If we pretend that the neo-cons hadn’t been arguing for years that going to Iraq to impose a democracy was our primary objective, then you can conclude that the Bush/Blair master plan was a tightly held secret which I have now totally figured out on my own.
Please also see busy busy busy’s version of the same.
There are weapons of mass destruction in the woods. For some people the weapons of mass destruction are easy to see. Others don’t see them at all. Some people say the weapons of mass destruction have degraded. Others say they could be deployed in 45 minutes. Since no one can really be sure who is right, isn’t it smart to bomb the crap out of any country that might have weapons of mass destruction? If there are weapons of mass destruction.
Weapons of political destruction
Because Congress had already authorized military action against Iraq by then, it really doesn’t matter if President Bush lied in his State of the Union address.
As always, thanks to busy, busy, busy for the inspiration.
We commented a few days ago about some of the more bogus claims surrounding Reagan’s tax cuts and the Laffer curve. The Flat Tax Prophets (FTP) are never far however, and Bush’s tax cuts have done little to curb their enthusiasm.
Steve Forbes writes in a July issue of Forbes about Russia’s flat tax. And what a success story it’s been!
“Russia enacted a flat tax two years ago, and it’s been a roaring success. The Russian bear has turned into an economic bull.“
Russia’s flat tax took effect in January 2001, and its economy grew by 5.3% that year In 2000, before the flat tax took effect, Russia’s economy had grown by 8.3%. In 2002, the Russian economy grew by 4.3%. For the last 12 months Russian economic growth was 5.2%. What about some other emerging markets you wonder? China 9.9%, India 4.9%, Thailand 6.7%, Turkey 8.1%, and Argentina 5.1%.
Some bull.
The British government’s second Iraq dossier opens with:
“This report draws upon a number of sources, including intelligence material…”
“The dossier was published last February to coincide with Mr Blair’s war summit with President George Bush in Washington. A week later it was revealed to be a mish-mash of intelligence reports, student work and publicly available briefings by Jane’s Intelligence Review.”
Britain’s first Iraq dossier was published in September 2002. (Available as a PDF file here.)
We were told:
“The document published today is based, in large part, on the work of the Joint
Intelligence Committee (JIC). […] Its work, like the material it analyses, is largely secret. It is unprecedented for the
Government to publish this kind of document. But in light of the debate about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), I wanted to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest.”
And now we learn that:
“The document, released last September, shows at least six separate items on Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction were lifted from reports up to 21 months old. […] The dossier appears to have drawn heavily from three sources in the public domain. They are a briefing paper by William Cohen, US Defence Secretary in the Clinton administration, from January 2001; the appearance before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence by George Tenet, the CIA director, the following month; an unclassified CIA report to Congress covering the period 1 July to 31 December 2000; and a report on Iraq by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) published in London in September.“
Exactly why is it that some wonder why many are saying Bush & Blair lied in order to justify a war in Iraq?
PS: In his presentation to the UN Security Council, Colin Powell stated about the Iraq dossier num?ro deux:
“I would call my colleagues’ attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed… which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.“
Rush Limbaugh, July 10, 2003:
“It’s not easy being poor folks! It’s not getting any easier out there despite all of the trillions we are spending on it [welfare.]”
According to a report by the Heritage Foundation presented to Congress:
“The U.S. welfare system may be defined as the total set of government programs?
federal and state?that are designed explicitly to assist poor and low-income Americans. […] Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of
that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28
percent) came from state or local funds.
Oops.
Following up on an earlier post on the American “boycott” of French imports.
Den Beste wrote last month:
In March [France] had a e97 million trade surplus with the US, but in April that became a e202 million trade deficit. A change that massive means either a dramatic rise in American sales to France, which seems unlikely, or a dramatic decline in French sales to the US, and it’s got to be a lot more than just wine and cheese. There isn’t any official boycott or trade sanctions, but there seems to be something big going on.
Something big? Sadly, no!
Let’s see if we can help:
either a dramatic rise in American sales to France, which seems unlikely
In April 2003, French imports from the US rose by 173 million euros compared to the previous month.
or a dramatic decline in French sales to the US, and it’s got to be a lot more than just wine and cheese.
Well, it was arguably dramatic, but it had nothing to do with wine and cheese. Deliveries of Airbus planes, a large share of French exports to the US, fell by 148 million euros in April compared to March.
Which leaves us with: increased US exports to France (+173) and fewer planes (-148) for a total change of 321 million euros. Nothing big going on — other than premature conclusions based on incomplete data that lent itself to misinterpretation.
Does anyone else see a pattern here?
No, not like that.
WASHINGTON (AP) - American troops may still be in Iraq four years from now, Gen. Tommy Franks told Congress on Thursday.
The wartime commander told the House Armed Services Committee: “I anticipate we’ll be involved in Iraq in the future. Whether that means two years or four years, I don’t know.”
President Bush, November 2001:
“We’re meeting our goals in Afghanistan. After all, our allies now control most of the country.“
USA Today, July 2003:
“The government has made only modest headway extending its reach beyond the capital, Kabul, and reducing the power of warlords who control most of the country.”
Are the warlords our allies or have things gone to hell in Afghanistan?
When it comes to Andrew Sullivan, the answer is: sadly, no! The always excellent SullyWatch commented yesterday on the latest findings dealing with the looting of the Iraqi National Museum. Sullivan had argued that the reports of the lootings had been greatly exaggerated. So when the NYT reported in May that little was missing from the museum, a happy time was had by all. Not so fast…
The news now is that:
“the list of items missing from storage rooms of Baghdad’s museum alone now stands at 13,000. In addition, 47,000 pieces are missing from the museum’s exhibition hall, several of them major masterpieces.
Staffers had so far only checked half the items in the storage rooms. “We expect the number of missing items to rise,” al-Mutawalli said.”
So what does the Daily Dish serve up today?
“NYT ERROR PAGE: Worth a look - if only for a chuckle.” Chuckle at items such as:
“Some papers require 170 thousand antiquities to be sacked from museums. Click the Fisk menu and then click Anti-American bias to determine what level of museum looting your paper will broadcast.“
Whenever I think of the looting of tens of thousands of artifacts, I really can’t help laughing. You?
Jailed Iraqi children run free as marines roll into Baghdad suburbs.
Various newspapers, April 8, 2003.
A ‘Liberated’ Orphanage Searches for Its Children
“The orphanage had been home to 107 girls and boys whose parents were killed or imprisoned, or were unable to care for them. As the Americans advanced on Baghdad, they mistook the orphanage for a jail or prison and released all the children who were there.”
New York Times, July 6, 2003.
Thanks to Atrios
William Safire, July 7, 2003:
“We?ll probably see 7 percent unemployment before the year is out.”
“The CEA [Council of Economic Advisers ] reports the President?s Jobs and Growth package will result in higher levels of economic output and jobs starting this year ? 2003.”
Much has been written about Bush’s Bring them on comment. The response has ranged from anger that the President would taunt would-be attackers so to Andrew Sullivan’s it’s all part of an extremely well thought out and devious plan.
The news this morning is that three more soldiers were killed in two separate attacks. It’s clearly unfair to blame further attacks on Bush’s comments. They had been taking place before, and will continue to do so for some time. What is entirely ludicrous in my view is to suggest that “we’ve got them (terrorists) exactly where we want them.” So far, those who have endorsed Bush’s taunt have equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists, allowing them to suggest this is all part of the war on terrorism. Just like going to Iraq in order to destroy its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Whatever weapons are eventually found in Iraq, it seems unlikely at this point that they posed any kind of imminent threat. Iraq’s ties to bin Laden remain extremely speculative (to put it kindly.) Hussein, a murderous tyrant to his people, had shown little proclivity to targeting Americans. Until (and unless) we can find clear evidence that would be terrorists who would otherwise not be in Iraq now are and that they are being apprehended by US forces, there is no basis for concluding that the war on terror is “helped” by having soldiers shot in the back of the head at close range.
Otherwise, US forces are now battling an enemy that was otherwise occupied before the war. We are not fighting those terrorists that had the means and the ability to attack us. If that’s what we want, shouldn’t we be sending more troops back to Afghanistan? The place is a mess and bin Laden is alive. “Mission accomplished?” We fear not.
On June 30, the blogger known as the Dissident Frogman (DFM) wrote about a trip he had taken to Normandy. There he visited the Memorial Museum of the Battle of Normandy.
What happened?
The opening paragraph of his post does not mince words:
If you planned it, you may want to cancel your visit to the Mus?e M?morial de la Bataille de Normandie (Memorial Museum of the Battle of Normandy) in Bayeux.
Why you ask?
The authorities at the Museum could not explain the “removal” [sic] of the American flags that would normally fly between the French and British flags at a monument, as well as those offered in two places in the gift shop.
Was the outrage, and the post to his blog, warranted? Sadly, no.
In fact, it would be hard to imagine a post that would be off the mark by a larger margin. The very spectacular inaccuracy made the post the stuff of internet legends, the kind that will forever be spun by those who would like to believe it, and debunked on Snopes.
Upon further review the facts of the case are:
Having been made aware of the facts (by others) the DFM posted an apology of Clintonesque proportion: long and rambling, taking every opportunity to lash out at his critics and arguing the problem was that people misunderstood his original post.
Nice try.
Read the rest of this entry »
