r
\r
Mainstream media doesn’t engage in that practice for one reason - accountability.\r
\r
Oh, really?\r
\r
Washington Post: Bush Remarks Confirm Shift in Justifying War\r
\r
Maybe they just needed a good example.\r
\r
Aren’t any of you just a *little* afraid that these things do exist, that they may have already been distributed to “enemies of our enemy”?\r
\r
Ah, for once you’ve said something that makes sense. Yes, if the WMDs really did exist, the fact that they have not been found is extremely troubling. But the fact that the Bush team A) took its sweet time securing these supposedly threatening sites and B) is now backpedaling as hard as it can to make it seem like any find, no matter how doubtful, justifies this whole adventure suggests that it is either lying or incompetent (or both). Take your pick.
I won’t waste our time with the string of unsupported opinions in your first paragraph. If you’d like to back any of them up with something substantial, please try again. That is, if the men in the black helicopters will let you.\r
\r
The “Cheney Letter” - is that all ya got? Let’s see - a vice-president’s wife’s lawyer sent a letter to a talentless tasteless pinhead threatening unlikely legal action if he didn’t zip it. Wow, I’m surprised the Security Council isn’t meeting over that one. As for the FCC decision, debate it on it’s own merits if you think you can. It’s a pretty good decision, so I doubt it. In any event, it has nothing to do with the complete stranglehold that liberal extremists have had on most newspapers, and all major networks for the last few decades, so I’m unclear as to why you raise the issue.\r
\r
Speaking of newspapers, the Washington Post? Oh, please! May as well quote your own blog. The link makes for a fun read though. Somehow, in liberal-land, a simple statement of fact such as “mobile weapons labs = WMD” can actually make one a liar. Weird.\r
\r
Actually, I have done it. Unlike you, I took the time to read his quotes, and followed a good many of them to the original articles. And read those as well. I’d suggest you do so, and avoid any further embarrassment. Let’s start with the simple fact that about 80% of the quotes actually say pretty much the same thing - “We believe they’re there, and that we will find them.” Of the few remaining, two are by people *not* in the administration. Two more are actually about *battlefield* use of WMD’s, and not about the overall existence WMD’s in Iraq. Which leaves, well, nothing.\r
\r
I have a much more detailed analysis available, which includes the deliberately omitted questions and context. Of course, it’s too long for your size limit, and needs a little formatting as well. But, since you’ve now publicly challenged me twice to furnish it, and as I have no blog of my own, I trust you’ll make some space for it. Or not, we’ll see...\r
It seems to me that you are engaging in precisely the same behavior as the president you defend so vigorously: All talk, no proof.\r
\r
Either provide this all-important context that you think will magically exonerate the Bush administration, or admit that you can’t. It seems pretty clear to me now that it was--at the very least--a rather large exaggeration to suggest that Hussein’s WMD were an immediate threat to our security. We were told that WMDs could be deployed within 45 minutes. Well, its now been more than 45 days and there hasn’t been a sign of WMDs anywhere. This is not to suggest that they do not exist, but simply that Bush hyped them to justify a war that was not necessary.\r
\r
...so I’m unclear as to why you raise the issue.\r
\r
You’re unclear on a lot of things. The point was merely that something as obviously protected as political satire is met with an attack-dog response. (BTW, attacking the writer as talentless misses the point.)\r
\r
Speaking of newspapers, the Washington Post?\r
\r
Okay, you pick a “mainstream media” outlet. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post is somehow not accountable? That was, I believe, your sole criterion for why this issue was not mainstream news. Now, it seems, we are arguing over your definition of “mainstream”.\r
\r
I suppose you won’t be happy until a story turns up on warmongering Fox News, but maybe this one will be a little bit closer to your taste.\r
\r
CNN: Bush on Iraq’s weapons\r
\r
Somehow, in liberal-land, a simple statement of fact such as “mobile weapons labs = WMD” can actually make one a liar. Weird.\r
\r
Oh, I hardly need the lack of WMDs to call Bush a liar. “Leave no child behind” was a pretty good lie, as was “this tax cut will stimulate the economy and create jobs” (said of both tax cuts). Bush lies all the time, about all sorts of things. Lies about WMDs are simply a lot more dramatic. With any luck, they will be impeachable.\r
\r
Actually, I have done it. Unlike you, I took the time to read his quotes, and followed a good many of them to the original articles. And read those as well.\r
\r
So you say, and yet, like WMDs, no proof has yet been produced.\r
\r
I have a much more detailed analysis available, which includes the deliberately omitted questions and context. Of course, it’s too long for your size limit, and needs a little formatting as well. But, since you’ve now publicly challenged me twice to furnish it, and as I have no blog of my own, I trust you’ll make some space for it. Or not, we’ll see… \r
\r
Oh, so somehow I am responsible for publishing your opinions? Get your own blog, twit. It’s not as if you can’t get one for free.
Hmm...I’ve never heard Pat Buchanan called anything but a right-wing conservative (he is surely not part of the “liberal media” Mike complains about), and even he seems to be taking a cue from Billmon:\r
\r
An unnecessary war\r
\r
FindLaw columnist John Dean also has a very nice column at CNN that quotes Bush:\r
\r
Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?\r
\r
The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President’s misstatements may actually have been intentional lies. \r
\r
Is this impeachable? If it proves to be true, I say yes, it is absolutely an impeachable offense. If it turns out that Bush--or anyone on his team--did manipulate intelligence information to justify this war, he deserves to go down in flames. No question about it.\r
\r
… investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct—and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.\r
\r
...\r
\r
To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be “a high crime” under the Constitution’s impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.”
I’ve offered to provide you the proof, you’re too cowardly to accept it. Like Billmon, you lack the stomach to look directly at any threat to the fantasy world you’ve constructed. All you need do is read the articles from which the quotes were lifted. That alone proves how it was done, and how easy it is to do. But you admitted you didn’t check it out, and now admit you’re afraid to. The reason is pretty obvious.\r
\r
It’s been both enlightening and depressing to see your aimless and somewhat rabid response to a mild challenge. While I’m not actually a Republican (a little tough when you’re a tree-hugging atheist opposed to the war on drugs) given what I see the Democrats doing these days - and you hatebloggers are just Carvilles pale shadow, his rank passing fart - I could never, ever, be a Democrat again. All you can do is evade, pretend, deny, and throw shit from the sidelines. You’re irrelevant, and deservedly so.\r
\r
I probably shouldn’t have bothered. There was no point in trying to stop the Republicans self-immolation a few years back, and it seems equally useless to try to point your own downward spiral out to you. So, go ahead - consider this a win, I give it to you. You’re the better man, the more skillful and eloquent debater.\r
\r
And, hang on to that hate. Hang on straight to the bottom.\r
\r
I’ve offered to provide you the proof...\r
\r
No, you’ve ridiculously asserted that if I don’t publish your screed, I’ve got no case--which is total bullshit.\r
\r
...you’re too cowardly to accept it.\r
\r
Again, no, you’re just too lazy to set up your own blog. I’m not preventing you from linking to your opinions here, but I am under no obligation at all to let you post them here. To even suggest otherwise is utterly absurd!\r
\r
A little more than a week ago, Mike was telling us what a great decision the FCC had made in undoing the long-standing caps on market ownership:\r
\r
As for the FCC decision, debate it on it’s own merits if you think you can. It’s a pretty good decision, so I doubt it.\r
\r
That’s really interesting, because the Senate seems to think that it was a really bad decision.\r
\r
Senate Begins Process to Reverse New F.C.C. Rules on Media:\r
\r
Moving with unusual speed, the Senate today began the process of reversing the recent decision by federal regulators to loosen media ownership rules and enable the nation’s largest newspaper and broadcasting conglomerates to grow even larger.\r
\r
A broadly bipartisan group of the Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation by voice vote to restore the earlier limits on the number of television stations a network can own.
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.