Quantcast

«

»

Feb 22 2013

The Lies That Launched the Iraq War

Rachel Maddow did an hour long special called Hubris: Selling the Iraq War that is exactly the kind of investigative journalism that the cable news networks should be doing more often. I was glad that she began with the Tonkin resolution, which was the lie on which the Vietnam war was based. The war in Iraq was started on no less audacious a set of lies. You can watch the whole thing here.

The recurring theme is the Bush administration repeatedly declaring that they had evidence that the intelligence services either disputed or explicitly rejected. Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush himself went on television over and over again and said that they had convincing evidence either of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda or of his possession of WMDs and an active program to develop chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In each and every case, that evidence was either highly disputed or already known to be false and unreliable.

For example, you remember all the hullabaloo over an alleged meeting between Mohammad Atta and a high-ranking Iraqi intelligence official in Czechoslovakia before 9/11? The intelligence community knew it was nonsense and told the administration that the man in the pictures was clearly not Atta. They used it anyway. Remember those famous aluminum tubes that they claimed Iraq was buying for centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons? The Department of Energy had shown that they could not be used for that purpose a full year before the administration made their claim. And who can forget the alleged agreement to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa? All nonsense. The CIA knew that, knew that the documents were forged and that the uranium mines there were controlled by the French, which was not about to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The Bush administration used it anyway.

The Iraq war was sold on the basis of a lie. No, of a whole bushel full of lies.

155 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    unbound

    But, but, but…

    What about Obama using his Kenyan contacts to pull the wool over our eyes to get us into the war so he could successfully become president?

    I’m sure there has to be some wingnut conspiracy theory that links Obama into these wrong-doings…

  2. 2
    joachim

    The wars have continued under Obama.

    People die, Obama lies.

    He even targets American citizens now.

  3. 3
    Gregory in Seattle

    I think you meant that it was sold on a whole Bush-ful of lies.

  4. 4
    Marcus Ranum

    Remember those famous aluminum tubes that they claimed Iraq was buying for centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons?

    Yeah, I was yelling “foul!” on that one at the time. You need maraging steel and carbon fiber to make centrifuges, not aluminum tubes. They couldn’t even get their lies right. Although I notice they’re getting their lies more accurate this time around – accusing Iran of attempting to buy ring magnets for centrifuges. Why isn’t the US telling anyone that the early Iranian nuclear program was mostly sold to them by the US? I can’t imagine why…

    PS – the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie to enlarge the scope of the war. The US was already in Vietnam by that time.

  5. 5
    Dennis N

    I think we could have used another hour detailing the ways the media sold these lies to the American public, and the cowardly response of our elected officials.

  6. 6
    abb3w

    And sold with the motive that “we can get away with this, and the world will be better off”.

    If they’d been more competent on planning for the aftermath, allowing a better outcome on the reconstruction, I might be less inclined to their opprobrium (because I’m a rotten person). However, when engaged in this sort of cynical Realpolitik shenanigans, two rules from the Vorkosigan series come to mind. First: “Deliver results, or pay with your ass“; and second “if you attempt any ploy on the far side of ethical, you’d damned well better be good enough at your game not to get caught“.

    I am deeply unimpressed with their results.

  7. 7
    slc1

    We should remember Frankenberger’s big lie that Germany attacked Poland preemptively in 1939 because Poland was preparing to attack Germany. 2 years later, he promoted another big lied in justifying Operation Barbarossa as a preemptive attack on the former Soviet Union which he claimed was preparing to attack Germany. In fact, Stalin had no such idea in his head as he naively expected that the Molotov/von Ribbentrop pact would be honored, at least for a while, by Frankenberger (this despite the fact that he was warned by Churchill that the Germany attack was coming; Churchill’s information was based on Ultra intercepts).

  8. 8
    fifthdentist

    “Just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.”* George Costanza

    * Probably the only one in the administration who did believe this pile of shit was “Dubya,” who had all the intellectual curiosity of a garden slug. With apologies to garden slugs.

    Or, as Hunter Thompson said of daddy Bush ( Bush version 1.0): “It would be easy to say that we owe it all to the Bush family from Texas, but that would be too simplistic. They are only errand boys for the vengeful, bloodthirsty cartel of raving Jesus-freaks and super-rich money mongers who have ruled for at least the last 20 years, and arguably the last 200 years. They take orders well, and they don’t ask too many questions. The real power in America is held by a fast-emerging new Oligarchy of pimps and preachers who see no need for Democracy or fairness or even trees, except maybe the ones in their own yards, and they don’t mind admitting it. They worship money and power and death. Their ideal solution to all the nation’s problems would be another 100 Year War.”

  9. 9
    Dennis N

    Right on cue, Media Matters has a great piece detailing media failures in the lead up to the Iraq War: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/22/the-bush-years-and-what-a-lapdog-press-really-l/192769

  10. 10
    slc1

    Re Dennis N

    The liberal press hasn’t been much better. Many on the left have blamed Israel for the Iraq war, saying that Bush was seduced by Arial Sharon into attacking Iraq on behalf of Israel. As former Colin Powell deputy, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, has reported, when he and Powell traveled to Israel to brief Sharon, the latter expressed reservations about the planned attack, saying that, in his opinion, it was a bad idea that would only empower Iran in the area, by removing an Iraqi counterpoint. Turns out that Sharon was right on the money because that’s exactly what happened.

  11. 11
    TGAP Dad

    I remember the whole run-up to the war quite well. There were a couple of omissions which I would like to point out from what was a quite well-done show.
    -
    The administration floated several ideal publicly before the WMD idea got some traction, and was then flogged relentlessly. Among these were Cheney’s famous remark about “regime change”, outrageous tyrant, Saddam helped plan 9/11, and others.
    -
    The infamous “Downing Street Memo,” in which the British are clearly calling bullshit on the American PR blitz to sell the war.
    -
    There had been, for years, an undercurrent of conservative murmuring that the problem with the Gulf War was that “we didn’t finish the job.”
    -
    But the real tragedy lies in the fact that for the most part, people (at least the ones I knew) pretty much understood that the whole WMD thing was a hoax, but that there was enough momentum that it had become an unstoppable train. There was also a large contingent of the population which simply didn’t care, but were still pissed about 9/11, and wanted to open up a big ole can of whoop-ass on somebody. To these people, Iraq being near Afghanistan, was as good a villain as any.
    -
    And ultimately, the blame falls on us, the ones who knew bullshit when we saw it, and kept quiet or didn’t raise enough hell. And much of this hell-raising was sacrificed on the altar of civil discourse. There were protests, of course, which politely approached lines of police and calmly got themselves arrested. For what? When protests broke out in the sixties, protesters were willing to put it on the line. They threw eggs, rotten fruit, and got beaten up and firehosed for their troubles. They put the disobedience in “civil disobedience!”

  12. 12
    eric

    said that they had convincing evidence either of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda or of his possession of WMDs and an active program to develop chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

    IMO some of these things are not like the others. The Al Qaeda link and nuclear stuff was blatantly false; there was enough evidence out in the public sphere to know that. The BW claims were farfetched but possible. Believing Iraq had CW was, IMO, the more reasonable position (vs. believing they didn’t), because they undisputably did produce and use CW, and you don’t trust a crazy dicatator at his word when he says he’s disarmed. Believing he had them until it could be verified that he didn’t was, IMO, the rational position to take.

    Having said that, tactical CW alone is not a valid reason to start an all-out war halfway around the globe. Particularly when our troops were already occupied against a known and credible threat to the US, in Afghanistan.

    .

  13. 13
    unbound

    To expand on TGAP Dad’s comment, many of us knew that it was all BS, and I’m sure there were many that wanted to kick ass somewhere. However, I would point out that those of us that understand it was BS and weren’t interested in going into another war were also cowed by the insane amounts of “patriotism” that was going on at that time. To speak out against Bush or his policies in late 2002 was considered tantamount to treason by many people…I was truly concerned about a mob of people physically hurting anyone that might object during that time.

    It really wasn’t until well after the Iraq War started that you could have a rational discussion in public without being fearful of a strong (and likely physical) reprisal.

  14. 14
    garnetstar

    This may be naive, but why? Why did they decide, right after 9/11, to go after Iraq, in particular?

    Was it just that Haliburton wanted the oil? Maybe they’d had their eye on Iraq’s oil for a long time, and seized on this excuse?

    Sounds like something they’d do, but was that the only reason? You remember Cheney wrote in the Bush administration report on the year 2000 that America needed “another Pearl Harbor” to pull together again. Could they have seen political advantage in this, that by involving America in a war, we’d all become “patriotic” and turn Republican? Surely 9/11 had already accomplished that.

  15. 15
    Jordan Genso

    slc1

    Many on the left have blamed Israel for the Iraq war…

    To be honest, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard that anyone has blamed Israel for the Iraq War. I must not know many liberal media outlets on the “left”.

  16. 16
    nichrome

    @unbound – Some were cowed but MILLIONS were not – they were just ignored and/or marginalized by the media and the plutocrats who serve the military-industrial complex.

    A good post reflecting on the protests:
    “In all, up to 30 million people in 800 locations came together to say no to war.”

  17. 17
    Gregory in Seattle

    @garnetstar #14 – The US had put the Baathist Party into power in 1968, in an effort to stablize the region and its supply of oil. We then put Saddam Hussein into power as head of the Baathists, so that we would have a puppet friendly to US concerns. We encouraged Iraq to go to war with Iran after the revolution there, and supplied Hussein with the chemical weapons later used to justify his removal (weapons which were also used, with US knowledge, in his genocide against the Kurds.) When Hussein tried to cut his strings in the 90s, the US tried to do what it always did in such cases: invade on very slim pretext to break the puppet and install a new one. Hussein fought the US to a stand-still in the (undeclared) Gulf War and embarassed Daddy Bush horribly, leading to his being a one-term president. Junior’s advisors saw that a regime change was necessary for the sake of US interests, and convinced Shrub that Daddy needed to be avenged.

    Securing the oil for the United States has been the principle policy in the region for decades. That Cheney and his cronies stood to make a vast fortune in this was merely cream.

  18. 18
    Synfandel

    Then there was the accidental sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbour in 1898 that provided the excuse for the Spanish-American War.

  19. 19
    slc1

    Re Jordan Genso @ #15

    I had a number of arguments with someone calling himself Don Williams over at Matthew Yglesias’ old blog on this issue. Mr. Williams posted numerous citations to left wing sites, like Counterpunch, which claimed that Sharon bamboozled Dubya into going to war, citing a speech that Netanyahu made to Congress advocating US action against Iraq, as well as other speeches he made to various groups in the US. He seemed to be oblivious to the fact that the Prime Minister of Israel at the time was Arial Sharon, not Bibi Netanyahu and that the former considered the latter to be a born liar and wouldn’t have been caught dead allowing himself to be influenced by him.

  20. 20
    garnetstar

    Thanks, Gregory. So, basically, it was for the oil, to continue the long-standing policy.

    And a warning to all the other puppets: don’t cut the strings, we’re willing to inflict untold amounts of death and suffering on both your country and ours.

  21. 21
    Jordan Genso

    @slc1

    I don’t doubt the validity of your claim, other than the relative nature of “many”. And that’s what caught me by surprise, as I assumed it wouldn’t be my first time hearing that idea if it was held by “many”.

  22. 22
    Mobius

    I remember seeing Bush Jr. on TV announcing that hostilities had begun. He said that diplomatic efforts had failed.

    My immediate reaction was, “What diplomatic efforts?” All that had been done by the Bush administration was to issue ultimatums that were meant to be rejected. There was never an effort to find a peaceful “solution”, but then there was never the “problem” the Bush administration said there was.

    I have not yet watched Maddow’s piece, but am looking forward to it.

  23. 23
    dingojack

    So SLC, ‘many’ is greater than 90%, 70%, 50%? Or perhaps ‘merely some’.
    Dingo
    ——-
    ‘Many’ to me would imply greater than 50% at least, you may have a lower standard. And, of course, you can provide ‘many; examples of such reporting, naturally.

  24. 24
    tommykey

    There was also a large contingent of the population which simply didn’t care, but were still pissed about 9/11, and wanted to open up a big ole can of whoop-ass on somebody.

    A TGAP DAD, that’s what the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg referred to as the Ledeen Doctrine, that every few years the U.S. had to beat the tar out of some smaller country just to show the world we’re badasses not to be messed with.

  25. 25
    slc1

    Re dingojack @ #23

    This was 2 or three years ago and my old pal Don cited a number of sites, the only one with which I was familiar was Counterpunch, the left wing equivalent of Stormfornt. Incidentally, ole Don had a supporter named Richard Steven Hack who, among other things, was a convicted bank robber who did a 9 years stretch in the hoosegow at Leavenworth. Mr. Yglesias attracted a number of interesting characters to his site.

  26. 26
    Ichthyic

    shorter slc:

    backpedal backpedal backpedal

    …yeah…

  27. 27
    composer99

    Gregory in Seattle:

    Unless I am very much mistaken, the US and its coalition in the 1991 Gulf War won a decisive military victory against Iraqi forces. The fighting stopped because the UN resolution (resolution #678) which authorized the use of force did not go so far as the destruction of the Iraqi regime and the US was adhering to the scope of work given (so to speak).

    In no way could Iraqi forces be said to have fought the coalition to a standstill.

  28. 28
    Ichthyic

    Hussein fought the US to a stand-still in the (undeclared) Gulf War and embarassed Daddy Bush horribly, leading to his being a one-term president.

    I gotta side with composer99. This is not even close to what happened, nor was it the reason Bush Sr did not get reelected.

    This was a decisive victory for the Coalition forces

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

    As for re-election, hell the “read my lips” thing was actually a bigger influence against him at the time than the first gulf war.

  29. 29
    Worldtraveller

    One major difference between Maddow, and a few others, is that she consistently criticizes Obama for not meeting liberal expectations, but to the Faux Noise crowd, whatever Bush/Cheney/Rove did was the conservative expectation du jour.

  30. 30
    sailor1031

    Well there’s nothing in this video that wasn’t blindingly obvious at the time. That Rep. from North Carolina speaks for congress when he said that he didn’t believe what the administration people were saying but didn’t have the courage to vote his conscience. Blame this on congress which spectacularly failed in its constitutional duty for the most sordid of reasons.

    BTW, am I the only one who remembers that Bush was talking about regime change in Iraq while he was campaigning to become president? The neocon animus against Saddam predates 9/11 by quite a while.

  31. 31
    naturalcynic

    @30: During the 90′s, there were rumblings that the US should have “finished the job” in the First Gulf War. Interestingly, one of the conservatives that strongly argued against this was a certain Richard Cheney. The idea that the US should make strong efforts towards regime change in Iraq was put forward by a neocon rogues gallery [Perle, Bolton, Abrams, Wolfowitz etc] who were part of the think tank Project for a New American Century [PNAC] in ’98. This resulted in the Iraq Liberation Act and a tightening of sanctions.

    I deliberately didn’t watch Maddow’s special because I remembered the lies all too well and I might have ended up screaming at the fukkin’ liars.

  32. 32
    Michael Heath

    unbound writes:

    . . . many of us knew that it was all BS, and I’m sure there were many that wanted to kick ass somewhere.

    I followed the evidence justifying going to war closely at the time, and read a handful of books on the topic post-invasion. I do not recall convincing evidence some citizens had the capability to “know it was all BS”.

    Certainly we knew pre-invasion that W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and many of their aides were repeatedly lying their ass off on many counts. But we did not know ppe-invasion and contra your claim, that their then-known lies disqualified the possibility Iraq had WMDs and ongoing WMD programs. E.g., the compelling evidence-rich argument Sec. of State Colin Powell made to the U.N. Where only after the fact did we learn the evidentiary premises Powell used were also false, unbeknownst even to Mr. Powell.

  33. 33
    Ichthyic

    But we did not know ppe-invasion and contra your claim, that their then-known lies disqualified the possibility Iraq had WMDs and ongoing WMD programs.

    You have a very poor memory then.

    I myself recall the reports released by the UN investigators that had concluded after 3 years of constant surveillance and searches that there WAS NO WMD THREAT.

    it was quite clear.

    It was equally clear that ChenyCo was adamant in their refusal to acknowledge the UN reports at the time.

    funny, I remember all of that, and I know plenty of others that do too, which means that your “we” should be vastly limited. maybe even just to you yourself.

  34. 34
    Ichthyic

    btw, even wiki remembers….

    During the lead-up to war in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament

    the evidence was there, for anyone who wasn’t convinced by the lies of CheneyCo and the neocon hawks.

  35. 35
    laurentweppe

    I followed the evidence justifying going to war closely at the time, and read a handful of books on the topic post-invasion. I do not recall convincing evidence some citizens had the capability to “know it was all BS”

    Had they access to the BBC? then they had the capacity.

  36. 36
    gopiballava

    I recall reading that one problem was that:
    1. Iraq was supposed to destroy their WMDs after the first gulf war
    2. They claimed that they had, but at a point when they hadn’t
    3. They kept destroying materials but without their usual record keeping
    4. Thus, there was good solid evidence of them having produced stuff but no evidence of it going anywhere

    Also, I recall reading the claim that Saddam wanted his citizens to think he had WMD to keep them in line. In Kuwait in the mid 1990s people were genuinely concerned that Iraq was about to launch a chemical attack. I had to explain that I was just some random American and I really didn’t know anything. (I literally had people in restaurants asking me if they should be concerned…)

  37. 37
    lofgren

    I’m gonna have to add my voice to the Heath bashing here. It’s true that the case against the war has only become stronger with hindsight, but there was more than enough information already public to make the case for war seem reckless and premature (and that’s a generous way of putting it).

  38. 38
    Michael Heath

    I wrote:

    I followed the evidence justifying going to war closely at the time, and read a handful of books on the topic post-invasion. I do not recall convincing evidence some citizens had the capability to “know it was all BS”.

    Certainly we knew pre-invasion that W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and many of their aides were repeatedly lying their ass off on many counts. But we did not know ppe-invasion and contra your claim, that their then-known lies disqualified the possibility Iraq had WMDs and ongoing WMD programs. E.g., the compelling evidence-rich argument Sec. of State Colin Powell made to the U.N. Where only after the fact did we learn the evidentiary premises Powell used were also false, unbeknownst even to Mr. Powell.

    lofgren moves the goal posts:

    I’m gonna have to add my voice to the Heath bashing here. It’s true that the case against the war has only become stronger with hindsight, but there was more than enough information already public to make the case for war seem reckless and premature (and that’s a generous way of putting it).

    Let’s criticize what people actually write, rather than moving the goal posts and then attacking a strawman of what they wrote.

  39. 39
    lofgren

    Let’s criticize what people actually write, rather than moving the goal posts and then attacking a strawman of what they wrote.

    I think perhaps you don’t know what “moving the goalposts” and “strawman” mean.

    Tgap wrote:

    And ultimately, the blame falls on us, the ones who knew bullshit when we saw it, and kept quiet or didn’t raise enough hell

    You wrote:

    I do not recall convincing evidence some citizens had the capability to “know it was all BS”.

    I wrote:

    There was more than enough information already public to make the case for war seem reckless and premature (and that’s a generous way of putting it).

    Which is to say, OK, maybe saying that the lay American public was capable of “knowing” it was all BS is a bit strong, in the sense that it is impossible to know something until it has actually been proven, and neither side actually had proof. The administration had only the flimsiest evidence to support their claims, and the opposite side couldn’t prove a negative. There was easily enough reason to “strongly suspect” that “most” of what the administration was claiming was BS.

    So, OK, I will admit that we did not have the clairvoyant powers necessary to determine that it was truly impossible for Saddam Hussein to have weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the United States. But if that was your actual point then I’m going to have to view your comment as an abstract philosophical point about the nature of knowledge and evidence rather than anything resembling a constructive addition to the conversation. I concede that it was significantly more probable that Saddam had a WMD program that threatened the US than it is that there is a giant teapot orbiting the sun or an invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage.

  40. 40
    Ichthyic

    Let’s criticize what people actually write, rather than moving the goal posts and then attacking a strawman of what they wrote.

    FWIW, you ignored MY direct criticism of what you actually wrote, AND the evidence from Hans Blix and the entire UN weapons inspection team, that indeed was readily available and publicized at the time.

    no, as usual, you project what the right wing talking heads were saying at the time, and make the conclusion that three was no convincing evidence for there being no WMDs at the time.

    sorry, but that simply isn’t true, and this is not meant as an attack on you, so much as it is meant as yet another poke to get you to re-examine your historical biases.

    You do a decent enough job at self correction for anything that happens in the current era, but it seems whenever you look to the past, your conclusions still seem to be based on wearing those coke bottle glasses.

  41. 41
    Ichthyic

    OK, I will admit that we did not have the clairvoyant powers necessary to determine that it was truly impossible for Saddam Hussein to have weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the United States.

    uh, Hussein NEVER EVER had WMDs that could pose any threat to the US directly.

    never.

    unless you think a scud missile could cross an entire ocean?

  42. 42
    slc1

    Re lofgren @ #39

    The accusation of moving the goal posts is rather rich coming from MH, the blogs most avid goal post mover.

  43. 43
    Area Man

    The wars have continued under Obama.

    People die, Obama lies.

    In case no one bothered telling you, Obama ended the Iraq War in 2011. Conservatives loudly responded that doom, DOOM would follow. That prediction turned out like all the rest.

  44. 44
    Area Man

    And ultimately, the blame falls on us, the ones who knew bullshit when we saw it, and kept quiet or didn’t raise enough hell. And much of this hell-raising was sacrificed on the altar of civil discourse. There were protests, of course, which politely approached lines of police and calmly got themselves arrested. For what?

    The protests that were held before the war repeatedly broke records for attendance. They were massive. The media, which had become shamelessly pro-war, chose to ignore them or dismiss them as small bands of malcontents. The war did not occur because the people who were against it failed to stand up, it was because the political and media elite decided that these people’s opinions would not be counted. I’m not sure what more you would expect out of the anti-war public.

    When protests broke out in the sixties, protesters were willing to put it on the line. They threw eggs, rotten fruit, and got beaten up and firehosed for their troubles. They put the disobedience in “civil disobedience!”

    I think a strong argument can be made that such tactics are counterproductive in that they harden the opinions of otherwise persuadable people. When we found ourselves mired in an endless and bloody insurgency, and when the WMDs failed to materialized, both of which were highly predictable outcomes, public opinion quickly turned against the war (that it was a mistake is now a consensus). I think if the protestors had acted like jerks that may not have happened, and instead opinion would have remained divided along culture war lines like it did for Vietnam. Conservatives, of course, tried everything they could to make that happen.

  45. 45
    dogmeat

    The accusation of moving the goal posts is rather rich coming from MH, the blogs most avid goal post mover.

    Which, of course, makes the comment by “doctor” SLC even more ironic.

    SLC, your claim that “many” in the media blamed Israel for the second Gulf War is one that requires actual evidence. You make the claim of “many” in the “media,” and then make a reference to one guy at a site who (2-3 years ago mind you) allegedly quoted numerous unnamed sites. Sorry, but like many here, I call bullshit.

    —————
    Michael @ 32 & 38:

    Sorry, but I remember the evidence the Bush administration was putting forth being garbage the entire lead up into the war. I know those of us opposed to the war were only about 22% of the population, but quite honestly we were right, and the evidence was there. I remember Blix and the other UN inspectors, while admitting that the Iraqi regime was being difficult, etc., also were quite clear that the country had no significant WMD arsenal or programs remaining. I know the evidence existed at the time because I was involved in a number of debates in which I posted links to the stories, cited them, etc.

    —————
    Gregory & 17:

    You’re off a bit on the first Gulf War, Hussein, etc. We did help to disrupt the legitimate government of Iraq back in the 50s and did provide assistance to the anti-communist Baath party, but we didn’t really have that much to do with putting Hussein himself into power. We did encourage him to kill as many Iranians as possible, enemy of my enemy my not so much of an enemy, etc.

    Hussein fought the US to a stand-still in the (undeclared) Gulf War and embarassed Daddy Bush horribly, leading to his being a one-term president. Junior’s advisors saw that a regime change was necessary for the sake of US interests, and convinced Shrub that Daddy needed to be avenged.

    This part is very, very wrong. The operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm involved the virtual annihilation of the Iraqi military (estimated 95,000-100,000 Iraqi casualties to 1,000-1,500 casualties for the Coalition forces). The goals of the operation were to force the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the elimination of Iraqi offensive capabilities towards both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Both objectives were achieved. Operations ended after 100 hours primarily when the images of the “highway of death” portrayed a rather lopsided victory as instead a “slaughter of innocent victims.” An additional argument made at the time was that removing Iraq as a major power in the region would create a power vacuum, allow Iran to increase its influence in the region, and would likely lead to a decade or more of occupying forces, massive expenditures, and thousands of lives.

    The only arguments I’ve seen as to why the same people who argued against invading Iraq in ’91 argued in favor of invading in ’03 involve appeals to patriotism (the unification argument) and the massive fortunes made in no-bid and minimal bid contracts that continue to make millions and even billions for defense contractors. The oil argument is a weak one overall because, nationally at least, we didn’t take control of the oil. We did establish “control” over roughly 75-85% of the global oil (IE ability to destroy or limit access to a resource = control) but we didn’t really do much with that control beyond profits for private oil companies. Which again, many argue that the policies of the GOP amount to maximization of profits for private corporations, so there is an argument there.

    Also the military operation was quite legal following multiple UN resolutions and an authorization of force by Congress on January 12, 1991. Unlike the second Gulf War, the first had legitimate justification.

  46. 46
    Michael Heath

    dogmeat writes:

    Michael @ 32 & 38:

    Sorry, but I remember the evidence the Bush administration was putting forth being garbage the entire lead up into the war. I know those of us opposed to the war were only about 22% of the population, but quite honestly we were right, and the evidence was there. I remember Blix and the other UN inspectors, while admitting that the Iraqi regime was being difficult, etc., also were quite clear that the country had no significant WMD arsenal or programs remaining. I know the evidence existed at the time because I was involved in a number of debates in which I posted links to the stories, cited them, etc.

    Please challenge what I actually wrote rather than doing what lofgren’s done @ 39, which is imagine an argument from an imaginary Heath, who is now a philosopher! All while he avoids my Colin Powell premise which falsifies his characterization of my argument in his last post.

    Your argument here dogmeat not only doesn’t address what I actually wrote above; it doesn’t even confront the actual topic I wrote about.

  47. 47
    slc1

    Re dogmeat @ $45

    Which, of course, makes the comment by “doctor” SLC even more ironic.

    I have a PhD in elementary particle physics from a reputable university, which qualifies me to call myself a doctor. No quotes needed.

    SLC, your claim that “many” in the media blamed Israel for the second Gulf War is one that requires actual evidence. You make the claim of “many” in the “media,” and then make a reference to one guy at a site who (2-3 years ago mind you) allegedly quoted numerous unnamed sites. Sorry, but like many here, I call bullshit.

    At this point in time, the only site I recall for a certainty was Counterpunch. However, my old bud Don Williams cited several others, mostly pointing to speeches by Bibi Netanyahu cheering Bush fils on. Actually, ole Don’s favorite bete noir is Haim Saban. Ole Don is not what you might call a big supporter of the State of Israel. Another one may have been Juan Cole but I can’t be sure at this remote date.

  48. 48
    dogmeat

    Michael, I did address this point:

    But we did not know ppe-invasion and contra your claim, that their then-known lies disqualified the possibility Iraq had WMDs and ongoing WMD programs. E.g., the compelling evidence-rich argument Sec. of State Colin Powell made to the U.N. Where only after the fact did we learn the evidentiary premises Powell used were also false, unbeknownst even to Mr. Powell.

    Even at the time I didn’t find Mr. Powell’s argument to the UN particularly “evidence-rich.” I was quite disappointed in him given that he was about the only member of the Bush administration that I had any respect for. Simply stating that Powell’s argument wasn’t discredited until after the war doesn’t make it so. Since then members of Powell’s own staff have admitted doubts at the time based upon the very things you point to as powerful evidence. State department memos show that they were also quite doubtful of those same points of evidence, again, at the time.

    Now if you’re arguing the “all BS” point, I will concede that partially, but only because only the most naive or ideologically driven would have completely dismissed every single claim made by the administration, but that would be setting the bar for credibility extremely low, even for the Bush administration. It was, as it is with most things in the world, highly unlikely that the vast majority of their claims were valid, 100% really wasn’t an option, but war wasn’t necessary nor advisable. Powell’s speech had major problems, the aluminum tubes (already mentioned), expanded interpretations of the comm-intercepts (actual transcripts showed (at the time) the conversation didn’t actually say what Powell claimed it said), ignoring critical details, Blix & interviews with Iraqis that showed the materials (or the projects) were gone or had never been to the level we implied they were (or outright lied they were).

    There was a reason why a number of countries in the UN dismissed his evidence immediately. When you look at independent analysis and international media, at that time, the evidence presented in Powell’s speech falls apart. I can see why some were swayed by Powell, I had to really do some digging because I nearly was, but the evidence really wasn’t all that compelling from the very beginning.

    ———-

    I have a PhD in elementary particle physics from a reputable university, which qualifies me to call myself a doctor. No quotes needed.

    Given the intellectual quality of your posts, primarily when it comes to Israel, that university may owe you a refund and may wish to consider an audit of its doctoral programs.

    At this point in time, the only site I recall for a certainty was Counterpunch. However, my old bud Don Williams cited several others, mostly pointing to speeches by Bibi Netanyahu cheering Bush fils on. Actually, ole Don’s favorite bete noir is Haim Saban. Ole Don is not what you might call a big supporter of the State of Israel. Another one may have been Juan Cole but I can’t be sure at this remote date.

    Sorry, that doesn’t qualify as “many” sources, or, more importantly, “many media” sources. In much the same way I verify claims made by you (or any other Islamophobe) regarding the actions of Islamic organizations/countries or in claims of antisemitism, I tend to do the same when people who bash Israel make extreme claims about their actions. I do recall some claims that some people in Israeli intelligence (in addition to the CIA) may have provided gimicked evidence to help in the push for war, these claims were more of a condemnation of the Bush administration for cherry picking and/or suppressing evidence (in addition to lying) to get the war they wanted than a claim that Israel pushed for, let alone was responsible for the war.

    I looked through the archives at counterpoint leading up to the war and don’t see much that says Israel was responsible, only that they have a vested interest in the conflict. That would describe any country in the region. Another one mentions that a disarmed Iraq would leave Israel the only nuclear power in the region, that too is quite accurate. Most of the ’03 commentary is critical of the Bush administration rather than it blaming Israel.

  49. 49
    Don Williams

    This blog seems pretty much of a fraud — allegedly discussing national matters but in reality a Potemkin Village in which contrary comments are covertly censored.

    I have put up two posts giving citations to news stories about Likud officials –Bibi, Ariel Sharon’s spokesman
    Rassan something, and Shimon Peres — pushing us to invade Iraq in 2002. And the moderator refuses to post them.

    Obviously there were several factions promoting that war — including Big Oil and the Saudis — but the Likud was definitely one of them.

    Go and look at the footnotes in Chapter 8 of Mearshimer and Walt’s “The Israel Lobby”.

  50. 50
    Michael Heath

    Don Williams,

    Your conclusions are made based on your imagining the moderator refusing to do something. I’m a regular poster here where I assume there is no moderation with one exception. That’s the fact no comment posts will publish if they have more than two hyperlinks embedded in the post. The blogger apparently doesn’t review posts with more than two links; those posts are instead automatically categorized as spam to be ignored forever; unless someone emails the blogger to go into the spam/held-for-moderation folder to release the post. But it’s very rare to ever see a post with more than two links, so I assume that request is rare.

    So I instead suggest posting comments with one or two links only. Those will get through just like your post @ 49 did.

    And your assertion this venue is censored to a fault based on content is absurd. As any clear thinking individual who hangs out here would realize that is not even remotely true.

  51. 51
    Don Williams

    1) My point remains: My two prior posts –which were merely links to news stories to refute
    SLC’s claims — remain in moderation.

    2) But I’ll bite. Here is Bibi in 2002 calling for the USA to overthrow Saddam Hussein
    in a Wall Street Journal OpEd:

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22400

    3) In years past I provided a link to a Government of Israel web site that explicitly stated
    Bibi was in the USA as Ariel Sharon’s officially accredited Envoy. But that web page
    has disappeared — as has that interesting interview Haim Saban gave to Haaretz in
    December 2007.

  52. 52
    Don Williams

    See also Bibi’s Chicago Sun Times OpEd in Sept 2002 “US Must Beat Saddam to the punch” in which our
    “ally” helped lie us in to an unnecessary war that killed 4500+ Americans, crippled thousands for life, cost us
    $3 Trillion and yet did not cost the Likud a single IDF casualty or shekel.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1456784.html

    Haaretz put out a recent column mocking Bibi Netanyahu for his “predictions” — and yet
    US News Organizations remain totally silent on his past acts.

  53. 53
    Don Williams

    Bibi was not just Ariel Sharon’s accredited envoy in 2002 when he pushed the US to invade Iraq — his arguments were strongly echoed by Ariel Sharon’s official spokesman and other Likud leaders.

    I was pointing this out well before Mearshimer and Walt put out their article “The Israel Lobby” –but
    they also provide a long list of news articles documenting what the Likud was doing in 2002.

    See http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/IsraelLobby.pdf starting at page 53:

    “Israel and the Iraq War”

  54. 54
    slc1

    Re Jordan Genso

    Now that my old bud Don Williams has shown up and repeated his claims, are you satisfied that many left wing sources blamed Israel?

    In response to ole Don’s claims:

    1. Bibi Netanyahu was not Prime Minister of Israel in 2002.

    2. Lawrence Wilkerson has stated in his book and on several interviews that Arial Sharon advised against the proposed invasion of Iraq, suggesting that taking Iraq off the board as a counterpoint to Iran was a bad idea. Wilkerson and Colin Powell were there when Sharon said it, Bibi Netanyahu, Don Williams, Stephen Walt, and John Mearsheimer were not there.

    3. Sharon and company went along with the Bush administration’s proposed policy only after their advice was rejected, like good little puppets, knowing what side of the bread was buttered. For that they can be criticized.

    4. Bush and Co. didn’t need Bibi Netanyahu to push the Iraq invasion for them. In rejecting Sharon’s advice, they showed that they were gung ho full speed ahead regardless of any contrary opinions.

    And as an aside Don, your Beagles stunk last season. And antisemites Walt and Mearsheimer are discredited sources.

  55. 55
    slc1

    Re Don Williams

    Ole Don likes to cite the interview on Haaretz with Haim Saban. He studiously neglects to cite the part of the interview where Saban advocates that the US negotiate with Hamas.

  56. 56
    slc1

    By the way Don, you have lot’s of friends here. Marcus Ranum, Raging Bee, Laurentweppe, etc. who also don’t like Israel.

  57. 57
    dogmeat

    SLC:

    Now that my old bud Don Williams has shown up and repeated his claims, are you satisfied that many left wing sources blamed Israel?

    So far, all I see is Williams griping about how the media hasn’t covered this “issue.” Point in evidence:

    Haaretz put out a recent column mocking Bibi Netanyahu for his “predictions” — and yet
    US News Organizations remain totally silent on his past acts.

    The citations he has been providing so far are editorials written by Netanyahu himself, and a policy paper, not stories by “many left wing sources” blaming Israel. Also, while Netanyahu wasn’t the PM of Israel in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, he was the Foreign Minister, so meeting with the Bush administration would be an official function and editorials written while citing his former capacity as Prime Minister while serving as Foreign Minister could establish some confusion regarding the country’s stance on the invasion.

    I still see it as a rather weak argument regarding Israel (much as your knee-jerk defense of Israel is equally weak), of course they would have a stake in such an operation, Iraq did lob SCUDs at them during the first Gulf War; of course a conservative politician in Israel would be likely to support and even advocate for such an invasion. Such realities don’t really support Williams’ apparent claim that Israel deserved any more guilt than any other member of the international community who voiced a “yeah, go get ‘em!” argument during the prelude to the war. That Israel officially leaned towards war with Iran while some members of its government leaned towards war with Iraq doesn’t really accomplish much toward supporting the argument that Israel is culpable in the idiocy of the Bush administration. At this point it looks like they handed a match to an arsonist who already had a “wonderful” blaze burning.

  58. 58
    Don Williams

    Re SLC’s comment’s “who also don’t like Israel.” — I don’t dislike Israel.

    I don’t like Bibi but I don’t blame him for looking out for his country.

    Besides, as far as I can tell, Bibi simply one of billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s
    pets –same as Newt Gingrich. Israeli progressives complain as much about
    Sheldon dumping money into Israeli elections as I complain at it here.

    As I have noted, the people I dislike are US politicans who sell the lives of
    US soldiers for campaign donations — and the US billionaires who
    waste those lives. And the US billionaires who allow the dirty game
    to be played. That pretty much covers the Forbes 400.

    Obviously I would have limited career prospects in US journalism.

  59. 59
    slc1

    Re dogmeat @ #57

    Also, while Netanyahu wasn’t the PM of Israel in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, he was the Foreign Minister,

    Wrong again, he was the finance minister.

  60. 60
    Don Williams

    1) Re the side issue of whether the “left” accused Israel of promoting the Iraq invasion,
    I think it was more the case that some on the Left eventually acknowledged that Democratic
    opposition to the war was kneecapped by the US Israel Lobby — several of whose
    billionaire financiers were flirting with the Republicans in 2002.

    2) See, e.g, Matt Yglesias’s column here (and the New Republic article it also cites)

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/10/aipac-and-iraq/46561/

    3) I cracked up laughing at John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential Debates –when he tried to
    criticize Bush for Iraq without actually doing so. The biggest donor to the Democratic Party
    in 2000-2002 was Israeli billionaire Haim Saban –who dumped $14 Million in.
    DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Haim “saved the Democratic Party”. In 2004, Haim donated
    little — and a few thousand of that was for George W Bush in case the Democrats didn’t
    get the message.

    4) One of the other things Haim purchased was a think tank at Brookings whose Director of Research –
    former Clinton NSC staffer Kenneth Pollack — put out an alarming book in 2002 (“The Threatening
    Storm”) which warned that Saddam was working feverishly to build nukes and was close to success.

    When I noted this on liberal blogger Kevin Drum’s blog, he followed up with a post that ole Kenneth was
    the one who did the Big Con on the liberal blogista and talked them into supporting the war in 2002.

    Of course –as with the New York Times — it was
    hard to tell if Kevin was sincere or if he was just trying to wipe his fingerprints off of the coffins.

    5) And who can forget Tom Friedman’s claim to Haaretz that the Iraq War would not have happened if not
    for the work of 25 propagandists:
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

  61. 61
    slc1

    Re dogmeat @ #57

    By the way, there was no chance that Sharon would choose Netanyahu as his foreign minister. His contempt for Bibi was almost equal to that of Don Williams. He once told Bibi to his face that he was born a liar. Former French President Sarkozy was on the money, “I can’t stand him (Bibi), he’s such a liar. As a matter of fact, I can’t think of any foreign leader who has any regard for Bibi, other then, perhaps, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

  62. 62
    slc1

    By the way, I hope some of the readers here who haven’t encountered Don Williams previously are enjoying his conspiracy theories. Actually, I should inform the readers here that the real reason that ole Don doesn’t like Bibi is because Bibi was able to go to MIT and Don couldn’t afford it. Simple envy.

  63. 63
    Don Williams

    Re SLC at 59:

    One of the sick pleasures I have always taken in conversing with SLC is pointing out his ignorance of his chosen cause. Bibi Netanyahu was Ariel Sharon’s FOREIGN Minister from 2 November 2002 to
    28 February 2003.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Affairs_Minister_of_Israel

    Hey, SLC, remember when I suggested 5 years ago–in response to a similar mistake — that you make amends by washing William Kristol’s car?
    heh heh

  64. 64
    slc1

    Re Don Williams

    Ole Don might also want to mosey over to Mano Singham’s blog some time. Now there’s a real rooten tooten Israel basher. Prof. Singham is also a professor of physics at Case/Western Reserve, former bailiwick of Prof. Lawrence Krauss, who pals around with child molesters.

    Gee, Bibi was foreign minister for a whole 4 months. I stand corrected. During most of Sharon’s sojourn in office, he was, indeed, the finance minister and must be given credit for the fact that Israel came through the financial meltdown in better shape then most other countries. What else could one expect from a graduate of the Sloan School of Management. By the way, I once knew one of the faculty at that august institution who informed me that Bibi was a better then average student, which is pretty good at a school as competitive as MIT.

  65. 65
    slc1

    In other news, it appears that Chuck Hagel will be approved as Secretary of Defense.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/politics/hagel-filibuster-defense-senate-confirmation.html?_r=0

  66. 66
    Don Williams

    Re Dogmeat at 57:

    1) One motivation Likud had to encourage the US invasion of Iraq was to halt
    the support ($25,000 pensions)Saddam was giving to the families of Palestinian
    suicide bombers.

    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914&page=1

    2) Saddam started supporting the Palestinians in reaction to a very thirsty Israel cutting a deal with
    Turkey whereby Turkey constructed a massive series of dams (GAP) across the headwaters of the
    Euphrates in order to ship the water to Israel. Those dams have the ability to cut the water flow to
    Iraq by 80% — and Iraq is also very short of water.

  67. 67
    Don Williams

    Re the water conflict see http://www.academia.edu/278072/Dams_and_Politics_in_Turkey_Utilizing_Water_Developing_Conflict

    Note that much of Israel’s water comes from the West Bank aquifers — which is probably why Likud is proceding with a slow motion eradication campaign.

  68. 68
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #66

    Apparently ole Don has been in hibernation for the past 3 years, otherwise he would be aware of the fact that Turkey and Israel have been on the outs since the episode with the Turkish ship that tried to run the Gaza blockade. Try to keep up. And his Beagles still stunk up the joint last year.

  69. 69
    dingojack

    SLC – Bibi Netanyahu is a left-wing media organisation? Who Knew?
    Dingo

  70. 70
    dogmeat

    SLC

    Also, while Netanyahu wasn’t the PM of Israel in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, he was the Foreign Minister,

    Wrong again, he was the finance minister.

    For me to be “wrong again,” you’d have to prove that I was wrong in the first place. So you fail yet again (a fact I’ve demonstrated multiple times).

    You might want to let the Israeli government website know that he wasn’t Foreign minister, he is listed as such on the 29th Government page:

    http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/History/PastGovernments/Pages/The29thGovernment.aspx

    Listed under Government Members:
    Benjamin Netanyahu – Minister of Foreign Affairs from 6.11.02

  71. 71
    Don Williams

    Re SLC at 69:
    1) I was referring to the Turkey-Israel water deal circa 1998-2002 that provoked Saddam, SLC.

    I must admit that I am amused by the touching faith that some here have in MSNBC’s evenhanded coverage of
    the Middle East since it was purchased by Comcast here in Philly. They are cats uncritically licking up cream from a bowl — the modern day version of those liberals citing Judith Miller Nuke stories in 2002.

    2) Comcast CEO Brian Roberts has played in the Maccabiah Games in Israel.
    What Network CEO out there could get away with playing in “The WASP Games” or a similarly discriminatory sports venue?

    Although being a “Legend of the Maccabiah” might have some street cred if you’re reporting on Hamas, heh heh.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_L._Roberts

    3) I also suspect NBC’s Saturday Night Live will no longer be doing skits on the Financial Crisis in which
    Golden West’s Herb and Marion Sandler are depicted as “People Who Should Be Shot”.

  72. 72
    Don Williams

    PS Edward Luce at Financial Times had a column two days ago re how Comcast has major influence on the Obama Administration (campaign donations,etc) and why US Internet access is so crappy due to Comcast.

    See http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/98e2a5fc-7c54-11e2-99f0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2M79IMjx5

    or Google “Corporate Tie Binds US to a slow Internet”

  73. 73
    slc1

    DRe Don Williams @ #71

    Provoked Saddam to do what?

    I really love the way that ole Don likes to rake up ancient history. How’s the relationship between Israel and Turkey doing these days. Although there are some rumors out there they they are trying to bury the hatchet because of the situation in Syria, which both countries have a border with.

    As for Comcast, the folks in these parts that have Comcast (Arlington Co.) ain’t happy at all. I have Verizon myself, although Cox is a viable alternative. Of course, ole Don thinks that the Washington D.C. area is the armpit of the world and should be bombed into the stone age.

  74. 74
    slc1

    By the way, I hope that the readers here are enjoying ole Don’s conspiracy theories.

  75. 75
    slc1

    Re Don Williams

    I’m sure that ole Don is enjoying this one.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323699704578326200267598608.html

    By the way, to bad there isn’t a left wing equivalent of the Wingnuddaily. Ole Don could be a regular contributor. See attached link.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/02/27/the-worldnutdaily-fear-and-paranoia-machine/

  76. 76
    Don Williams

    1) I thought you said I was a Bolshevik, SLC — for my angry criticisms of the Democrats over that dive they
    took in 2009. I admit I was annoyed at the time — I spent months of my own time and money helping install their worthless asses and they turned into sellout whores.

    2) You seem to only have vague memories of my foray into journalism — the article that Counterpunch
    published in Dec 2001 when I tried to warm people that George W Bush was lying to them through his thoughly corrupt teeth.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/12/04/questions-barbara-walters-didn-t-ask-george-bush/

    3) Overall, I think the article has held up well — the things I warned about came to pass.

    The one correction
    is that I subsequently discovered George W Bush blocked the State Department’s protest against Sharon (for using the F16s to bomb Palestinian civilians) in June 2001 and Bin Laden gave the order to execute the Sept 11, 2001 attack a month later. I.e, acts and responses happened months earlier than the events in September 2001 that I had cited.

    Bin Laden later cited US sales of weapons and support for Israeli attacks
    on Palestinians as reasons for the Sept 11 , 2001 attack in an interview he gave to Pakistan’s DAWN in Nov 2001, although he had already warned US TV Networks in 1997 that it was one of the three reasons why Al Qaeda was declaring war on the USA.

    It is really amazing how the US News Media can lie to the American People on a massive scale and get away with it — although the NY Times seems to survive nowdays by borrowing from Carlos Slim.

  77. 77
    Don Williams

    1) And of course everyone forgets that Lying the US into Invading Iraq started way back in George H Bush’s administration. Remember Tom Lantos’s “Nurse Nayirah”? heh heh

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos#1991_Gulf_War
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Nayirah#Tom_Lantos_response

    There is something ironical about a Holocaust survivor running a con to start a holocaust in
    another country.

  78. 78
    Raging Bee

    Yeah, this Don Williams guy is starting to sound less than credible…

    2) Saddam started supporting the Palestinians in reaction to a very thirsty Israel cutting a deal with
    Turkey whereby Turkey constructed a massive series of dams (GAP) across the headwaters of the
    Euphrates in order to ship the water to Israel. Those dams have the ability to cut the water flow to
    Iraq by 80% — and Iraq is also very short of water.

    First, why would Turkey build any dams for Israel, rather than for themselves? Does Don really think the Turks have no need of fresh water or hydropower, or no desire to get either from a river that runs through their own turf? Since when did non-Israeli humans need Israel to make them do questionable things with their own natural resources? We sure as Hell didn’t need Israel to make us take a whole continent away from the Indians — but hey, we’re Americans, we’re special, donchaknow!

    And second, if Turkey’s dam-building affects Iraq, what the fuck could any of that have to do with Israel? And how would supporting Palestinian insurgency make Iraq’s water supply any more secure? I know Saddam was dumb, but he wasn’t THAT dumb.

    Is Don Williams really a leftist, or is he just one of those straw-leftists the Republicans use to make their critics look stupid?

  79. 79
    Raging Bee

    PS: That Edward Luce article Don cited was an editorial, not a news article. And the idea that Comcast controls Obama merely because they gave his campaign money is kinda silly — it’s not like they were his only source of funds. Is Comcast becoming the new Trilateral Commission?

    Don is starting to sound almost as silly as those conspiracy stories about the US having to invade Iraq to stop them from using Euros.

  80. 80
    Don Williams

    Raging Bee should change his name to Raging Ignorance. Anyone who doesn’t realize the major strategic
    importance of water in the Middle East isn’t paying attention. The Palestinians have a major aquifer under the
    West Bank — ask them how much of it Israel lets them access.

    Re Turkey’s supply of water to Israel –by taking it from Iraq — circa 2002 see
    http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcglobal/2isrand8.html

  81. 81
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #76

    I believe that I called ole Don a Trotskyite.

    Re Don Williams @ #80

    I may be old and I may be slow but I fail to see how a dam on the Euphrates river affects Israel at all. That river doesn’t run anywhere near Israel.

    Given the current friction between Turkey and Israel over the latter’s paling around with Cyprus and shooting up Turkish ships, I can’t see Turkey giving Israel the right time of day, much less selling them water. As a matter of fact, the proposal to run a pipeline under the Mediterranean from Turkey to Israel to carry water never made an ounce of sense to me. It would seem to be cheaper to use the natural gas reserves off the coast of Israel to power desalination plants.

    Re Raging Bee @ #78

    As I predicted, the long time readers here will find ole Don the source of endless amusement, much like Joachim. I hope he sticks around to become the blogs resident pinata.

  82. 82
    Raging Bee

    Anyone who doesn’t realize the major strategic importance of water in the Middle East isn’t paying attention.

    I’ll take “incoherent non-sequiturs” for $1000, Alex. Just because something is “strategically important,” does not make your particular conspiracy story about that thing believable. In fact, it makes your story LESS believable: Turkey’s water policies are important to Iraq regardless of Israel’s actions. It’s not like Israel’s very existence makes Iraqis more thirsty than they would otherwise be.

    Also, Don, I notice — from the article YOU JUST CITED, mind you — this little passage (emphasis mine):

    In the end, Israel agreed to buy water at a higher price than it would have cost to desalinate, Gissin said, adding that Israel will not have desalination facilities for at least another five years.

    First, why would Israel pay a higher rice for water than it had to pay? And second, did you notice thir article is dated more than five years ago? Did Isreal get its desalination capability since then? Did they blow the Turks off when they got their cheaper alternative? Don’t you have any more up-to-date information to cite? Preferably from a source more realiable than a low-budget website that looks like nothing more than a vehicle for water-related product ads?

  83. 83
    Raging Bee

    PS: I notice the article Don cited has absolutely no name attached, and no reference to any actual source for any of the information in it. Where are they getting this from? AP? Reuters? An affiliated company close to the situation in either Turkey or Iraq? An anonymous source who can’t say his name because he’ll get killed for blowing a state secret? Some guy’s bum?

  84. 84
    Raging Bee

    slc1: does “Trotskyite” even mean anything as an epithet anymore?

  85. 85
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #84

    I think it describes ole Don’s political views very well. Back in the day, if someone maintained to a member of the American Communist Party that the economic system in the former Soviet Union was really state capitalism, they would become apoplectic and accuse their questioner of being a Trotskyite, the lowest form of life to a Communist, even lower then a Capitalist. I once saw the late former Chairman of the California Branch of the American Communist Party, Dorothy Healey, literally foam at the mouth when a Trotskyite in the audience said that in a question.

  86. 86
    Don Williams

    1) Re SLC at 81: “Given the current friction between Turkey and Israel over the latter’s paling around with Cyprus and shooting up Turkish ships, I can’t see Turkey giving Israel the right time of day, much less selling them water.”

    Hmmmm

    Israel ‘seeks to repair ties with Turkey’

    Israel is reported to have sent messages to the Turkish government in recent days saying it’s interested in restoring “a more positive dynamic” in badly strained relations with its onetime strategic ally.

    Published: Feb. 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM

    TEL AVIV, Israel, Feb. 27 (UPI) — Israel is reported to have sent messages to the Turkish government in recent days saying it’s interested in restoring “a more positive dynamic” in badly strained relations with its onetime strategic ally.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/02/27/Israel-seeks-to-repair-ties-with-Turkey/UPI-38621361997592/?spt=hs&or=tn

    2) Too bad you have to get the word from the goyim, SLC. Bill Kristol says he would like that car paste-waxed and shining.

  87. 87
    Don Williams

    Re Raging Bee at 82:
    There are numerous articles in Internet archives testifying to the Turkey-Israel water deal — which was canceled by the Turks after the fight over the Gaza incident.

    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/turkish-water-to-israel

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/06/turkey.israel

  88. 88
    Don Williams

    1) According to Ynet, Israel was pursuing the water as late as 2009 –probably because of the intense drought that had hit the Middle East.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3791937,00.html

    2) This Haaretz story re the Turk’s cancellation illustrates the giant amount of water involved:

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/business/turkey-halts-all-state-energy-and-water-projects-with-israel-1.294131

  89. 89
    Don Williams

    Raging Bee also failed to ask what Israel’s involvment in GAP was. GAP was and is greatly controversial because of how the Turks screw the Kurds, the Syrians, and the Iraqis. Several EU banks dropped financing
    because of the uproar and the World Bank back off from financing because of the human rights issues.

    So where did the Turks get the $32 Billion and who built the dams?

    From a news article on the 2002 deal:

    “Soon after that meeting, Sharon announced that Israel would import 1 billion m3 of water, or 50Mm3/year, from Turkey over the next 20 years – an amount equivalent to 2.5% of Israel’s annual consumption of fresh water. The deal is thought to be worth between $800 million and $1 billion….

    ….
    Local newspaper reports speculated that Sharon’s announcement cleared the way for the participation of Israeli companies in the $20 billion Great Anatolian Project (GAP) in southeastern Anatolia.

    The two countries agreed that Israeli companies, which have already won infrastructure contracts worth $700 million on the GAP, could now start work. Turkey had delayed the issue of permits to Israeli companies allowing them to commence work on the GAP because of the dispute between the two countries over the water deal.”

    Ref: http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/3/9/general/israel-and-turkey-finally-agree-water-transfer-deal.html

  90. 90
    Don Williams

    So, to summarize:
    1) The Likud cut a deal with Turkey to help build a series of massive dams in the headwaters of the Euphrates
    that would could cut Iraq’s supply by up to 90 percent.
    2) Iraq was and is suffering severe water problems, like countries in the Middle East –including Syria.
    3) One of Saddam Hussein’s responses was to dump $10+ Million into the Palestinian intifada — including
    $25,000 pensions (a fortune in Palestine) for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
    4) Several Likud leaders — Bibi, Sharon, Shimon Peres, then went to the American People and strongly urged
    us to wage war on Hussein before he nuked us.
    5) The US Israel Lobby — made up of US citizens owing allegiance to the USA –did likewise.
    6) Cost to USA: 4500+ dead, thousands crippled for life by ghastly wounds, $3 Trillion
    7) Cost to the Likud: 0
    8) Amount of information put out by the NY Times, Washinton Post, Fox News, etc to American citizens
    re GAP, water shortage in the Middle East, and how Iraq is being screwed with the Big Balldini: ZERO

  91. 91
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #88

    UPI is owned by the Moon organization. Tsk tsk on ole Don palling around with the fascist Moons.

    This has been reported in more respectable venues.

    http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=304406

    Re Don Williams @ #90

    4) Several Likud leaders — Bibi, Sharon, Shimon Peres, then went to the American People and strongly urged us to wage war on Hussein before he nuked us.

    Since Sharon was telling Lawrence Wilkerson and Colin Powell that the proposed Iraq invasion was a bad idea, who was he urging to wage war on Saddam? Just another example of ole Don ignoring information that doesn’t agree with his conspiracy theories.

    Actually, Israel and Turkey have a vested interest in the events in Syria, which is threatening to spin totally out of control. Elements of the rebel forces have threatened to invade Lebanon and attack Hizbollah units unless Nasrullah ceases and desists from providing active support for the Assad Government. Erdogan has been threatening to intervene in Syria but, given the decimation of the high command of his armed forces, he would be in deep doo doo if he did, unless he had Bibi watching his back and deploying units of the IDF on the ‘Golan Cease fire line to draw Syrian forces away from the Turkish border.

  92. 92
    dogmeat

    SLC, I assume you missed my comment at 70?

    ———-
    Don,

    I hate to break this to you, but your arguments basically point out the fact that Israel has a vested interest in the state of international relations in the Middle East. No shit, really? [/sarcasm]

    Otherwise your commentary proves little, you’re going to have to provide some solid evidence, otherwise you’re making SLC look sane, and while I have to admit that is pretty impressive, it doesn’t prove anything regarding the all powerful Israeli government you purport to exist.

  93. 93
    Don Williams

    Re dogmeat at 92:

    Your comment is TOTALLY free of any substance. You do not address any of the facts I point out much less attempt to refute them much less provide any evidence to the contrary. And to top it off, you misstate my argument, construct a strawman which you dismiss, and follow it up with the truly vile ad hominem that I make SLC look sane.

    Let me guess –you majored in one of the more unprofitable areas of the humanities. That would explain why you confuse fiction with facts. Cartoon thinking with reasoning.

    It has long been my opinion that the American People should impose a tax on humanities departments — like the tax we impose on some other useless trifles of the Rich. Because we are obviously not creating any Socrates with our present subsidies — to the contrary.

    I look at US political discourse over the past 12 years and can only conclude that our billionaires have a job track for humanities majors. Get them to invest 4 years –and run up massive loans investing $200,000 — into largely useless programs of study. Then let them know they will starve unless they craft semiplausible lies to advance the agendas of the elite.

    Really — look at every major disaster that has struck this country in the past 12 years and see if there is not a group of humanities majors in charge/working to bring it about/constructing tortured rationalizations to justify it.

  94. 94
    Don Williams

    Re SLC at 91:

    a) Re point 4, not quite. According to the accounts we’ve already discussed, Sharon did place a higher priority on hitting Iran first with Iraq put off for later. But when Bush/Cheney insisted on Iraq first — and it was argued that it would provide a beachhead/base from which to hit Iran — Sharon and the Likud went along.

    b) You do have a valid point that the little weasel , Tony Blair, did much the same.

    Although I haven’t seen any anglophile dumping $150 Million into the Republican Party to promote a US
    invasion of Ireland.

    c) My point remains: Bibi may be Dick Cheney’s buddy — but he is no friend of the American People. Same goes for much of the Likud.

    No reason for them to be, really. If our politicans are so dishonest and corrupt that they would sacrifice American lives and treasure for campaign donations, then you can expect other nations to take advantage of that corruption.

    d) In the case of Sheldon Adelson, John McCain has a point that a lot of that money is coming out of Macau and may be the Chinese putting their thumb on the scale. Certainly the damm Chinese have grealy profited from US stupidity /corrupton over the past decade. I can point you to the exact places in Sun Tzu that describes how to handle the George W Bush moron. Written 2400 years ago.

  95. 95
    slc1

    Re dogmeat @ #92

    See my response to ole Don’s comment @ #64. As I said, he was foreign minister for 4 months before being shifted over to Finance Minister which was more suited to his talents.

    Re Don Williams @ #93

    Spoken like an engineer. When I was an undergraduate, we had a little saying: 6 months ago I couldn’t spell inguneer and now I are one.

    Re Don Williams @ #94

    Point a: Ole Don recycles the ravings of former bank robber Richard Steven Hack. It is quite true that Sharon did tell Wilkerson that if the US was going to attack someone, Iran would be a better target then Iraq. Notice that if there. As I have previously stated, he definitely informed Wilkerson and Powell that an invasion of Iraq would take their military off the board, leaving Iran as the sole power in the Gulf. Maybe Bush and Cheney should have listened to him instead of the neocons because that;’s exactly what happened.

    Point c: Bibi is a liar, and has always been a liar. As Sharon once told him, he was born a liar. As former French President Sarcozy told Obama, I can’t stand him, he’s such a liar.

    Point d: WTF,ole Don presents yet another conspiracy theory. At least this one is something new, not recycled from Yglesias’ old blog. Did ole Don’s favorite bank robber think that one up?

    By the way, where has ole Don been hanging out since Yglesias’ old blog was discontinued?

  96. 96
    Don Williams

    Re SLC at 95:

    1) Not a conspiracy theory — John McCain actually made that observation on PBS about 7 months ago.
    He is a US Senator so you know that it is true.

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/15/mccain_adelson_funding_romney_super_pac_with_foreign_money

  97. 97
    Don Williams

    Re SLC at 95:

    1) Re Sarkozy, I was amused that when Chirac opposed the invasion of Iraq, he was replaced by a Hungarian
    of all people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarkozy#Family_background

    2) You would think that French members of the Tribe would have learned about Hungarians by now:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Walsin_Esterhazy

    Let me guess — the job was subcontracted out to the Political Action guys at CIA’s
    Special Operations Division. Those bozos have a sick sense of humor.

  98. 98
    Don Williams

    And Ariel Sharon didn’t use the passive voice in pushing for the USA to disarm Iran as well as Iraq.

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/sharon-says-u-s-should-also-disarm-iran-libya-and-syria-1.18707

    http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=682150&Date=11/5/2002

  99. 99
    Raging Bee

    GAP was and is greatly controversial because of how the Turks screw the Kurds, the Syrians, and the Iraqis.

    So you’re trying to blame Israel for injustices committed by the Turkish government? On top of blaming Israel for Bush Jr’s disasterously stupid policies? I hope this means slc1 will stop calling ME an “Israel-basher.”

    John McCain actually made that observation on PBS about 7 months ago. He is a US Senator so you know that it is true.

    Is this a joke?

  100. 100
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #97

    Sarkozy is only 1/2 Hungarian. His mother was a Greek Jew.

  101. 101
    slc1

    Re Don Williams

    Who the fuckke needs the fuckken Turkish water?

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/how-israel-beat-the-drought/

  102. 102
    Raging Bee

    So, to summarize…

    …followed by a string of clumsily-stated assertions, some totally unrelated to the rest, and none of which really prove Don’s “original” allegations about Israeli culpability in any action by any other government. Summarization: UR DOIN IT RONG!

    (And what the fuck does Sarkozy’s ethnicity have to do wtih anything? This has gotta be the least coherent Jewish-conspiracy story I’ve ever heard.)

    (Also, I googled “Don Williams” and got nothing but a country singer and various other Williamses. This guy’s not even prominent in loony-left circles, and certainly not prominent as a journalist.)

  103. 103
    Don Williams

    Impressive group of friends you have here, SLC. Normally, one would have to go to a sports bar in
    Atlantic City, New Jersey to find insights this intelligent and well informed.

  104. 104
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #103

    On the other had, none of them, AFAIK, has robbed any banks and spent 9 years getting ass fuckked in the slammer like ole Don’s asshole buddy, Richard Steven Hack.

  105. 105
    Don Williams

    You misunderstand, SLC. I’m Concerned for you. Looking around I wonder if you fell off the
    wagon and ended up clinging precariously to a job teaching physics in some rural high
    school in Mississippi.

  106. 106
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #105

    Actually, I suspect that the folks who comment here and read this blog will associate with old Don, which will not be to my credit.

  107. 107
    dogmeat

    Don,

    Your comment is TOTALLY free of any substance. You do not address any of the facts I point out much less attempt to refute them much less provide any evidence to the contrary.

    Of course my response to you is free of substance, you haven’t presented any “facts” to be addressed. You might have a better understanding of evidentiary expectations for humanities related areas if you didn’t have such utter contempt for the humanities. You remind me of an idiot who used to post over at Pharyngula regarding the humanities, he didn’t know what he was talking about either, but he felt his background (in physics I believe) granted him cart blanche to be an expert on every field. Perfect textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    You do provide information that supports the idea that Israel had (and has) a vested interest in the Middle Eastern policy decisions of the United States (not exactly an “exclusive”), but no evidence that supports your claim that Israel is specifically culpable, let alone responsible for the US invasion of Iraq. I disagree with numerous policies of Israel and strongly disagree with the islamophobic ideas presented by SLC that Israel is justified in all responses to the actions of her neighbors or that nuclear strikes on major population centers of innocents is a reasonable solution to the Middle Eastern conflicts, but your contention that Israel pushed the US into the war is utterly laughable. What next, France directly caused the American Revolution?

    You seem to be oblivious to, or simply ignoring, the fact that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait played a major role in establishing our relations towards the Hussein government for the last twenty years. Given their history, of course Israel has a vested interest in what we decide to do, the SCUD strikes on Israel during the first Gulf War showed that quite clearly. Personally I’m rather surprised that Israel didn’t eliminate Hussein themselves (under the table, of course). That we did so doesn’t prove your contention because we were on a generally hostile path with Iraq for more than a decade prior to the ’03 invasion. Hell, I had friends on the Stark back when the Iraq’s nearly blew her out of the water. One of the few things that kept us from going to war then was the overall strategic situation and the fact that Iraq was killing Iranians at the time.

    The history of Middle East international relations over the last century is full of poor policy decisions, for the US specifically, culminating in our direct involvement in the region, trying to argue that Israel is behind the scenes pulling the strings actually lends credence to SLC’s idiotic support for some of the atrocities committed by the Israeli government, not to mention his desire for those efforts to become even more destabilizing.

    ———-
    SLC,

    See my response to ole Don’s comment @ #64. As I said, he was foreign minister for 4 months before being shifted over to Finance Minister which was more suited to his talents.

    Problem is, your comment @64 doesn’t address the fact that you falsely stated that I was “wrong again” or address the fact that I was, right in both the specifics of the Foreign Minister claim as well as the larger argument that his position in the government at that time muddied the waters rather seriously regarding Israel’s attitudes towards the proposed war with Iraq:

    Gee, Bibi was foreign minister for a whole 4 months. I stand corrected.

    Also, he would have been Foreign Minister longer than four months if, as the Israeli government website claims, he was Foreign Minister in June of ’02 and, as you acknowledge, he filled that role within the government until February of ’03. That being the case, your snide dismissal of my comment regarding the mixed message sent by Netenyahu’s editorials as a private citizen, member of the government, and former prime minister was entirely invalid. You conceded one small point to another comment, you didn’t concede that your entire argument with this line of reasoning was unfounded. My argument, based on the fact that he was not only a member of the government, but the Foreign Minister, is quite true.

    Second point, this argument began because you claimed “many on the left,” and “many left media outlets” blamed Israel for the war in Iraq. Those claims are also demonstrably false because the only source you have provided, “old Don” here, flatly argues against it himself:

    8) Amount of information put out by the NY Times, Washinton Post, Fox News, etc to American citizens re GAP, water shortage in the Middle East, and how Iraq is being screwed with the Big Balldini: ZERO

    The sources Don has provided amount to editorials (Netenyahu), a policy position paper (which actually supports my position), and a number of articles that don’t support really anything Don is claiming. At this point, the only “left” source I’ve seen that supports your claim that “many” in the media blame Israel for the war is Don, Don, and Don. As ‘Bee pointed out, Don is not exactly a significant figure in the “media,” let alone, “many.” Unless Don has multiple personality disorder, or he is seven or eight hundred pounds and you’re claiming a weight-ratio meaning of “many” you’ve been shown to be wrong yet again.

  108. 108
    slc1

    Re dogmeat @ #107

    I will concede that dogmeat is correct that Bibi was, at least on paper, the Israeli foreign minister. However, it is significant that he was not present during the crucial meeting between Sharon, Wilkerson, and Powell at which time the former was informed as to US plans relative to the proposed invasion of Iraq and expressed reservations as the the proposed course of action. This would seem to show that, at least in the foreign policy area, Sharon had little confidence in his advice.

    By the way, the most influential figures on the left that have it in for Israel are Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of a most influential book on US foreign policy. Dogmeat will note that these fellows are ole Don’s favorite source of information. The same is true of Freethoughblogs’ own Mano Singham.

    However, my proposed course of action vis a vis Iran, which consists of the use of a half dozen 15 megaton bombs on Iranian nuclear sites, is based on the proposition that, allowing Iran to develop a nuclear capability would be completely destabilizing to the US position in the Middle East. I would note Iran’s support of Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Government of Bashar Assad in Syria, which consists not only of financial support but actual deployment of boots on the ground. Use of nuclear weapons against Iran would set that country back at least 20 years, if not longer. My position is quite clear, if we are contemplating attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, half measures will not do. Either we do it right or we don’t do it at all.

  109. 109
    Raging Bee

    … I wonder if you fell off the wagon and ended up clinging precariously to a job teaching physics in some rural high school in Mississippi.

    You say that like it’s a bad thing. And that speaks volumes about your character. If any of us teach physics in any high school anywhere, that’s more than you seem to have contributed to our species.

  110. 110
    Raging Bee

    My position is quite clear, if we are contemplating attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, half measures will not do. Either we do it right or we don’t do it at all.

    Agreed. And since we CAN’T do it “right,” in any sense of that word, we should stop pretending it’s an option, and talk about something else. Agreed?

  111. 111
    Raging Bee

    …allowing Iran to develop a nuclear capability would be completely destabilizing to the US position in the Middle East.

    As opposed to an unprovoked nuclear attack on a large nation like Iran, which would not be destabilizing at all, nosireebob, nothing but bunnies and light after it’s done. Mutant bunnies shining eerie geeenish light, maybe, but nothing destabilizing, Heaven forefend…

  112. 112
    Raging Bee

    Actually, I suspect that the folks who comment here and read this blog will associate with old Don…

    You suspect that, after all of us have clearly done the exact opposite? You’re as unhinged and bigoted as he is.

  113. 113
    slc1

    Re Raglng Bee @ #109

    Ole Don also considers the Washington D.C. area to be the asshole of the world. By the way,he is a graduate of UVA and a native of Southeast Virginia.

  114. 114
    Raging Bee

    And all of that is relevant…how?

  115. 115
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #114

    It’s always useful to know who one is dealing with.

  116. 116
    Don Williams

    1) That is SouthWEST Virginia, SLC. My people won the Revolutionary War while George Washington was out behind his tent giving blowjobs to French military officers/diplomats and desperately hoping none of his other senior officers would do a Benedict Arnold.

    Seek Wikipedia’s article on “Battle of Kings Mountain” (esp Prelude). and the US Army’s “American Military History”, Chapter 4, page 89 (“Nadir of the American Cause”)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain
    http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-04.htm

  117. 117
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #116

    Actually, I meant to say Southwest Virginia. Sorry about that.

    Actually, the most important engagement in the Revolutionary War in the South was at Guilford Courthouse, which was a British tactical victory but an American strategic victory for it caused Cornwallis to alter his strategy and march into Virginia where he chased Lafayette all over the state, failing to entice him to battle, as he had chased Nathanial Greene all over the Carolinas. He then marched to the Peninsula where a tactical draw and strategic naval victory by DeGrasse over an outnumbered British fleet sealed his doom. And of course, the general in charge of the force at Guilford Courthouse was Nathanial Greene from Rhode Island!

    Just for the information of ole Don, without the support of the Frogs, Washington & Co. would have lost the war and been hanged as traitors.

  118. 118
    Don Williams

    Re Dogmeat at 107:
    Always with the strawman. Let’s recap what I have shown:
    1) The Republicans lied us into Iraq but they had a lot of help from the Democrats. Because of
    an unholy marriage between the Big Oil billionaires and the Democratic Israel Lobby billionaires.
    Dick Cheney was clever to mask his oil grab as “Defense of Israel” in order to court some of the major
    DONORs of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Caucus was terrified in 2002 that billionaries like Haim Saban and S Daniel Abraham would defect to the Republican Party — so they played ball. Those who tried to
    put on a show of independence or who didn’t get the message were destroyed — Cynthia McKinney, Howard Dean, etc.
    2) You won’t get the full story from Rachel Maddow –or any other employee of Brian Roberts — but
    the Professional Left did as much to promote the WMD ghost stories –and make Saddam the enemy — as
    did the right. Some leftist bloggers criticized the deceit but only AFTER the war had started –by which time
    Saddam’s goose was cooked and people could begin wiping their fingerprints off the coffins.

    3) Look, e.g, at the LA TImes OpEd put out by Bill Clinton’s Ambassador to Israel Marti Indyk and
    his National Security Staffer Kenneth Pollack:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/19/opinion/oe-indyk19

    Or read Kenneth Pollack’s statements about Saddam’s Nukes in his bestselling 2002 book
    “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq”

    4) To their great credit, a few in the Democratic Party tried to speak up. Nancy Pelosi and Bob Graham –
    on the House and Senate Intel Committees — both publicly stated prior to the invasion that they had
    seen no evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat. Which killed Bob Graham’s career.

    But Jane Harman, RANKING DEMOCRAT on the House Intel Committee , did NOTHING to challenge the Bush Administration’s intel claims. Later, TIME magazine quoted her as saying that all she needed to know she got from Haim Saban’s Institute.
    TIME also reported that Haim was trying to twist Nancy Pelosi’s arm to make Harman Chairwoman of
    the House Intel Committee after the Democratic victory in 2006.

    5) Israel herself alone does not have the power to distort US foreign poilicy –it is the billionaires in the US Israel Lobby who do so. While Sheldon Adelson is a Republican, Haim Saban has long been a major backer of the Clintons — he boasted in his 2007 Haaretz interview about the Clinton’s fetching him soft drinks whenever he visited the White House.

    To say Mearshimer and Walt’s book “The Israel Lobby” is merely a policy paper is wrong –
    it has numerous references and citations to document its claim that the Israel Lobby helped Bush/Cheney push
    us into the Iraq War. Read it.

    6) This marriage between Big Oil and the Israel Lobby is of longstanding. look at how Papa Bush sent
    his ambassador April Glaspie to Saddam Hussein in 1989 to give Saddam a green light for invading Kuwait — and then Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos used his Chairmanship of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus to have “Nurse Nayirah” tell about Iraqi soldiers killed Kuwaiti babies in hospitals.

    A story later exposed as fraud but which beat the drums for war. I don’t recall Tom Lantos saying anything a few years later when Bill CLinton’s sanctions killed 600,000 Iraqi children –an act that Bin Laden cited as one of the three reasons for the Sept 11, 2001 attack.

    7) Yes — Bibi helped lie us into a disasterous War. So why do AMERICANS today criticize Obama for not getting along with that nice Bibi?

  119. 119
    Don Williams

    And , yes, Saddam Hussein was supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers in 2002 –but in reaction to the Likud helping Turkey shut off the flow of the Euphrates River to Iraq. A major casus belli if there ever was one.

    Saddam could do nothing about the Turks — he could only make limited moves against Israel. But
    US invasion of Iraq ended the wave of Palestinian suicide bombers:

    http://www.unboundmedicine.com/pedscentral/ub/citation/15666913/Did_the_defeat_of_Saddam_Hussein_reduce_suicide_bombing_casualties_and_attacks_in_Israel_A_statistical_analysis_

    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

  120. 120
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #116

    Actually I mentally conflate all the area south of the Occoquan together as a giant black hole inhabited by red necks, white trash, and peckerwoods.

    Re dogmeat

    Ole Don’s comments at 117 and 118 are an example of his patented Gish Gallop.

  121. 121
    Don Williams

    Re how NBC and MSNBC themselves were helping lie us into Iraq in 2002, see

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9886

    Anybody remember Phil Donohue being canned when he questioned the case for war?

    Look at Bill Moyer’s documentary “Buying the War”. I particularly liked Bill’s
    incredulous expression when Peter Beinart showed what an ignorant moron he (Peter)
    is during the interview.

    The Professional Left were Cheney’s bitches in 2002 — because, like Cheney, they do this
    for a living.

  122. 122
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #121

    Well, ole Don and I agree on this one, JINO Peter Beinart is an ignorant moron.

  123. 123
    Raging Bee

    Let’s recap what I have shown…

    Yes, yes, yes, I read your latest “recap,” and it’s just another disorderly heap of items we’ve already known for some time, NONE of which prove your original insinuation that Israel was to blame for any of the injustices you mention. There’s nothing new here, true or false.

    5) Israel herself alone does not have the power to distort US foreign poilicy –it is the billionaires in the US Israel Lobby who do so.

    Yeah, we debunked your bullshit about Israel, so now you’re backtracking and changing your story. To something equally bogus. (You really expect us to believe all reich-wing billionaires are part of the “Israel lobby?”)

    To their great credit, a few in the Democratic Party tried to speak up. Nancy Pelosi and Bob Graham – on the House and Senate Intel Committees — both publicly stated prior to the invasion that they had seen no evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat. Which killed Bob Graham’s career.

    Funny, you don’t mention one other Democrat who consistently opposed the Iraq war — BARACK OBAMA. This just reinforces my suspicion that you’re really nothing but a Republican hack trying to make Democrats look bad, while also trying to link valid criticism of Republican wars with mindless hatred of Israel. Go back to Karl Rove and tell him to give you some new talking-points we haven’t seen before.

    My people won the Revolutionary War while George Washington was out behind his tent giving blowjobs to French military officers/diplomats…

    Well, now we know why Don Williams isn’t taken seriously in grownup circles. (Oh, and if “your people” does not include Northerners, than your assertion is false.)

  124. 124
    Don Williams

    Re Raging Bee at 123:

    1) Again, you “debunk” nothing– I provided multiple citations to show that Israel’s Likud officials –
    Bibi Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, Shimon Peres — were urging the American People to invade Iraq in
    2002 and doing so with false claims about Saddam’s nukes. Which makes them culpable in the
    deaths of 4500+ Americans, the crippling of thousands more and the cost of $3 Trillion –which our
    poor and workers are about to eat with the sequester cuts. How this the act of an ally?
    Did Mossad ever find those nukes of Saddam’s?

    2) I also provided multiple citations that Israel was helping Turkey in Turkey’s move to cut off Euphrates
    water to Iraq, thereby provoking the acts which George W cited. Again, you join with those sellouts
    in the Democratic Party who only want HALF of the true story told.

    3) Re “it’s just another disorderly heap of items we’ve already known for some time….There’s
    nothing new here, true or false” is a meaningless statement. You do not identify which of my statements
    you agree with and which ones you think are false –much less provide facts to support your claims.

    You are just doing the usual pathetic ad hominems of those who give lip service to Democratic ideals –
    only to construct tortured rationalizations for why Democratic leaders sell out those ideals.

    I worked months of my own time for Obama in 2008 –in both the primary and general. I agree that he
    is an improvement on both Hillary and George W. But that is damming with faint praise — what has Obama
    done to punish –or even discredit — those who lied us into a disasterous war? Almost one of his
    first acts in office in 2009 was to let Bush and Cheney off the hook. Because there was at least part
    of the Democratic Party that was desperate to put the lid on that can of worms.

    4) I am amused by those like you who think US politics is a Sports Bar — in which one can only chose which
    of two drunken groups of fans to join. That one must always support “The Team” — even when the Team
    betrays America and Democratic principles just as surely as do the Republicans.

    Billionaire Haim Saban is a number of things — but he is not a Republican. Neither is billionaire S Daniel Abraham
    –who destroyed Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign in the Iowa primary with a barrage of anonymous, deceitful
    attack ads. I worked in that campaign.

  125. 125
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #124

    Just for the record, Howard Dean, who was a serious candidate only in the fantasies of the lame stream media, much like some of the Rethuglican candidates in the 2012 primary season, destroyed his own campaign with a madcap statement to the press after the results from the caucuses came in. Everyone, except ole Don apparently, thought that Dean was nuts,

  126. 126
    Don Williams

    1) I noted in post 49 that several factions in the US were promoting the invasion of Iraq as well as the Likud
    – but responses here insist on deceitfully distorting that to say that I am claiming it was all Israel’s fault.

    Likud did more than just support George W’s lies and make false claims about Saddam’s nukes. Haim
    Saban was and is one of their citizens –subject to their laws. Yet here he was in 2000-2002 doing the functional equivalent of subversion by dumping $14 million into buying the Democratic Party’s support for an unnecessary war that killed 4500 Americans. Is that the act of an ally?

    2) Recall again the propaganda that Haim was buying:

    http://www.eschatonblog.com/2006_11_19_atrios_archive.html

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_11/010260.php

    3) Where did Hillary stand up against this? Who was Hillary’s biggest funder in 2008? Yet who did
    Obama make his Secretary of State? Who is the Democratic frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic Presidential
    nomination?

  127. 127
    Don Williams

    Re SLC at 125:
    If everyone but me thought Howard Dean was nuts, then why was he made Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and thorn in the side of Rahm Emmanuel?

    And if his campaign was so hopeless, then why did billionaire S Daniel Abraham spend $200,000 on
    anonymous TV attack ads in the Iowa primary to torpedo Dean’s campaign?

    Even Forward blinked at that one, given that Abraham’s assistant , Sara Ehrman, was an advisor on
    Dean’s campaign staff. heh heh

    See http://forward.com/articles/6347/campaign-confidential-/

    (scroll down to “Fat Contribution”
    PS note that Forward is wrong — Abraham gave $200,000 to the Kill Howard attack.

    The above Forward article also notes how AIPAC’s Steve Grossman — Dean’s OWN CAMPAIGN MANAGER –
    stabbed Dean in the back right before the Wisconsin primary. ha ha ha Scroll to
    “Grossman’s Game Plan”

  128. 128
    Don Williams

    Re the hit job on Howard Dean See also

    http://www.publicintegrity.org/2004/03/04/5563/commentary-political-mugging-america

  129. 129
    Don Williams

    Meanwhile, it appears that Bibi’s outreach to Turkey a few days ago (post 86 above) has hit a ..er..rough patch:

    “ANKARA, Turkey U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday waded into the controversy over comments by Turkey’s prime minister equating Zionism to a crime against humanity, rebuking the leader of the NATO ally by saying such remarks complicate efforts to find peace in the Middle East.

    Kerry said the Obama administration found the statements by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “objectionable” and he stressed the “urgent need to promote a spirit of tolerance, and that includes all of the public statements made by all leaders” at a news conference in Ankara with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

    “We not only disagree with it; we found it objectionable,” Kerry said. He added that he had raised the issue with Davutoglu “very directly.”

    Davutoglu, however, gave no acknowledgement of the U.S. complaint and denied that any Turkish official had made hostile or offensive comments about Israel. Instead, he blamed Israel for acting in a hostile way toward Turkey. He repeatedly referred to the deaths of nine civilians at the hands of Israeli commandos aboard a Gaza-bound Turkish aid ship in 2010.

    “If Israel wants to hear positive statements from Turkey, it needs to review its attitude,” he said. “It needs to review its attitude toward us, and it needs to review its attitude toward the people in the region and especially the West Bank settlements issue.”

    “If a country violates openly and clearly the right to live of our own people, we will always preserve the right to come up with statements, come up with remarks,” Davatoglu told reporters.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57572001/john-kerry-turkish-prime-ministers-zionism-remarks-objectionable/
    ———
    My father-in-law was a full colonel in the US Army, fought behind the enemy lines in Korea as a forward artillery observer, spent time in a Korean POW camp and was manager of the program that developed the Hellfire missile. He always said that the one people on Earth he would not want to fight would be the Turks — that they are absolutely merciless motherf%$#kers.

  130. 130
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #129

    Yes, indeed, the Turks are tough guys. However, Erdogan has decimated the high ranking officer corps to prevent any possibility of a coup against him, mulch like ole Joe Stalin did to the Soviet high ranking officer corps after the disinformation campaign organized by Richard Sorge. As Napoleon said, in war, the men are nothing, the man is everything.

    Erdogan has also threatened to intervene in Syria, threatened to attack Cyprus, threatened to attack Greece, as well as mouthing off at Israel. He’s just a lot of hot air. Now Assad pere and fils, those guys don’t fool around. Hama rules.

  131. 131
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #127

    How much money did Adelson piss away on Gingrich, Rmoney, and the smear campaign against Hegel? How’s did that work out?

  132. 132
    Raging Bee

    Don @126: first you deny claiming Israel was at fault for the Iraq war and other atrocities. Then, in the very next paragraph, you go back to your routine of cherrypicking events to try to blame Israel (or the “Israel lobby,” you can’t seem to decide which) for the Iraq war. You’re a liar and a coward, and you don’t even have the balls to stand by your own words. So when you also claim to have worked for Obama, I give that zero credence. Either you’re really as bitter, self-important, self-righteous and resentful as you act here — in which case there’s no way you’d subordinate that ego to any campaign for any length of time — or you’re a reich-wing propagandist still doing the post-9/11 schtick of planting wild, idiotic nonsense into left-wing discourse to discredit critics of Republican wars and make us look like mindless Jew-haters. I’ve heard your fake-radical routine before, I’ve seen who really benefits from it, and I know it’s bullshit.

  133. 133
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #132

    As much as it pains me to say something positive about ole Don Williams, I regret to inform Bee that, indeed, ole Don did, in fact, campaign for Obama in 2008. He mentioned his activities over at Matthew Yglesias’ old blog on several occasions. I really miss that blog which had a number of characters commenting, there, including ole Don, myself, Richard Steven Hack, and someone whose moniker escapes me who used to rant and rave against abortion. There were some others but their monikers escape me. Yglesias himself was something of a character who used to rant and rave against the height limit of buildings in DC. Not surprisingly, Yglesias is from New York City. It is my understanding that, like Andrew Sullivan, he has since relocated to that burg.

  134. 134
    dingojack

    SLC – “I regret to inform Bee that, indeed, ole Don did, in fact, campaign for Obama in 2008.”
    Just for clarification, citation required (and no, independant of ‘ole Don’)
    Dingo

  135. 135
    slc1

    Re dingojack @ #134

    I don’t have any independent verification, other then ole Don’s descriptions of his activities; I had no reason to doubt his claims. As should be evident, I don’t take him too seriously, based on my experiences several years ago at Yglesias’ blog. Over there, he was just one of a number of characters that provided entertainment value.

    Actually, if you think that ole Don is a little off, you should have seen Richard Steven Hack, another commenter over there. Now there was a real nutjob, a former convicted bank robber who spent 9 years in the slammer for his crimes. The description of how he was caught attempting to flee the scene of his stickup by public transit was quite amusing.

  136. 136
    dingojack

    SLC – Just to be clear, I’m not doubting you, I’m doubting him. I pays to be sceptical, especially with ‘conspiracy theorists’* like ‘ole Don’.
    Dingo
    ——-
    * Yes, that is a euphemism, thanks for asking

  137. 137
    Don Williams

    well, I do constantly get emails from BarackObama.com begging for money. Here’s a recent one
    care of someone named Jon Carson:
    “Don –

    Today, because congressional Republicans refused to act, devastating budget cuts known as the sequester are going into effect.

    They’re self-inflicted wounds, and they didn’t have to happen.

    Congress can stop all of this right away — and pursue a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

    That’s what the vast majority of Americans want, and yesterday, more than 100,000 Americans called on Congress to be reasonable about the budget.

    Add your name now:

    http://my.barackobama.com/Tell-the-GOP-to-Act

    Thanks,

    Jon
    —————-
    (attached was a similar gloomy msg from Jim Messina.)

    As Donnie Brasco said, “Just When I thought I was out –they pull me back in.”

  138. 138
    Don Williams

    Note how Raging Bee at 132 exemplies the incoherent butt-kissing liberal of today.

    He knows better than to address the facts so he never says: “This is True “–and provides evidence. Then say “This is False” — and provide evidence.

    No –everything has to be a vague , emotional diatribe of irrelevent ad hominems that evade specifics.

    I could be motherf&%$king Darth Vader and that would not make my statements of FACT more true –or
    more false.

    His post is pathetic,really. An embarrassment to anyone who actually believes in the ideals and principles of the Democratic Party. Because he is obviously reluctant to measure the performance of the Democratic leadership over the past 12 years against those ideals.

  139. 139
    Don Williams

    Note to SLC: I left Yglesias’s blog in response to Center for American Progress’ constant dicking with the blog software — comments were being dropped and you couldn’t tell if it was technical incompetence or deliberate censorship. When they deleted the archives of past discussions, that was the last straw. You can’t have a discussion if the long term memory is one day.

    One thing I did enjoy was watching Matt’s traffic nosedive on Alexa in the two months after I left — at which
    point he left for Slate. Possibly not voluntarily.

    A fitting end to Harvard Boy –who claimed he never thought the comments of his readers were worth reading — and hence failed to realize that those comments were the only reason people came.

    Well, and to laugh at philosopher Yglesias’ failure to realize that philosophical analysis is no remedy for a deep ignorance of the world. Although it was his refusal to moderate the free discussion –unlike most heavyhanded political blogs — that made it a success.

    Obviously, It was not my departure that took the blog down –many other oldtimers were fed up with CAP. And some of them have also expressed nostalgia for the old days:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/doug-smith-useful-idiot-watch-%E2%80%93-matt-yglesias.html

  140. 140
    Don Williams

    Re SLC at 131: According to Huffington Post, Sheldon dumped $150 Million into the Republican Party — and
    his buttboy Newt says Sheldon is trying to buy an invasion of Iran.

    Obviously Sheldon didn’t spend wisely –but he has another $22 Billion to figure out how to do the job right.

    And Sheldon does has a valid point about other wealthy men spending to put a thumb on the scale but disguising their bribery by laundering the money through a variety of organizations.

    Haim Saban invests in politics more astutely — he bought Univision , the primary Spanish TV network for all those swing voters in California, Texas and Florida. Get the the electoral votes of those states and you are close to capturing the Presidency for your puppet Hillary.

  141. 141
    Don Williams

    Re dingojack at 136:

    Yes — one-sided, obdurate scepticism is the common trick used by intellectuals wishing to disguise
    deep ignorance. It is a tired old shtick –but ,hey, it is a shtick.

  142. 142
    dingojack

    OK then the simple antidote is evidence. And, of course, you can provide ample independently verifiable evidence, naturally.
    Dingo

  143. 143
    Don Williams

    re dingo at 142:
    I worked as a volunteer in Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign, in Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign (both primary
    and general) and in the Congressional campaigns of Dan Wofford and Lois Murphy. If you are anything but a pimple on the butt of the Democratic Party, you will have the contacts who can check the records to verify that.

    I did change my registration to Independent after the massive failure of the 111th Democratic Congress. When the leadership shows signs of wanting to actually advance Democratic ideals, I will consider returning.

  144. 144
    Don Williams

    But , hey, I could Karl Rove wearing a dress — and that would not make the facts I cited above less true.

    Nor would it make the inadequate failure of the responders here to provide any contrary evidence — or any evidence or knowledge at all — less embarrassing. In –what? 143 posts.

    I feel embarrassed for you, SLC. Your posse has the intellectual firepower of a Hare Krishna group. Point out how Reality contradicts their delusions and they can only desperately chant more loudly.

    Pathetic.

  145. 145
    dingojack

    Um Don – You don’t get it. You made the claim, you have to prove such a claim,
    I’m not required to research to prove or disprove it Besides, I’d like independently verifiable evidence, if possible.
    Dingo

  146. 146
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #143

    Dingojack is an Australian and lives in Australia.

  147. 147
    slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #143

    My posse? This isn’t my blog. Thus far, ole Don hasn’t met the real heavy hitters in these parts, Michael Heath and the Hanley brothers, James and Scott. Of course, he probably would look down on Prof. James Hanley who teaches political science at Adrian College in Michigan.

  148. 148
    Don Williams

    SLC at 146: “Dingojack is an Australian.”

    Oh, well, then who cares what he thinks. His father and uncles would have been speaking Japanese
    if the US Navy hadn’t moved to protect them in the 1940s — and he will be learning Chinese tomorrow
    if this US sequester continues for several years.

    A nation of pansies — no wonder my appeal to defend principles causes him to respond with a blank,
    uncomprehending stare.

  149. 149
    dogmeat

    SLC @20:

    Re dogmeat

    Ole Don’s comments at 117 and 118 are an example of his patented Gish Gallop.

    *chuckle* I kind of picked up on that. Seems to be of the “if you can’t prove it, say it again and hope they believe you this time” school.

    SLC@ 108:

    However, my proposed course of action vis a vis Iran, which consists of the use of a half dozen 15 megaton bombs on Iranian nuclear sites, is based on the proposition that, allowing Iran to develop a nuclear capability would be completely destabilizing to the US position in the Middle East. I would note Iran’s support of Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Government of Bashar Assad in Syria, which consists not only of financial support but actual deployment of boots on the ground. Use of nuclear weapons against Iran would set that country back at least 20 years, if not longer. My position is quite clear, if we are contemplating attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, half measures will not do. Either we do it right or we don’t do it at all.

    See, there you go again, just when I’m leaning towards the idea that you might not be barking mad, you go and make a comment like this. Serious problems with this “solution.” First, of course, being the international fallout caused by such a drastic escalation of force. Second, equally obvious problem, you have the literal fallout from such a strike, not to mention the human casualties that simply aren’t justified. Third, if you think their support for anti-Israeli organizations is a problem now, such a move would dramatically increase their support and likely would lead to massive attacks on Israel, the US, and our shared allies as every country in the region would see an increase in opposition to the United States compounded by a martyrdom of Iran and massive support for the country as well as anyone who opposed the US. Your “solution” is utter madness.

    SLC @147:

    Thus far, ole Don hasn’t met the real heavy hitters in these parts

    Ouch, I take a couple of months off and I’m no longer a “heavy hitter.” That smarts… “say it ain’t so, Joe, say it ain’t so.

    To be honest, I don’t think Don has peaked the interest of the heavy hitters, I know I’m not really motivated to address his foolishness, I’ve mostly been checking back on the thread to see what you have to say regarding the misstatements you’d made.

  150. 150
    slc1

    Re dogmeat @ #149

    As dogmeat has probably gathered by this time, I don’t take ole Don very seriously. I used to engage him at Matthew Yglesias old blog several years ago and had finally decided that he was probably mostly harmless. I have to admit to finding his conspiracy theories endlessly fascinating, just as Ed Brayton finds Glenn Beck’s conspiracy theories endless fascinating.

  151. 151
    Raging Bee

    He mentioned his activities over at Matthew Yglesias’ old blog on several occasions.

    If all you have is his word, that’s not enough to go by.

    PS: Don, we’re not disputing your facts, we’re disputing your transparently dishonest cherrypicking and misuse of said facts in support of insinuations that are clearly not supported by the facts you mention. Do you really think none of us understand how conspiracy-buffs and propagandists like you operate?

  152. 152
    Don Williams

    Re Raging Bee at 151:
    1) I have provided facts to support my statements. Not only have you not provided any facts to contradict them, you have evaded specifically addressing which of my statements, if any, you think are incorrect. You are the functional equivalent of a blond , bimbo high school cheerleader who thinks if she says “Einstein was a nerd” then that effectively refutes the Theory of Relativity.
    2) Your vaguely worded scepticism does not refute my statements — it confirms them. If the evidence was not on my side you would not have to make such contorted efforts to avoid addressing the point.

  153. 153
    Don Williams

    I do have one “conspiracy theory” however. I can’t help wondering if Karl Rove installed Raging Bee here to discredit the liberal community — by being an embarrassment.

    Bee’s lofty disdain is hilarious when one realizes there is no substance there –only intentional (or possibly unintentional) ignorance. He or she should consider working for the New York Times. I hear Judith Miller’s slot is open.

  154. 154
    Raging Bee

    Your vaguely worded scepticism does not refute my statements — it confirms them.

    Yeah, everyone who disagrees with your conspiracy theory is part of the conspiracy.

    You are the functional equivalent of a blond , bimbo high school cheerleader…

    Comparing me to a negative female stereotype — further proof that you’re right, right? Stay classy, moron.

  155. 155
    slc1

    Hey Don, there’s a post up about your favorite bete noir, Sheldon Adelson. How about it?

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/03/07/adelson-bribed-foreign-officials/

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site