Powered by TypePad

« The Health Scare That's Always There | Main | A Second Health Worker Infected By Ebola In Dallas »

October 15, 2014


Beasts of England

The early bird...


Glen Campbell releases his final song ever - I'm Not Gonna Miss You. He has Alzheimer's Disease...


Captain Hate

Glen's case has been known about for a while and is very sad. He recently became involved in a dust up about intellectual property in the making of a documentary about him which raises the emotionally charged issue of how much contractual liability can you give to a person with Alzheimers.

My musical buds who saw him perform have uniformly told me that Glen was a fantastic guitar player, an aspect of his work which was overshadowed by his song writing and singing abilities.


Intentinally bringing it here via Cloward Piven?
PC anti racism run amok?
Some combo of the above?
Something else?

Rush - according to Joan's description of his explanation from the other thread - is surely right about why the administration would go to such embarrassing lengths as to offer patently illogical explanations for how closing the border to West Africans would actually make us less safe than leaving it wide open.

It's all about the Mexican border. They'll let Ebola in and hope for the best rather than do anything that might hamper their open border project.


And now some of these weapons are being targeted on the Kurds, re Kobane, how many weapons were used at Halabja anyways, the Wikileaks shows many instances of chemical weapons release by insurgenrs throughout the 00s

Miss Marple

Here is the article I mentioned at the end of the last thread.



and here is Malor's post:


Miss Marple

Another child dead from enterovirus.



You have to put our open borders progressive lice in the wider context of the progressive lice in EUtopia who successfully established the Mahometan plague on European soil. The Global Village Idiots are not confined to the US.

We must always remember "It takes a village to hack eight aid workers to death."

Does anyone know the President's tee time today? I always feel safer when he's on the course.


The Malor article linked on the previous thread is good, but it seems to me the distinction between an "active" and "" weapons program is not so clear. He quotes Bush from a couple of speeches:

United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Active or inactive? The real point is not that Bush was so clear about it; it's that the distinction isn't even important, unless the issue is only whether they might use the weapons in the very near future.

He also doesn't emphasize the fact that the weapons were only one of several reasons, others related to violations of previous agreements, of the no-fly zone, etc.

Barry Dauphin

Shorter NYT: No WMD, except those that hurt troops cuz Bush lied. Info in Duelfer report but Bush lied. No big deal then, is big deal now cuz Bush lied. And BTW Bush lied.


oops, the "" was supposed include "inactive" or "potential."

Fred Beloit

NYT: "After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims."

But before "Mr. Bush" was elected and insisted, Mr. Clinton insisted, Mrs. Clinton insisted, Mr. Kerry insisted, all top Dems insisted that Iraq had WMD. It is all on videotape.


Why is the Duelfer Report lost to history? With 20/20 hindsight, the report confirmed that Sadaam kept bio/chem weapons and the means to produce more, but military incompetence and Shia military undermining the resource led to the Intel assessments overstating the capabilitiy. Even today, some bio/chem weapons are still extant, and usable. I just wait for the day that the Kurds capture ISIS bio/chem weapons, and demand the world exterminate ISIS based on their crimes against humanity, and Barry orders boots onto the Iraqi ground .

Published July 30, 2012

Associated Press

Facebook Twitter Email

BAGHDAD –  The British Embassy in Baghdad says it will help the Iraqi government dispose of what's left of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons.

The remaining munitions are stored in two bunkers in southern Baghdad.


Two bunkers?

Why did this story never get traction from Bush himself?

Captain Hate

But before "Mr. Bush" was elected and insisted, Mr. Clinton insisted, Mrs. Clinton insisted, Mr. Kerry insisted, all top Dems insisted that Iraq had WMD. It is all on videotape.

It's pretty embarrassing how the evidence has always been there yet assholes like the Shitberger family pretended it didn't exist. I guess they figure everybody's as stupid as the drones who read their trash newspaper.


because it doesn't serve the narrative, remember the converse was Gulf War Syndrome, a condition that didn't exist, Lewis Libby was among the investigators into that,


well most of the publications followed Carlos Slim's lead, all through out the 00s, the ones more likely to have knowledge of such weapons, like the Republican Guard, were deemed political dissidents, or some such,


I'm shocked the NYT published this. Yes it was exhaustive and a 1000 or more man hours went into it, but it ultimately admits the truth, saddam had a massive stockpile of bio/chem weapons in 2003, in violation of all of his solemn 'oaths' to the 'UN'. He probably had production capability which he shipped to Syria, and has been used against rebels in Syria. All of this detroys the 'Bush Lied' narrative. Yes the Intel was wrong in substance about saddam's WMD battlefield capabilities in 2003, but Bush fess'd up to that without reservation. Why didn't Bush -- and especially Cheney-- push back based on the Duelfer Report and other information? I assume they concluded that debating that would be a loser with the entire media screaming 'LIAR', and the last thing they needed in 2005-2006 during the insurgency was to refight WMD.

Cecil Turner

Why did this story never get traction from Bush himself?

Because we weren't worried about chemical weapons that couldn't possibly be delivered in America, only biologicals, which could've been. The WMD "stockpiles" were only of interest as they indicated Saddam was cheating on the UN agreement, and hence that his BIO program was probably still active. Per the Duelfer report, they were:

The security services operated a series of laboratories in the Baghdad area. Iraq should have declared these facilities and their equipment to the UN, but they did not. Neither the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) nor the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) were aware of their existence or inspected them.
Bottom line, though, is that propaganda works. The NY Times has already informed us that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Bush lied, and Joe Wilson is a paragon of anti-war virtue. Oh, and that post-9/11 anthrax agent was from Steven Hatfill's pond, or some guy who was already dead, so don't worry about it.


And it turns out thank you Meryl Nass, it wasn't Hatfill either, or Ivin's apparently, it just spontaneously generated,

Miss Marple

More Dallas Ebola details:


Miss Marple

Dow already down 360 points.


CecilT-- I agree with that. Because of political circumstances, and the pre-2003 Intel was erroneous in substance-- the Legacy Media propaganda worked.


some of these folks need chiropractors:



No one mentions that the whole WMD issues was not the only issue that prompted the 2nd Iraq war: it was one of many factors. It is the media that made it the primary impetus to the war. In truth it was the the state lawlessness of the "axis of evil' that needed to be dealt with, and let us remember that this formulation is in essence not new, however new the sloganeering might be. Reagan spoke of the same actors, along with other such as Libya decades ago.

We seem to have forgotten what a force state backed terrorism was in the 3 or 4 decades before 911, and forgotten as well how weakness of the Western state enabled it.

The Left wants us to forget all of this, of course, because the Soviet Union was the major source of monies, training, equipment, logistics, international political support and ideology and attendant propaganda for these outrages. It was all a part of their global strategy--and was so long before the "Cold War" one might add. All that has come since is in a very real sense the legacy of the Soviets.

Clearly there was great danger from these outlaw states. This was the reason for acting, and most certainly clear action was required after 911; to act meekly then would have been suicidal.

Of course, the broader question is: why does the Left and its party so consistently oppose the West fighting its enemies. But there is a more specific question: why did the left straightaway seize upon this particular issue full well knowing that it was a lie? I do not think that we have an answer to that in full, but I would suggest that some pockets may have been lined, and they knew that the evidence would be obscured.

Beyond that, it evidently is the case that technical matters are a source of confusion to the electorate and thus a fertile ground for propaganda.

Why, when we saw at close range the mendacity of the Democrats in the Vietnam period anyone would assume anything resembling honesty out of the Left, their party or there propaganda organs truly puzzles.

Until the American people can see the Left for what it truly is this will just go on and on.


the nutroots have gone full strigoi, see we were right, even though we were catastrophically wrong,

btw, heck of job, Karl,

Papa Ray

"It's to America's shame forever the lack of treatment AND benefits that American Soldiers and Marines Received."


of course, if the casus belli is denied, then the war is illegitimated



I inquired with our ChiTown friend about the markets today. Equities selloff, Bond yields dive, they seem like recession signals. He disagreed, he doesn't think they are 'real economy' recession signals (he believes we have been in a recession 2008-to date, so he would call it worsening existing recession), but instead unwinding of bad financial position bets, and TBTF banks continuing to circle the drain. Our friend has a Jihad against NYC Money center TBTFs, so the last bit is not accepted wisdom IMO.


Another episode that galls: the notion of "mission accomplished" being some sort of reflection of the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration.

This is a smaller issue, but it has never been addressed.

When Bush landed on the carrier, a brilliant and courageous act so far as national morale and unity goes, those banners that said "Mission Accomplished" were for the "Deck Party" that every capital ship has when it ends a combat cruise. The banners where meent for the crew of the ship. Bush nor the GOP had anything to do with them. They referred to the Mission of the ship, and indeed nothing could be more clear than the fact that their mission was indeed well accomplished.

The Media knew this. This was not a matter of ignorance of military custom at all. . In fact there were plenty of these sort of Deck parties as ships rolled off of their combat cruises and returned back to the states. The media was invited to several of them.

For over a decade now this has become a signal bit of propaganda mocking the imagined hubris of the Bush administration. In fact it was nothing of the sort. It is a complete lie.

None of this will change until they are called out by the GOP and conservative publicly.

I long for the day that a POTUS calls them out on their lies in national address and call these traitors by their true names.


I meant in 2012 when the AP confirmed the existence of WMDs, Cecil.

Bush could have pointed to the violations, got ahead of the narrative, and put the Media on the defensive.

Instead he hides.


TK-- you must be a fan of the tactics that led to the Lord Cardigan's Light Brigade charge and Custer's Little Big Horn campaign.


Good point NK.

If Bush would have shown a backbone in 2012, Romney would have lost the persuadeable vote and ultimately the election.


GWB hid from nothing. He survived the most incredible and prolonged propaganda assault--one international in scope--the world has seen since the NAZIs.

If anyone "hid" it was that portion of the American people that are taken in by this nonsense.

GWB had broad faith in the American people. What it misplaced?


^WAS it misplaced?

Lisa Teller

Great quote "Will Obama announce that we need to send ground troops back into Iraq to secure WMDs?" However Obama ALWAYS opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom, thus he NEVER cared about WMD's. Never.


None of this will change until they are called out by the GOP and conservative publicly.

Which was Bush's job, and he refused to do it.

Good posts, square.

Lisa Teller

The media is still invested in discrediting Iraqi Freedom. Check out how carefully this paragraph is written to discredit Bush & the war: "After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program...United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims." The inspectors main task was verify Saddam's cataloged stockpiles were destroyed per treaty. Saddam kicked them out which is why the inspectors "could not find evidence". Also Bush and every intel agency in the world not only said Saddam had a WMD program but had stockpiles. Even with these discoveries, the Times not only cannot admit Bush was correct but still implies his justification was misleading.

Captain Hate

Bullshit. Bush was never comfortable fighting the propaganda war and didn't level with the American people about the progress in Iraq and let the donks set the narrative. Karen Hughes was the only person in his circle who pushed back against that and once she left, Rove enabled his passive nature.


LisaT-- you are right of course to point out that Pinch demands that the story start out with repeating the Prog WMD meme (although they do back off the Bush Lied business), but if you read the entire story, in I believe it is the penultimate paragraph, the story says flat out admits that Bush's war on WMD stockpiles continued until 2011, because those stockpiles were indeed there and potential threat to the USA. I am truly shocked the NYT published this.


From Ace:So you find again—and I'm sorry for repeating this so many times, but it seems that it has been forgotten—the three themes of Bush's war plea: Iraqi resistance to disarmament, Iraqi ambition to arm once more, and terrorists. Those were the casus belli for the Iraq War. Not solely an active weapons program, as the NYTimes would have you believe.

Progressives deeply invested in the lie during the Bush years that no WMD were found in Iraq. Bush gave many reasons for the war, but progressives seized on just the presence of WMD and then pretended it was the only reason for war. We've known they've been wrong about the lack of WMD for many years now. But, upon the chance that ISIL will find and use any remnants of WMD, however, progressives have had to modify their story even more.

Now, progressives have finally admitted that Hussein's stockpiled weapons were found during the Iraq War, but claim these were not the weapons Bush said would be found. This is just one more lie. And they've compounded it with another lie: that the sole reason for the Iraq War was an active weapons program.

As I have demonstrated from Bush's own contemporaneous words, an active weapons program was not the sole reason for war. In fact, an active weapons program was not even mentioned in the multiple speeches Bush delivered to the American public and to an international audience.

Do not let the NYTimes get away with its false history of the Iraq War. The war was not made solely based on claims of an active Iraqi weapons program. It was made because, as President Bush explained repeatedly to the American public: Saddam Hussein possessed old weapons of mass destruction, desired to evade inspections so as to keep them, hoped to restart his weapons programs in the future, and could pass weapons to terrorist groups with ambitions to harm the West.


Bush was weak in the knees because of Rove?

I am taking about post-presidency Bush, Squaredance.


1. The pre-2003 Intel assessments were WRONG; they were based on incomplete info and reached completely erroneous conclusions on Saddam nuke programs, and substantially wrong conclusions about bio/chem;

2. Bush War messaging highlighted the WMD threat to the USA, as the obvious most persuasive argument to voters-- that highlighting was discredited by the Intel errors;

3. When Duelfer and other reports reached their conclusions, the insurgency was growing, and Cheney's 'bitter enders' claims had been discredited for voters;

GWB had a weak hand, and he didn't push a bad politcal position on WMDs when the pressing military and political issue was defeating the Insurgency. Bush put the national interest of beating the Jihadi insurgency ahead of his own ego. Isn't that the exact opposite of what Obummer does. IMO you can always criticize GWB military/political calculations, but you can't ignore the facts on the ground at that time.

Captain Hate on the iPad

TK, if that was addressed to me, Bush didn't level with the citizens nearly often enough on progress of the war which was a major responsibility of his. As his political adviser, Rove should have badgered him to do it.


We don't know that, Rans Brix, assured us that was all there was, but 'the rush to war' covered 18 monthes, in which much of the weapons could have been moved. then the Times arranged for the Harmony archives to be shut dowm remember that.

the core of the insurgency, then as now, are Sunni Baathists in the intelligence and military establishment, that is the continuity that runs all the way back to the Golden Square in the 30s.

Captain Hate on the iPad

NK, I have no idea what you're accusing me of stating in this thread.


Oh, Cheney, Rumsfeld Rice, et. al. were all over the talking head shows, and made plenty of push back.

They never once got a square shake. Rice in particular was treated it the most vile of manner. The cartoons that appeared of her were of the sort the Democrat propagandists put out in the Civil War.

GWB must have done something right. He was overwhelmingly reelected and return control of the hill on his coat tails.

This meme about Bush not "fighting" back is just so much sour grapes.

The facts and, more importantly, the accomplishments were there.

The truth of the matter is that as time went on a substantial portion of the electorate could not stand up to the pressure of the propaganda campaign.

The notion that "Bush not standing up" lead to the debacle of the first Obama election is also false.

The financial collapse before the election was a purposely triggered "October surprise" by the international, institutional Left. Pair that with broader voter fraud and the fact that GOP let the media pick their candidates, and that lose was inevitable and had little to do with GWB "fighting back".

To think that Bush would be able to fight that machine on the ground without using all all of his time and resources is preposterous.

It was never about a fair exchange of anything.

True, Reagan could speak over the heads of the media to the people, but this wonderful capacity is exceedingly rare--so much so that Reagan is somewhat of an anomaly. Besides, the make up of the nation has so changed since Reagan's day. The electorate could be counted on for a modicum of common sense, sobriety and decency back then.


No the WMD was the argument at the UN, because they are mostly terrorists of one stripe or another, and the only democracy they care about is their own thugocracies, that was Wolfowitz's argument,

Stephanie accidentally OnT?

Shorter NYT: These aren't the stockpiles you were looking for.


Captain Hate on the iPad

Bush needed to address the nation directly, like Reagan and Roosevelt did. Sending your cabinet members out to the Sunday gab shows, which most of the nation ignore, is a poor substitute. That is part and parcel of effectively prosecuting a war and leaving it undone is inexcusable.


CH-- I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am merely insisting that Iraqi Freedom critiisms of GWB be grounded in the context of the facts, military and political at the time. My personal criticsms of GWB are:
1. he didn't cut civilian spending $100B/year to pay for Iraqi Freedom without more debt (this was an Andy Pandy war supporter criticism as well) and 2. GWB didn't follow Clarices advice on war messaging to use the 'totality of Saddam threat circumstances' rather than stress the lowest common denominator of 9/11-WMD.

My highest praise for GWB is he fought Iraqi Freedom and the Insurgency to win, and he put the national interest first. He was on the whole principled and politically courageous IMO. I will always respect that.

jimmyk on iPad

"No one mentions that the whole WMD issues was not the only issue that prompted the 2nd Iraq war: it was one of many factors."

I guess I am no one @8:43. Or maybe squaredance means no one in the MSM.

Cecil Turner

Bush needed to address the nation directly, like Reagan and Roosevelt did.

He certainly could've done better, but it's unrealistic to expect one (very busy) man to counter every made-up fact from the professional propaganda corps. An overview of how much time was spent on the JW IV/Plame fiasco is instructive.


That was sorta directed at you, CH.

I misread your comment, attributed it to Squaredance, and responded poorly.

Time for my morning nap, I guess.



I find myself in agreement with squarednce on this one with the caveat that though W an co. pushed back they did so too civilly and ineffectively.


Exactly--The anti-Bush--Plame and WMD charges are intertwined and classic studies in propaganda.


I took it to mean no one of national significance, Jimmy.

Although I think you are pretty significant.

Captain Hate on the iPad

CT, I never meant to imply that he had to counter every specious argument; that is what a press secretary is for. What he should have done is give the nation regular updates on what was happening in the war from the perspective of the CiC.

Cecil Turner

The pre-2003 Intel assessments were WRONG; they were based on incomplete info and reached completely erroneous conclusions on Saddam nuke programs, and substantially wrong conclusions about bio/chem;

Some of the details (e.g., aluminum tubes and mobile labs) are wrong, but the main conclusions are pretty unremarkable:

    High Confidence:
  • Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
  • We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
  • Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
  • Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material
    Moderate Confidence:
  • Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84).
    Low Confidence
  • When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.
  • Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.
  • Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.
Considering we're talking about some of the most sensitive national secrets of a secretive regime, it's really not that bad. And the size of stockpiles, though overstated, were qualified by the methodology (i.e., pre-war admitted stocks minus those destroyed); and obviously they were talking about older weapons . . . a point many "analysts" in the press refuse to acknowledge.

By far the biggest error AFAICT is the ongoing production of chem claims . . . and while that may have been of critical interest to Iran, it was hardly the main event for the US.


It is heartening to see now that "Bush lied", which used to mean "there were no WMD", now means "many of the projectiles in his massive WMD stockpile were dirty and some wouldn't have worked".

--2. Bush War messaging highlighted the WMD threat to the USA, as the obvious most persuasive argument to voters-- that highlighting was discredited by the Intel errors;--

It is erroneous to say only those that could have been used in the USA were used to justify the war. The chemical attacks on Iran and the Kurds and the continuing threat to the Kurds and other Iraqi minorities and Iraq's neighbors including Israel were all issues repeatedly used to justify invading Iraq.


The pre-2003 assessments were most wrong about nukes. The bio/chem assessments were largely correct. Bush's messaging focused on saddam having the WMD potential as a clear and present danger to USA security (rather than being co-equal for the many other reasons to take out saddam). The fact that the Intel assessments were wrong in part, became the Prog propaganda meme.


--Bush's messaging focused on saddam having the WMD potential as a clear and present danger to USA security (rather than being co-equal for the many other reasons to take out saddam).--

I'm not sure how you quantified that, but I clearly remember his laying out the various reasons repeatedly.
There was considerable debate about the WMD leg and none about the other legs, so they may have spent more time defending that leg since the left spent more time attacking it but to say Bush overemphasized it is a claim that would need some verification before I conceded its accuracy.


Ig-- in 2002 on GWB indeed methodically laid out all of the reasons to remove the Baathists. It's refected in the War Resolution. However, the voters weren't interested in going to war for anything but the WMD issue. That's why GWB focused attention to that and why the Progs focused their pre-war 'rush to war' propaganda on the WMD Intel being vague and inconclusive. This is politics and messaging, and they take on a life of their own.


I don't consider rewording your last comment verification, NK, but I suspect neither of us have the time nor inclination to do what would constitute verification and so we will have to agree to disagree your concession that I am totally right. :)

Cecil Turner

The pre-2003 assessments were most wrong about nukes.

Not sure I can buy that one . . . it says they were months to a year away after acquiring enough fissile material . . . in other words, not very close.

Cecil Turner

W an co. pushed back they did so too civilly and ineffectively.

I completely agree, but it's important to understand the dynamics of a classified information leak war. The leakers have an inherent advantage over those trying to protect classified information, both in initiative (i.e., deciding what subject to leak) and in tactical effect (i.e., cherry-picking details for maximum damage). The administration is always on defense, and has to defend the entire program, and often has to declassify everything to put the details in context; and to decide whether the exposure is worth it (a decision that is vastly more complicated in wartime).

Again, the Wilson/Plame affair is instructive, as his early leaks claimed patently false information protected by classification. Another good illustration is the Pentagon Papers. Yes, they could've done better, and should've played harder ball. But a president (especially a GOP one, who can expect less than favorable press coverage) is inherently vulnerable to this sort of thing.


CecilT-- shorthand, Saddam's nuke program was nowhere. He didn't have fissile material. he didn't have the money to buy it and he couldn't produce it. same goes for warhead production.

John Moore

The "Bush lied" section reminds me of coverage of climate change. Every scientific article that shows evidence casting doubt on it has an apologia that it really doesn't cast doubt on it.

The comments to this entry are closed.