> Letter to Dana Milbank about the Downing Street Memo and Corporate Media Complicity in War Crimes
6 July 2005, 01:12
hey guys, i know you all are fired up, very emotional, and it feels very good for liberals, but seriously, i need some help from you guys: can you explain the following logic traps in this whole ’bush lied’ alternative universe, and i am really serious, cause i work thru the logic, the things that have to be "true" for your alternative universe to be real, and i cant make sense of it:
have you ever in your entire life known a human being who told you a direct lie, to initiate a specific action on your poart which the end result would prove the lie to be a lie? seriously. i kinda wonder this when people say bush lied about WMD. and i think "hmm, ok so he lied about WMD, so he could start a war, so we could go in and find....NO WMD!". wow. mind-boggling. seems kinda loony. i mean, lets take emotion out of it. just pretend your not you, and i am not me, and we are working thru this problem, dispationately. can you recall a time when someone did that? i didnt come up with one. so, you are ascribing a trait to another human being, that i presume, you have never actually witnessed such behavior before in your life. does that seem somewhat misguided? i dont know if thats the right word. and i am not trying to antagonize, but how about not based on the best logic and reasoning? i understand when emotion, like hate for example, is involved sometimes logic breaks down, but if you try to strip it away, doesnt the argument tend to fall apart. and not to mention:
– every top offical in the government lied, colin etc. presumably all duped. a complete fabrication, and snow job on hundreds of gov/mil/intel officals. we have to believe that, correct?
– the iraqi army heard bush’s lie and believed it becasue they had anti-chem suits on the battlefiled. OR, they were planted by USA forces, OR the iraqis were worried about US use of CBN?
– the US mil/intel were duped - why would they carry all the chem suits on the battlefiled. OR they were complicit with the deception and making troops carry the equip was all part of the "ruse"
– when the "pundits" talked about the jellied anthrax layed on the bridges during invasion, smart guys, real smart guys, many anti-conflict as well, presumably duped, totally? why would they discuss use of weapons that didnt exist? and use the threat as a way of saying "gosh, this shouldnt be done cause it too risky and casualties could be very high" - remember those days??
– how about the technical issues, the sat-photos? fabrications? how mnay people would it take to fabricate? and what about the private sats that are constantly monotring - wouldnt a doctored photo be proven false by outside/alternative sources fsater than the rather memos? OR were THEY complicit too, OR was everything dual use? NOTHING that appeared WMD related was. it ALL was dual use? 100%
– how about the iraqis who worked in the program? did they lie for bush? or were they dupes?
so basically EVERYONE (i didnt get into foreign intel etc but theres lots more) were either COMPLETELY DUPED, or COMPLICIT, right? i mean, that would HAVE to be the case, wouldnt it? logically? can you help me sort out who exactly was duped, and who was complicit? it seems like a pretty big conspiracy. gosh, i mean clinton would have to be involved wouldnt he? what would his motivation be to assist bush in lieing us into an iraq war? help me out, please.
and finally, for you guys sake, for your kharma, go here, read, let it sink in, dont go with anger, go with an open questiuoning mind, and then look at your position. you may find it humorous.
go here: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
also, to continue with the barrage of fact and the history lesson, and i am sorry about that, but perhaps it might help you out, lets consider:
The following are inarguable facts known at the time:
1: Saddam Hussein frequently “lit up” American and British aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zones in Iraq with active radar and fired on them numerous times.
2: Hussein had used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people during the Shiite uprising, including many Kurds.
3: Iraq had violated 17 UN resolutions, including Resolution 1441 (which held that Hussein needed to make available to UN and IAEA inspectors all facilities and personnel possibly involved in the production of WMD, Iraq needed to disarm, and that serious consequences would unfold if Iraq was non-compliant).
4: Iraq was systematically thwarting inspections by refusing inspectors’ demands, removing materials from the premises before inspections (satellite photos and eyewitness accounts confirmed this), and delaying inspections, eavesdropping on inspectors, and pretending that all facilities of potential interest to inspectors had been made known to the UN and IAEA.
5: Hussein had many palaces declared off-limits to the inspectors, amounting to an area of nearly 12 square miles where Saddam might have had WMD facilities.
6: Iraq was unable to account for many tons of chemical and biological weapons and had not provided sufficient proof to inspectors that the stockpiles were destroyed.
7: In 1998, Hussein refused to cooperate with inspectors and they were pulled from Iraq.
8: Iraq had purchased dual-use equipment over the years (including aluminum tubes that had the capacity for use in uranium enrichment) and had many manufacturing plants, which had the potential to churn out chemical weapons given the appropriate pre-cursors.
9: Saddam helped fund many terrorist organizations, including the PKK (a Turkish/Kurdish terrorist group) and Abu Sayyaf (a group associated with al-Qaeda and based in the Philippines). Hussein also sent payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
10: Iraq allowed terrorists to operate in his country and offered them sanctuary. Abu Nidal and Khala Khadr al-Salahat (the likely bomb-maker of the charge that took down Pan-Am Flight 103) both resided in Baghdad, as did Abdul Rahman Yasin (a conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombing).
11: Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda going back to the 1970s and Al-Zarqawi, a terrorist with ties to bin Laden, was known to have disappeared from Afghanistan only to reappear in Iraq.
12: Satellite photos confirmed the existence of an aircraft body similar in design to a 727 in the Salman Pak region of Iraq. Iraq’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding, evidence pointed to this location serving as a terrorist training camp.
13: Intercepted radio calls to Hussein’s field commanders during the pre-war buildup indicated a high likelihood of WMD usage if allied forces attacked.
The following are what the United States and other countries had good reason to believe were true, but had no direct evidence for:
1: Iraq’s Mukhabarat was believed to have been behind an assassination attempt on President Bush (41) in April of 1993.
2: Intelligence reports, deemed highly credible, claimed Iraq had or was building missiles that could reach distances of between 300 km to 650 km. Such ranges were well over the 150 km range allowed by resolution 687.
3: Many defectors to the West claimed that Hussein was continuing his nuclear weapons research programs. Such defectors included Khidhir Hamza (one of Saddam’s top nuclear scientists) and Hussein Kamal (Saddam’s son-in-law and head of Iraq’s Military Industrialization Corporation). Kamal did claim that all WMD agents and related missiles were destroyed after the Gulf War, but admitted that the blueprints remained and the programs needed only “revision of decision to start production.” Furthermore, Kamel said Iraq’s long-range missile (the Al Hussein) blueprints were kept since that was, “the first step to return to production.” Certainly, it was no stretch for America’s intelligence to extrapolate such behavior to WMD programs and Kamal only had direct knowledge of Iraqi affairs up until 1995. Kamal was later killed by Saddam’s forces after returning to Iraq.
4: Saddam Hussein was known to be dealing outside the constraints of the many resolutions he had been charged to obey when, for instance, he purchased advanced dual use or military equipment illegally from German, French, and Russian companies. In addition, Saddam was selling oil (also illegally) to the aforementioned countries and not using any of its proceeds to help his impoverished peoples.
5: An Iraqi official, posing as a businessman, was known to have approached Niger, whose only real export is uranium. (The apparently forged documents regarding this encounter do not invalidate the attempted negotiation, rather they cast doubt on the actual method of attempted yellowcake purchase. In addition, these documents were not the only evidence that intelligence agencies used to determine if such negotiations were occurring).
6: Iraq was believed to have mobile laboratories capable of manufacturing biological and chemical weapons. Satellite pictures along with other intelligence methods indicated a high likelihood that such labs existed.
7: During the buildup of allied armed forces outside of Iraq, before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, many transport vehicles were seen leaving Iraq for Syria. It was (and still is) believed that Syria received materials illegal for Iraq to possess, some of which were likely buried in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
bounce it around. it might become clear. but go in clear-headed, no emotion, just logic. peace to you all. and good kharma.
hey guys, i know you all are fired up, very emotional, and it feels very good for liberals, but seriously, i need some help from you guys: can you explain the following logic traps in this whole ’bush lied’ alternative universe, and i am really serious, cause i work thru the logic, the things that have to be "true" for your alternative universe to be real, and i cant make sense of it:
have you ever in your entire life known a human being who told you a direct lie, to initiate a specific action on your poart which the end result would prove the lie to be a lie? seriously. i kinda wonder this when people say bush lied about WMD. and i think "hmm, ok so he lied about WMD, so he could start a war, so we could go in and find....NO WMD!". wow. mind-boggling. seems kinda loony. i mean, lets take emotion out of it. just pretend your not you, and i am not me, and we are working thru this problem, dispationately. can you recall a time when someone did that? i didnt come up with one. so, you are ascribing a trait to another human being, that i presume, you have never actually witnessed such behavior before in your life. does that seem somewhat misguided? i dont know if thats the right word. and i am not trying to antagonize, but how about not based on the best logic and reasoning? i understand when emotion, like hate for example, is involved sometimes logic breaks down, but if you try to strip it away, doesnt the argument tend to fall apart. and not to mention:
– if bush lied, then by definition clinton must have lied too in ’98, and he mentioned nuclear as well as chem/bio, for the monica/wag the dog bombing (among other things, please see: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/)
– every top offical in the government lied, colin etc. presumably all duped. a complete fabrication, and snow job on hundreds of gov/mil/intel officals. we have to believe that, correct?
– the iraqi army heard bush’s lie and believed it becasue they had anti-chem suits on the battlefiled. OR, they were planted by USA forces, OR the iraqis were worried about US use of CBN?
– the US mil/intel were duped - why would they carry all the chem suits on the battlefiled. OR they were complicit with the deception and making troops carry the equip was all part of the "ruse"
– when the "pundits" talked about the jellied anthrax layed on the bridges during invasion, smart guys, real smart guys, many anti-conflict as well, presumably duped, totally? why would they discuss use of weapons that didnt exist? and use the threat as a way of saying "gosh, this shouldnt be done cause it too risky and casualties could be very high" - remember those days??
– how about the technical issues, the sat-photos? fabrications? how mnay people would it take to fabricate? and what about the private sats that are constantly monotring - wouldnt a doctored photo be proven false by outside/alternative sources fsater than the rather memos? OR were THEY complicit too, OR was everything dual use? NOTHING that appeared WMD related was. it ALL was dual use? 100%
– how about the iraqis who worked in the program? did they lie for bush? or were they dupes?
so basically EVERYONE (i didnt get into foreign intel etc but theres lots more) were either COMPLETELY DUPED, or COMPLICIT, right? i mean, that would HAVE to be the case, wouldnt it? logically? can you help me sort out who exactly was duped, and who was complicit? it seems like a pretty big conspiracy. gosh, i mean clinton would have to be involved wouldnt he? what would his motivation be to assist bush in lieing us into an iraq war? help me out, please.
and finally, for you guys sake, for your kharma, go here, read, let it sink in, dont go with anger, go with an open questiuoning mind, and then look at your position. you may find it humorous.
go here:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
also, to continue with the barrage of fact and the history lesson, and i am sorry about that, but perhaps it might help you out, lets consider:
The following are inarguable facts known at the time:
1: Saddam Hussein frequently “lit up” American and British aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zones in Iraq with active radar and fired on them numerous times.
2: Hussein had used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people during the Shiite uprising, including many Kurds.
3: Iraq had violated 17 UN resolutions, including Resolution 1441 (which held that Hussein needed to make available to UN and IAEA inspectors all facilities and personnel possibly involved in the production of WMD, Iraq needed to disarm, and that serious consequences would unfold if Iraq was non-compliant).
4: Iraq was systematically thwarting inspections by refusing inspectors’ demands, removing materials from the premises before inspections (satellite photos and eyewitness accounts confirmed this), and delaying inspections, eavesdropping on inspectors, and pretending that all facilities of potential interest to inspectors had been made known to the UN and IAEA.
5: Hussein had many palaces declared off-limits to the inspectors, amounting to an area of nearly 12 square miles where Saddam might have had WMD facilities.
6: Iraq was unable to account for many tons of chemical and biological weapons and had not provided sufficient proof to inspectors that the stockpiles were destroyed.
7: In 1998, Hussein refused to cooperate with inspectors and they were pulled from Iraq.
8: Iraq had purchased dual-use equipment over the years (including aluminum tubes that had the capacity for use in uranium enrichment) and had many manufacturing plants, which had the potential to churn out chemical weapons given the appropriate pre-cursors.
9: Saddam helped fund many terrorist organizations, including the PKK (a Turkish/Kurdish terrorist group) and Abu Sayyaf (a group associated with al-Qaeda and based in the Philippines). Hussein also sent payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
10: Iraq allowed terrorists to operate in his country and offered them sanctuary. Abu Nidal and Khala Khadr al-Salahat (the likely bomb-maker of the charge that took down Pan-Am Flight 103) both resided in Baghdad, as did Abdul Rahman Yasin (a conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombing).
11: Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda going back to the 1970s and Al-Zarqawi, a terrorist with ties to bin Laden, was known to have disappeared from Afghanistan only to reappear in Iraq.
12: Satellite photos confirmed the existence of an aircraft body similar in design to a 727 in the Salman Pak region of Iraq. Iraq’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding, evidence pointed to this location serving as a terrorist training camp.
13: Intercepted radio calls to Hussein’s field commanders during the pre-war buildup indicated a high likelihood of WMD usage if allied forces attacked.
The following are what the United States and other countries had good reason to believe were true, but had no direct evidence for:
1: Iraq’s Mukhabarat was believed to have been behind an assassination attempt on President Bush (41) in April of 1993.
2: Intelligence reports, deemed highly credible, claimed Iraq had or was building missiles that could reach distances of between 300 km to 650 km. Such ranges were well over the 150 km range allowed by resolution 687.
3: Many defectors to the West claimed that Hussein was continuing his nuclear weapons research programs. Such defectors included Khidhir Hamza (one of Saddam’s top nuclear scientists) and Hussein Kamal (Saddam’s son-in-law and head of Iraq’s Military Industrialization Corporation). Kamal did claim that all WMD agents and related missiles were destroyed after the Gulf War, but admitted that the blueprints remained and the programs needed only “revision of decision to start production.” Furthermore, Kamel said Iraq’s long-range missile (the Al Hussein) blueprints were kept since that was, “the first step to return to production.” Certainly, it was no stretch for America’s intelligence to extrapolate such behavior to WMD programs and Kamal only had direct knowledge of Iraqi affairs up until 1995. Kamal was later killed by Saddam’s forces after returning to Iraq.
4: Saddam Hussein was known to be dealing outside the constraints of the many resolutions he had been charged to obey when, for instance, he purchased advanced dual use or military equipment illegally from German, French, and Russian companies. In addition, Saddam was selling oil (also illegally) to the aforementioned countries and not using any of its proceeds to help his impoverished peoples.
5: An Iraqi official, posing as a businessman, was known to have approached Niger, whose only real export is uranium. (The apparently forged documents regarding this encounter do not invalidate the attempted negotiation, rather they cast doubt on the actual method of attempted yellowcake purchase. In addition, these documents were not the only evidence that intelligence agencies used to determine if such negotiations were occurring).
6: Iraq was believed to have mobile laboratories capable of manufacturing biological and chemical weapons. Satellite pictures along with other intelligence methods indicated a high likelihood that such labs existed.
7: During the buildup of allied armed forces outside of Iraq, before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, many transport vehicles were seen leaving Iraq for Syria. It was (and still is) believed that Syria received materials illegal for Iraq to possess, some of which were likely buried in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
bounce it around. it might become clear. but go in clear-headed, no emotion, just logic. peace to you all. and good kharma.