Yes, Virginia, Intelligence Agencies Mislead People
Of all the ridiculous pseudo-controversies I’ve witnessed in politics, the one between Nancy Pelosi and the CIA from earlier this year was surely the dumbest. Pelosi alleged that she’d been misled by the CIA regarded the details of some illegal orders that CIA personnel had carried out. The right then began to savage Pelosi, not based on specific information that she was wrong about this, but based on the lunatic notion that it’s just outrageous in general to claim that the CIA would ever lie to congress. Even more preposterously, the political press decided to treat these attacks very seriously as if we’re a nation of naive children that doesn’t realize intelligence agencies sometimes help presidents cover up illegal activities.
At any rate, here’s Spencer Ackerman with the news that six members of congress report that Leon Panetta conceded in testimony that the CIA has, in fact, misled congress:
I’ve said this before, but a lot of the structure of the current set-up of the CIA is basically designed to give presidents an outlet for illegal orders. It needs to change. There’s room for government secrecy, but there’s no good reason for the government to be keeping secrets from congress. That’s what you do if the president is trying to get you to help him cover up something that’s illegal.
49 Responses to “Yes, Virginia, Intelligence Agencies Mislead People”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 9th, 2009 at 11:29 am
The old joke about the intelligence agency that kept three sets of records–one to mislead the enemy, one to mislead Congress, and one to mislead themselves . . .
July 9th, 2009 at 11:34 am
The right then began to savage Pelosi…based on the lunatic notion that it’s just outrageous in general to claim that the CIA would ever lie to congress
Outrageous for the Speaker to claim it, not outrageous to think it.
Of course, its possible that wingnuts may indeed consider it outrageous to even think it.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Well, since it is impossible for the CIA to mislead Congress, that simply means that when Panetta testified this, he was misleading Congress. Oh, wait . . . [universe implodes]
July 9th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I thought I saw Panetta taking on Pelosi on this a while back and suggesting she was full of crap. Was that not the case?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:37 am
The right then began to savage Pelosi, not based on specific information that she was wrong about this, but based on the lunatic notion that it’s just outrageous in general to claim that the CIA would ever lie to congress.
It’s amazing Pelosi believed that the CIA was being honest.
She probably figured they were lying but there was little she could do. Not exactly profiles in courage.
The right thinks torture is okay as long as the good guys are doing it to bad guys. If bad guys do it then it’s not. That’s as much as they’ve thought about it.
If they were lying they should be punished or else they’ll keep doing it.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Panetta never said a thing about Pelosi being full of shit. This non-denial denial was the most substantive CIA statement on the matter. It was obvious that Pelosi was telling the truth (she’s not the sort of person to keep digging a deeper hole when it won’t help) and I have no clue why Newt Gingrich, the supposed intellectual backbone of the party, was so sure she lied. Between that and calling Sotomayor a racist… his political sensibilities have really gone out the window. Although I guess that was the case for the ‘95 shutdown as well.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Panetta’s wording at the time was very measured. He did not actually contradict Pelosi, though at first glance (and the media interpreted it this way) it might look like it did.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Re Matthew’s comment “There’s room for government secrecy, but there’s no good reason for the government to be keeping secrets from congress.”
————–
Er..actually, that is a long and honored tradition.
Goes back to the founding of the Republic. France and Spain wanted to help the American Patriots but did not know if we would fight and did not want to get dragged into a war with Great Britain if we proved unreliable allies.
So they had Caron Beaumarchois (Barber of Seville,etc) set up a covert intelligence operation — a front company called Hortalez et Cit to smuggle 100,000 muskets to America under cover of the Caribbean trade. (Caron was dumb enough to lend large sums of his own money to the Cause –and was fucked by the Founding Fathers when he asked for repayment).
The USA would not exist today if not for that covert operation –it was pivotal in the Battle of Saratoga, for example. And American success in that battle was what convinced France to join us.
yet Continential Congressman John Adams was endangering the operation by blabbing about it to his friends within months to show his power and access.
Read between the lines of the Constitutional Convention — George Washington was keenly aware that some Congressman can’t keep their mouths shut.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I’ll say it was a fake controversy. Who do these Republicans think they are anyway, given the extent to which the Bush Administration bitch-slapped the CIA all around the Beltway for its “failed intelligence on WMD.” Bush and Cheney and their apologists beat up on CIA every day — both as a justification for invading Iraq in the first place and then as a cover for their botched invasion once no WMD turned up. The 180 degree turn that the GOP did on the CIA — morphing from its loudest antagonist to staunchest supporter — fooled no one outside the Right Wing echo chamber.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I’ve had up to 4 SCI clearances in the past, by the way.
I would also note that there are two big problems for whistleblowers in the intelligence community. One is being FORCED to tell the Executive Branch that they are going to snitch to Congress 30 days before they do so.
The second is having to figure out which members of the Intel Oversight Committees are dirty. Can you imagine some naive fucker complaining about fraud in intel contracting to
Duke Cunningham?
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2007/07/dysfunctional-house-intelligence-committee
July 9th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I’ll say it was a fake controversy. Who do these Republicans think they are anyway, given the extent to which the Bush Administration bitch-slapped the CIA all around the Beltway for its “failed intelligence on WMD.”
Yes the Bush Administration and Republicans are to blame in the first place, but it’s also worth noting that George Tenet told Bush it was a “slam dunk.”
And as the FBI found out, Saddam was in fact bluffing b/c of Iran. The fact is the CIA didn’t know but they told Bush what he wanted to hear.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
That yellow pop-up got me confused for a bit. Thought it was my pop-up and when it seemed to be stuck, I had to go to another tab and back to see if it’ll go away. Realized it’s part of the screen capture itself.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
The CIA desperately needs to keep its operations secret.
If the guy on the street understood the dirty deeds of the CIA, it would be disbanded.
Iran, Chile, Cuba, Central America, Venezuela, Colombia, etc.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Misleading Congress is a crime. So, I assume that somebody in the CIA committed a crime, and that person (or persons) will be prosecuted.
If there are prosecutions, I will believe Nancy Pelosi. If there are no prosecutions, this is obviously BS meant to cover Pelosi’s ass.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Al clearly doesn’t understand how crimes work at this exalted level. Edwin Meese once decided, in a similar situation, that crimes had been committed but that no one individual had actually committed them. Therefore, no prosecutions. I’m sure the same logic prevails here.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Poptarts:
Apparently it’s literally impossible to make Poptarts skeptical of government claims.
Sure, they lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and then lied again about WMD. But this time, they MUST be telling the truth!
July 9th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Poptarts:
Yes the Bush Administration and Republicans are to blame in the first place, but it’s also worth noting that George Tenet told Bush it was a “slam dunk.”
And as the FBI found out, Saddam was in fact bluffing b/c of Iran.
Apparently it’s literally impossible to make Poptarts skeptical of government claims.
Sure, they lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and then lied again about WMD. But this time, they MUST be telling the truth!
The FBI could be lying but I doubt it in this case. Why do you think they’re lying? It does make sense. Saddam was irrational.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Or does it annoy you that Clinton’s CIA guy George Tenet said it was a slam dunk? People always seem to leave that out… I wonder why.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Jonathan, you have to understand that even now Poptarts thinks it was perfectly okay for the US to slaughter, and cause to be slaughtered, hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.
Blaming Saddam Hussein allows Poptarts to imagine he is not a monster. The fact that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth and George W. Bush was lying doesn’t have any effect on Poptarts’ reality denial.
(That Clinton’s CIA guy said something only demonstrates that he too was dishonest. It says nothing about the facts on the ground – which were obvious to anyone not intent on mass murder.)
July 9th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Poptarts:
1. Because that’s the assumption that any human being with the ability to learn from experience would start with; and
2. The documents the FBI released have literally no evidence Saddam said he was trying to make Iran believe he had WMD.
That’s a fair point. Kudos to you for picking up on my deep and abiding affection for George Tenet and Bill Clinton.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Jonathan, you have to understand that even now Poptarts thinks it was perfectly okay for the US to slaughter, and cause to be slaughtered, hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.
Blaming Saddam Hussein allows Poptarts to imagine he is not a monster. The fact that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth and George W. Bush was lying doesn’t have any effect on Poptarts’ reality denial.
(That Clinton’s CIA guy said something only demonstrates that he too was dishonest. It says nothing about the facts on the ground – which were obvious to anyone not intent on mass murder.)
“Not as Stupid as” writes some of the most worthless, contentless comments on the blog. Even the insane posts by the conspiracy mongers have more content and style.
Bush didn’t lie. The CIA said it was a “slam dunk.” Saddam admitted he was bluffing, b/c he was more afraid of Iran than the UN/US.
If Saddam was bluffing instead of cooperating – and of course anti-war people taking the side of a genocidal dictator said he was cooperating – if he was bluffing it could lead people to believe he had WMD.
What people didn’t realize is that a decade of sanctions plus Saddam left Iraq a disaster. That’s what caused all the violence. They should have taken out Saddam after Gulf War I. He annexed a UN member. He committed genocide. He should have been taken out, but everyone was a “realist” back then.
Fact is it’s good the dictator Saddam is gone, that the majority Shia have a say in their government and share good relations with neighboring Shia Iran, which is slowly improving things in Iran. And a moderating Iran will avoid an arms race in the Middle East and a conflict with loco Israel who is always itching for a fight.
Now we know for sure there are no WMDs and no Iraq is no longer under sanctions and they have their sovereignty back. It’s not like the US overthrew a democracy and replaced with a compliant dictatorship.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
2. The documents the FBI released have literally no evidence Saddam said he was trying to make Iran believe he had WMD.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/middleeast/03saddam.html?scp=1&sq=Saddam%20FBI&st=cse
The ousted Iraqi dictator “was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq,” according to a summary of questioning by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The inspectors, he feared, “would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq,” he told the F.B.I.
The summaries of 20 formal interviews and five additional “casual conversations,” as his captors called them, all between February and June 2004, were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, a private research group at George Washington University. They were posted Monday night on the archive’s Web site, nsarchive.org.
You’re a liar, stupid and dishonest.
Look, I sympathize with the conspiracy minded b/c I’m susceptible to that sort of thing. But sometimes the government tells the truth b/c it has nothing to fear.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
AL @14:
Misleading Congress is a crime. So, I assume that somebody in the CIA committed a crime, and that person (or persons) will be prosecuted.
If there are prosecutions, I will believe Nancy Pelosi. If there are no prosecutions, this is obviously BS meant to cover Pelosi’s ass.
Methinks you’ve made a terrible and naive assumption.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Strangely missing from this discussion is exactly what topic the intelligence briefings lied about. For all we know, it may have been the size of Saddam Hussein’s pen*s.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Poptarts:
Nope, sorry. As I said: the documents the FBI released have literally no evidence Saddam said he was trying to make Iran believe he had WMD. What they do have is that Saddam supposedly said he was worried continued inspections “would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq” — a perfectly rational concern, given that the U.S. had just in Desert Fox used the inspections to directly identify where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq’s conventional military.
I assume you don’t know this, but the inspectors reported on every last detail of the Iraqi defense establishment, including looking through their secret strategic doctrines. There has literally never in history been a country that’s revealed as much information about itself without being conquered and occupied.
By the way, Iraq tried repeatedly to make a deal to re-admit the inspectors post-Desert Fox. They just insisted that there be a clear path to them being declared disarmed, rather than the previous endless inspections that the U.S. desired. So the idea this was all part of a super-duper master bluffing plan makes no sense to begin with.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Then there’s this from Poptarts:
Actually, the anti-war people were taking the side of the CIA:
July 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
There has literally never in history been a country that’s revealed as much information about itself without being conquered and occupied.
Such sympathy (empathy?) for Saddam! Well Saddam was lucky we didn’t topple him the first time around. We should have done that and given Iraq full sovereignty without sanctions or inspectors. Instead we colloborated with Saddam by devastating Iraq for a decade. We were listened to Saudi Arabia who wanted to maintain the Sunni minority in power in Iraq over the majority Shia. Plus there is the mess that an invasion would cause.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Poptarts:
I see you learned your rhetorical techniques from Madeleine Albright.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, Poptarts, but I’m working under the assumption that you’re Peter K.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Pelosi. She’s a tough old warbird, isn’t she. She stumbled and bumbled a bit when the Right launched their initial “CIA never lies” salvos, but she never panicked.
I wouldn’t mind going toe to toe with her in a drinking contest. She would probably bury me, she has the look of a woman who tips them back pretty good, but I would enjoy the hell out of it. I might even try to feel her up.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Yeah, it is a pseudo-scandal where Nancy Pelosi is concerned. Strange then that it’s being perpetuated by Democratic members of Congress who continue to write and leak letters about it to the CIA Director and liberal bloggers who choose to highlight it.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Can we just get rid of the CIA? Its a elitist club that has never added any value for the absurd amount of money spent on it.
Soviet Union? wrong
WMD? wrong
Over throwing democratically elected gov’ts? wrong
July 9th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Why did Matt go to the trouble of taking a screencap of the letter instead of just linking the image?
July 9th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
CIA is not much of an elitist club anymore.
Out of necessity the lower ranks are being filled with
middle class 2nd/3rd generation immigrants hailing from all over the globe. Too bad there is such a bias against anyone who learned a language in country.
The CIA has lied to everyone since it’s inception. It was very good at payoffs, poor at analysis and inept in both covert operations* and humint.
*operations in Afghanistan post 9/11 but pre-invasion being one exception
July 9th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
You know Poptarts, given that you are, even now, supporting the mass murder of the Iraqi people, I’d say you give me a run for my money on “most worthless, contentless comments on the blog.”
The fact is that, even if Saddam Hussein was bluffing, there was zero actual evidence for the proposition that he had WMDs. Zero. The weapons inspectors on the ground followed every wild goose the Bush administration pretended to have spotted. They looked into every red herring the Bush team presented. Not once did they find even the least bit of evidence of anything. You know this.
But telling the truth doesn’t serve your purpose. You want to mitigate your responsibility for the wanton death and destruction caused by your favored solution for Saddam Hussein’s crimes – collective punishment of his victims.
For all that you suggest that Iraq is “getting better,” you provide no actual support for the proposition that Iraq is a better place now. And not surprising, how are conditions for the average Iraqi? What proportion of them are still refugees in their own country? How are medical services? What about utilities? How about the jobless rate?
The fact is, Iraq is a fucking disaster and the decade of brutal sanctions didn’t help. But the real cherry on the shit-sundae you and your kind served them was the absolute lack of concern for the people of Iraq that let you bomb the fuck out of them for no real gain at all.
That’s the reality. Not bullshit about who used what phony “intelligence” to gin up this bloody mess. You, and all the rest of the mindless fucking twits who think that Iraq is better off having been “bombed into freedom” should be required to give up everything you have and then moved forcibly into Iraq to experience the joy of what you have wrought.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
What I suspect Poptarts really objects to is that I continue to suggest that those who promote mass murder, without some overwhelming justification (say, the prevention or elimination of an even greater evil) are bad people.
Worse, I continue to post that those who still justify their support for such mass murder, long after their rationales have been exposed as a tissue of lies, are monstrous beings who should simply shut the fuck up and leave foreign policy to those who are not demonstrably monsters.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:34 am
“Not as Stupid”
The fact is that, even if Saddam Hussein was bluffing, there was zero actual evidence for the proposition that he had WMDs. Zero. The weapons inspectors on the ground followed every wild goose the Bush administration pretended to have spotted. They looked into every red herring the Bush team presented. Not once did they find even the least bit of evidence of anything. You know this.
The FBI files released via the Freedom of Information Act show that Saddam didn’t cooperate with the inspectors b/c he wanted to bluff Iran and he didn’ tthink the US would do anything about it.
Maybe you feel if the dictator of a police state who has committed genocide attempts to annex a neighbor and member of the UN, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. The terms of his surrender was that he cooperate with weapons inspection which he didn’t.
The fact is we didn’t know if they WMDs or not untill after Saddam was gone. Since you want to personallize it like a typical self-righteous anti-war prick, I’ll say I was never gung ho war.
I just recognize that we didn’t subvert a democracy and replace it with a dictatorship and I recognize that Iraq wasn’t all rainbows and flying kites under Saddam.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Oh good, you’re here.
Poptarts suggests that I am either unwilling, or unable, to provide content. This is actually true. I am unwilling, most of the time. Because those I oppose are insensate to facts and logic. Let’s examine the 2009 support for the war on Iraq’s people (sorry guys, that’s as nice as I can be about it).
Let us begin with a simple proposition.
No amount of evidence can “prove” a false proposion. By way of analogy. I say “all apples are green.” I provde 1000 green apples. I provide testimonials from George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice. Poptarts responds by showing me a red apple. I follow up with a ton of green apples and a statement from George Tenet, Bill Clinton, and Jesus Christ.
My proposition is still false.
Let us now consider the proposition: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
This proposition is likewise false. It is not as easily shown to be false as “all apples are green,” but in 2009 this can hardly be a controversial claim – this claim has been exhaustively tested and found to be false.
So, any argument that begins from the premise that Saddam Hussein had WMDs is, by definition, false.
Now, one might object that using 2009 knowledge to argue against action in 2003 is unfair.
There are two problems with that. First, it ignores the mountain of evidence in 2003 that undermined all the claims that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Second, this isn’t 2003 anymore. One might forgive someone (say, Matt) for in 2003 listening to the people who were wrong. But only if, in light of the new evidence, that individual accepted that evidence and rejected its conclusion – the United States was right to attack the people of Iraq.
Poptarts’ argument that the anti-war (and here we see the excessive rhetoric that Poptarts is willing to use, unable to admit that those who opposed Bush’s war could be anything other than simple-minded opponents of war) people “took the side of a genocidal dictator [over that of George Bush]” requires that we ignore the historical record. Saddam Hussein said “I don’t have WMDs”, George W. Bush said “He has WMDs.” I know this isn’t politic, but history tells us that Saddam Hussein was right and George W. Bush was wrong.
A couple more points. The proposition that George W. Bush was merely delusional and supported by an entire industry of delusional people belies the record. The arguments in favor of Iraq having WMDs were all based on pretty flimsy evidence that was debunked in real time (anthrax, aluminum tubes, Niger yellowcake…). Either George W. Bush was so mind bogglingly stupid he couldn’t be trusted to tie his shoes, or he knew he was lying. Given the evidence that he wanted to go to Iraq before becoming President, the smart money is on lying.
All of this might have been debatable in 2003. But in 2009 it is not. Poptarts wants to argue for outcome based war “Fact is it’s good the dictator Saddam is gone.” But if Cain is convicted of murdering Abel and spends four decades in prison, only to find that Abel is living in Montana, then a miscarriage of justice has occurred. It’s not that hard. Even if Cain were a genuinely bad guy who had robbed a liquor store.
The trial that convicted an innocent person would be rightly mocked. No reasonable person would argue that “well, that is the best we could do, and it is a good thing that we did it.”
But that’s what fuckwits like Poptarts, James Robertson, and Will Allen want to argue. And not over the conviction of a single innocent man. They want to justify a criminal act that took the lives of hundreds of thousands.
And for some reason, that pisses me right the fuck off.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:41 am
By the way, Poptarts, you might have noticed that Iraq isn’t all rainbows and flying kites under the post unprovoked assault governmnet either. In fact, you might even notice that in addition to kites (that did exist under Hussein) they now also have car bombs and ethnic cleansing (which did not).
Jesus fucking christ you are an idiot. You whine about content free posts and then post this bullshit strawman crap as if the anti-mass fucking murder for no goddamned reason crowd were all cheerleaders for Saddam Hussein. How fucking content free is that?
What assholes like you and the rest of the apologists for George Bush’s splendid little war all seem to ignore are the costs of the war. It’s like spending a million dollars to cure a hangnail and saying “but look, the hangnail is gone!” Sure, but so fucking what? You wasted $999,999.15 over the $0.85 it would have cost you to put a bandaid on it. And I’m not just talking about the cost in dollars. I’m talking about the cost in human life, and human potential, mostly Iraqi, wasted by your anti-moral preening.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
What assholes like you and the rest of the apologists for George Bush’s splendid little war all seem to ignore are the costs of the war. It’s like spending a million dollars to cure a hangnail and saying “but look, the hangnail is gone!” Sure, but so fucking what?
It’s not that hard. Even if Cain were a genuinely bad guy who had robbed a liquor store.
So Saddam wasn’t that bad. He was like a hangnail and his crimes were like robbing a liquor store.
You are so wedded to your thesis, everything you say is suspect. Just another self-righteous asshole, who is callous to the tenth degree about what happens to non-Americans.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
When Poptarts loses and argument or gets caught with his facts wrong – that is, on days with a Y in their name – he shouts “You love Saddam!” to salve his burning humiliation.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read:
Yes, stating that we have gained an unprecedented level of evidence about pre-war Iraq sure is an expression of sympathy for Saddam Hussein.
Or classic lashing out behavior from someone who doesn’t have a comeback to a strong argument.
One or the other.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
You are so wedded to your thesis, everything you say is suspect.
Says the guy who assures that Bush didn’t lie.
You are so wedded to your thesis, everything you say is suspect.
Projection, they name is Poptarts.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The trial that convicted an innocent person would be rightly mocked. No reasonable person would argue that “well, that is the best we could do, and it is a good thing that we did it.”
He wasn’t innocent jagoff. He didn’t comply with the weapons inspectors.
Plus he was guilty of genocide, starting a disastrous 8 year war with Iran, invading and annexing a member of the UN, and running a torture-police state.
But you want to make it all about Bush b/c you’re a typical anti-war prick.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Projection, they name is Poptarts.
Joe from Lowell who felt we shouldn’t have gotten involved in stopping the genocide in the Balkans b/c that’s Russia’s neighborhood. Pure callousness.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Assigning positions to me again, I see.
Back in reality, I supported the Kosovo War.
You make things up when you’re losing arguments, and you decide what MUST BE true based on how much you want it to be true.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
BTW, the question to which George Tenet answered “It’s a slam dunk!” was not “Does Iraq have WMDs?” or even “Does the evidence show that Iraq has WMDs?”
The question he answered “It’s a slam dunk!” was “Will I be able to convince the American public that Saddam has WMDs?”
Among the reality-based, the matter of what is actually true, and what the politically powerful can lead the public to believe, are considered two different categories.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Poptarts, unable to find a single hole in the chain of reasoning stoops to pretending he doesn’t get analogies.
In a cost benefit analysis, you can’t leave out the costs you fucking moron. All of your insane ranting manages to leave out any costs for the war. Both to the American people (mostly in money) and to the Iraqis in lives, money, and living conditions.
Also, you dimwitted shit for brains, Saddam Hussein was innocent of having WMDs. I covered that in my analogy (that would be the liquor store part – fuckwit). But you were too stupid to understand it.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Oh, and dipshit? Before you complain about people who “launch wars and run torture states” you should stop supporting those who do.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Poptarts:
False, but I don’t have the energy to go through the details. And it’s not like Poptarts has much interest in reality in any case.
What is worth pointing out is the WMD question was always completely irrelevant. The U.S. didn’t care about them when Iraq was making and using them in the eighties, and we didn’t care that Iraq didn’t have them anymore in the nineties and afterwards. Our policy toward Iraq never had anything to do with them, although they were a convenient pretext to justify what we were going to do anyway.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Jonathan, since this has scrolled off the main page, this will be my last entry, but you are certainly right that WMDs were merely a pretext, but there are two reasons why I made such a big deal of it to Poptarts.
But you are right, Poptarts has already decided to argue against the voices in his head who say “Saddam Hussein was merely a misunderstood genius.” Since that doesn’t correspond to any of his actual opponents, it’s not really an argument so much as the expression of his level of derangement.