Say Anything Blog

LA news?  At least he speaks his true thoughts, not like the flip-floppers.

What the liberals in general, and Stein in particular miss is that this is not a war of choice. The War with Terror has been ongoing for at least 25 years. The Iraqi Theater of this War is what has spun up the liberals, but we’re in this War, like it or not. Islamic-inspired terror is something we’ll have to face one way or another. Saddam sponsored these terrorists, and removing his support of them was no less a valid strategic goal than bombing German ball-bearing plants in WWII.

Stein: But, please, no parades.
Chief: At least he speaks his true thoughts, not like the flip-floppers

Tis true, Chief, but like the liberal he is, he (Stein) is still trying to impose his ideologies on the rest of us.  You don’t like military parades, don’t watch them.  It’s really that simple.  I don’t like anti-war demos so I don’t go to them.  In a diverse and free society, you get to pick and choose for YOURSELF.  You shouldn’t be able to choose for others, something many liberals don’t seem to understand.

They went there to defeat a truly evil ruler prone to feeding political dissidents into plastic shredders...

Impressive!

docdave:

he (Stein) is still trying to impose his ideologies on the rest of us.

Davey, I find the use of plastic shredders by Saddam Hussein to be one of the most horrifying of all the atrocities he comitted, so I use it a lot when I’m tryint to illustrate what an evil man he is.

Should I not do that?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] Radio host Hugh Hewitt interviewed L.A. Times columnist Joel Stein (the “I don’t support the troops” guy) on his show today.  You can listen here. [...]

What is wrong with honoring the job our troops have done in Iraq? They went there to defeat a truly evil ruler…

That sounds pretty noble. Except that is not why the war was allegedly fought. Here is Bush’s letter to Congress, asking for the authority to launch his invasion of Iraq.

In it you will see that he talks about the “the continuing threat posed by Iraq”, not the mission to defeat a truly evil ruler. What “the continuing threat” was alleged to be was the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. Indeed, that threat was the main and really the only reason Bush had majority support for the Iraq war. It was the reason so many Democrats voted to authorize the war. It was of course an entirely bogus justification. Iraq had no WMD. Iraq posed no threat to the United States. And, most importantly, Bush had sufficient reason to know this, and he dismissed evidence contradicting his claims and knowingly lied to the nation to start his bloody, disastrous war. Bush should be impeached for that reason alone. But there are many other reasons as well.

Note also that Bush makes mention in his letter of his alleged authority to do pretty much whatever he feels like to “take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Despite endless demagoguery on the part of the Bush Regime to convince Americans that Saddam and Osama perpetrated 9/11 together, there is no evidence that Saddam or Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks on the US. Bush has admitted this is the case.

Again, a very good reason to impeach Bush and Cheney. They intentionally lied about this Saddam-Qaeda connection to bolster the case for war against Iraq.

As for the matter of supporting the troops, when a tyrant has taken control of the nation, unquestioned loyalty to those instruments of government that do his lethal bidding is, at the least, unpatriotic. The acts of soldiers in a democracy are acts of the people. The soldiers are merely the bayonets, and generally do not question why. That is because it is the responsibility of the PEOPLE to question why for them, and to insure that the soldiers not be deployed on murderous snipe hunts. And the people have in this case abandoned that responsibility and have (on the right) instead called questioning “treason”. Meanwhile, the American snipe hunt in Iraq has murdered, maimed, and slaughtered thousands of innocent people, for no purpose save the attempted aggrandizement of an ignorant egomaniac (Bush), and with the effect of destroying whatever moral advantage the US might have justifiably claimed from being attacked on 9/11.

Finally, soldiers are not exclusive arbiters of what is just and true and brave. They are weapons. And when a dishonest and depraved mind is directing those weapons, binding the American people to the terrible consequences of their acts under his administration, it is the responsibility of ALL citizens to vigorously oppose that malfeasance.

To think otherwise, to use soldiers as some kind of magic deflector of criticism against a demonstrably dishonest and criminal policy, is to hide behind the blood of those soldiers one claims to support, and more importantly to dismiss the cruel and inhumane acts they commit in the people’s name. It is, in other words, cowardice of the lowest order.

(jk)

jk, now that you have gotten that same tired anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American diatribe that we all have heard from you leftists so many times before, you can crawl back into your troll hole when whence you emerged.  And please, please, make the same assertions to the next soldier you see, tell them that they are mindless weapons, tell him how you hate the president and hopefully after you pick yourself off the floor you will be enlightened in a different way.

Don,
I was there.  I have written on this before.  Yes, I will be glad to trade facts with you.  Saw many blown up.

Yes, connection and cooperation between Sadam and Terrorists.

Care to back that up with some evidence?

Probably not.

Yes, WMDs.

Uh...no. I’m afraid you are mistaken. You’re wrong. Factually incorrect. Completely without basis in fact. Not in posession of the facts.

I have no illusions of penetrating your reality proof helmet, but there it is. I’m right, you’re wrong, goodnight everybody!

Didn’t want you to leave.  Three of your references were from 2003.  NOAM !!  Mr. “a complete fabrication” himself, the failed linguist and then stepped into completely unknown territory, politics.  Thanks for your references.  I was wondering where you were coming from.  I have read the Anti-Chompsky reader.  Quite revealing and humorous.  I really liked the part where he went to France and said that the holocost did not happen.  I wonder if he thought other people were too stupid to translate his publications?

Your 2003 sources were from CNN, etc.  We will both probably be referencing from different places.  We will probably not agree on unbiased sources.  For a beginning, how about globalsecurity.org?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/09/iraq-050930-usia01.htm

WMDs to follow.  I have a few more minutes before a meeting.

Iraqi Spies Reportedly Arrested in Germany
16 March 2001

Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties.

The most serious report contained information that Iraq and Osama bin Ladin were working together. German authorities were surprised by the arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin. They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Ladin. The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies.”

The full link reference:  http://www.meib.org/articles/0104_irb.htm#irb3

Chief:

So you’re telling me that the CIA, the UN, the BBC, and the entire corporate-owned media is part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the existence of WMDs when we invaded Iraq in 2003---and that you, and only you, are willing to divulge the truth?

Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?

jk-
I don’t have time to refute your assertions at this time.  Yahoo them yourself.  Recently declassifed 30Sept05.
Yes, connection and cooperation between Sadam and Terrorists.  Yes, WMDs.  Yes, threat to his neighbors, and our interests (not oil) and other peaceful, democratic countries.  Since WW II, when there were just two or three democracies left, we are now close to a dozen or more.

I was right---your reality-proof helmet is completely intact, chief!

Since none of your links are germane, your understanding of Dr. Chomsky non-existant, and your faith in the Bush regime unshakable, I’ll simply wish you a good day and be on my way.

Have a nice day in crazyland, dude.

jk,
Great link.  I get quite a bit of information from them including satellite imagery.  I was not talking only about 2003.  The invation kicked off around 2002.  Speeches were given before that.  The report you cited states:  In the years following Iraq’s war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait, Saddam’s Regime sought to preserve the ability to reconstitute his WMD, while seeking sanctions relief through the appearance of cooperation with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).

Satellite technology showed the movement of over 100+ military vehicles leaving Baghdad, headed toward Seria. 

Please do not take an exchange of facts as instructing.  Again, a group, or groups not finding thing is proving the negative, and yes, I must leave for a meeting, but check back here at SA from time to time.  Take a look at my website if you have some time.  It could cut to the chase as you said.

Remember, Don, in a debate, each side should try to prove their points, not the negative.  Yours were the negative.  Here is the WMD point:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-02-poland-iraq_x.htm

This happened while I was there.  We could get international news, not just “MSM” like CNN, etc.  You do know that the enemy, has CNN linked from their web site.

We will, and can win this GWOT if certain people would stop working for the enemy.

ChiefRZ:

I really liked the part where (Noam Chomsky) went to France and said that the holocost did not happen.

Chief RZ is discussing the Faurisson affair, where Dr. Chomsky defended Robert Faurisson’s right to author a book denying the Holocaust. Faurisson was a professor of literature in France.

Chomsky even wrote the preface to Faurisson’s book.

Chomsky writes:

Faurisson’s conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as “the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy.

Dave, since you are still here.  Don, I don’t blame you for leaving, and don’t connote anything of it.  I left yesterday and returned.  I enjoy an honest exchange of facts.  The references were right on.  The chemicals were in the tubes.  There were more, but this discussion is unfair because you are trying to prove the negative.  Name-calling will not help a discussion.  I go with facts and The Truth.  The author worked for 28 or so years for CBS as I recall, and he is not joking.  Noam still does not admit that 2,000,000 Cambodians were slaughtered after Vietnam by Pol Pot!  Neither does Jane.  Lets stick to facts, and not speculation.  History is difficult to change.

Dave,
Do you remember where Noam tried to deny what he said, except several of his students videotaped him?  He still said, “a complete fabrication”.  No, I was referring to his writing in the French Journal.  References are at home.  He is a slippery one, but to his credit, does engage in discourse.

Chief RZ writes to instruct us: “We will probably not agree on unbiased sources. For a beginning, how about globalsecurity.org?”

I assume you are enlisting that as an “unbiased source”, correct?

OK, then check this out.

And let’s cut to the chase, since you are too busy to get specific on your own:

“ISG [Iraq Survey Group] has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.”

Once again, in case you missed it, and recalling that this is the same ISG that Bush repeatedly told us would render the definitive judgment on whether the WMD rationale for the Iraq war had any credible basis: “ISG [Iraq Survey Group] has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003.”

OK, your approved source. Bush’s approved agents. The conclusion is quite clear, and plainly contradicts your contention.

Anything else? Or do you have an important meeting?

(jk)

I did use my helmet to defend against our enemies.  The trouble here, is that sometimes it is difficult to discriminate between them.  They are so crafty and slippery.

A person will have to judge for himself why Chomsky allowed himself to cozy up to Guillaume and Faurisson, but we have yet to hear an acknowledgement of the 2,000,000 deaths at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.

Here are some more sites.  Take a look at the pictures recently declassified:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/#doc15

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

Kind of like saying that Adolph Hitler never directly told anyone to “kill all the Jews”:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

“Unable to rule out unofficial movement of WMDs to Syria”.  March, 2005.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf

The trouble with liberals to quote Michael Graham, is that they do not even acknowledge good and evil.

Either you two have never confronted bad people, lawbreakers, gang members, or you do not acknowlege their existence.

The Truth:  It took another teacher and I almost 2 1/2 years to finally catch a drug user and distributor in our public school.  Same for one with alcohol.  The principal dismissed the 4/5ths quart of liquor we caught him red-handed with in this locker “well, the seal wasn’t broken”.  The drug, a felony, but since he was 15 years old, he was more protected by extra-rights not conferred by the SCOTUS.
“Someone must have put it there”.  He got 3 days suspension.
We lost a good teacher who would not put up with the covert lying by that principal.  I stayed and finally busted several disruptors and others preventing the good students from learning.  I fought for their rights, and continue to do so.  If you can not recognize the evil in the world, I am sorry for you.  I have tried to enlighten, not instruct, because that would require a pupil open to learning.  The best question a student can say is, “I don’t know, but am willing to learn”.

Chief RZ:

Remember, Don, in a debate, each side should try to prove their points, not the negative. Yours were the negative.

Well said, Chief.

In addition to that, Don usually mixes in a nice slurry of personal insults then wonders why he never changes anybody’s opinion (except usually to repel them from his own).

Chief RZ:

Do you remember where Noam tried to deny what he said, except several of his students videotaped him? He still said, “a complete fabrication”. No, I was referring to his writing in the French Journal. References are at home. He is a slippery one, but to his credit, does engage in discourse

I’d be interested in that reference.

I’d be interested in that reference.

I’m sure it’s coming shortly.