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 »
Rush opines:
“All I know is that Jack Romanos was at Simon & Schuster when my book printed 2 million original copies. [It was the] first time in non-fiction it had ever been done, it has not been done since …“
Jack Welch’s “Jack: Straight from the Gut” was published in September 2001. Its initial print run? 2 million copies.
How long does it take to determine how many copies of a given book have been sold in its first few days/weeks in the stores?
Commenting on reported sales numbers of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Living History, Rush Limbaugh argues:
“He’s [Simon & Schuster CEO Jack Romanos] lying about how many copies they’ve sold ? they don’t know yet how many copies they’ve sold. It takes them six months to do audits to pay their authors royalties.”
But in 1993, we just knew how many copies of Limbaugh’s “See, I told you so” were sold, after two days no less:
“By its second day in the stores, Limbaugh’s second book had the biggest early sales of a hardcover book in publishing history. That’s what the man himself let slip on his radio show, and as he says, he purveys only the truth.”
PS: According to Amazon, the hardcover edition of Limbaugh’s book was published in November 1993. The quote above is from December 1, 1993.
So argues Joseph Farah, commenting on: homosexual sex, group sex, consensual incest, sex with animals and polygamy.
Ezra Levant, in January of this year:
A theory: Could it be that France and Germany are protecting Saddam because they have something in Baghdad to hide from any would-be U.S. liberators?
Would a U.S. occupation show that France and Germany continued to help Saddam with his weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War, in violation of the UN sanctions? Could they be so amoral, so ungrateful to America?
We are about to find out.
Have we found out yet?
(PS: The answer in this case is, sadly, yes!)
Thanks to Roger Ailes for pointing out today’s Thomas Sowell column about the Supreme Court’s decision on the University of Michigan’s affirmative action case. Sowell argues that the NYT “dismissed the dissenting arguments of Justice Clarence Thomas.” Ailes says the argument is a “crock of crap.” It turns out it’s much, much worse.
Sowell argues that the NYT prevented “its readers from knowing what the arguments are against it [affirmative action.]”
Really? Sadly, no!
Let us count the ways:
The article quotes the following from O’Connor’s opinion:
“holistic” and “individualized”
“context matters when reviewing race-based governmental action under the Equal Protection Clause.”
“are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear,”
This compares to the following quotes from Thomas’ dissent:
“I must contest the notion that the law school’s discrimination benefits those admitted as a result of it,”
“cruel farce of racial discrimination.”
“The law school tantalizes unprepared students with the promise of a University of Michigan degree and all of the opportunities that it offers,”
“These overmatched students take the bait, only to find that they cannot succeed in the cauldron of competition.”
“test subjects,”
“Who can differentiate between those who belong and those who do not?”
“The majority of blacks are admitted to the law school because of discrimination, and because of this policy all are tarred as undeserving. This problem of stigma does not depend on determinacy as to whether those stigmatized are actually the `beneficiaries’ of racial discrimination. When blacks take positions in the highest places of government, industry or academia, it is an open question today whether their skin color played a part in their advancement.”
“The question itself is the stigma ? because either racial discrimination did play a role, in which case the person may be deemed `otherwise unqualified,’ or it did not, in which case asking the question itself unfairly marks those blacks who would succeed without discrimination.”
“forced to choose”
“Michigan has no compelling interest in having a law school at all, much less an elite one.”
The article has 21 paragraphs. 6 are devoted exclusively to O’Connor. Two cover both justices. The other 13 deal with Thomas’ dissent, and include examples of bias about his dissent such as:
“Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs of the libertarian Cato Institute and long an admirer of Justice Thomas, said that “without question, he is speaking from the context of someone who’s pulled himself up by the bootstraps.” In an interview, Mr. Pilon added: “It may seem incomprehensible to liberal do-gooders that there are people who want to make it on their own.”"
When will the NYT stop its campaign to deprive its readers from knowing the arguments against affirmative action?
Sowell, having lied about the contents of the NYT article, closes with: “Media bias is still alive and well at the New York Times, and so apparently is the spirit of Jayson Blair.”
Sadly, the only things alive here are Sowell’s inability to read a newspaper article, as well as his willingness to appeal to an unrelated (although entirely justified) criticism of the NYT. Rather than invite his readers to read the Supreme Court opinion, he should invite them to read the NYT article.
