glenn - your link to "The Authortarians" is screwed up.
MonkeyBoy | 01.16.07 - 6:25 pm | #

Welcome back, Glenn. I can't wait to get the copy of your book.

I do want to say that the comments threads have been great lately; I regret the need to have to have people banned, but it really has preserved the integrity of the conversation here, and even the disagreements have been more or less civil (except for a night on the last thread where daleyrocks showed up and posted, in my humble opinion, some borderline sexist/harassing comment towards a female commenter).

Lastly, I wonder what you think about Stimson saying during a radio interview that corporations should boycott any law firms representing detainees at Guantanamo; I figure you'd have a strong opinion on that.
Daly | 01.16.07 - 6:25 pm | #

How could a reasoned debate be conducted under such an atmosphere of fear and anger?

President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union Address: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

...who's the terrorist?!
Darryl Pearce | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 6:34 pm | #

what's got me going today:

how our wonderful straight talking St. John of McCain was awfully prompt to beg forgiveness from Rev. James Dobson when the latter said, "I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances."

Is there no limit to how much McCain will abase himself in order to get the 2008 GOP nomination?

I guess not. I wish my fellow 'Zonies were paying attention to these shenanigans.
r€nato | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 6:36 pm | #

Needs to be added to whomever-it-was' list of what-happens-to-those-who-got-it-wrong vs what-happens-to-those-who-got-it-right.
Anonymous | 01.16.07 - 6:37 pm | #

Take a rest Glenn, you deserve it!

I no longer bother with MSM of any kind; the reason is based on examples like what Glenn excerpted here. The ability to read reputable international newspapers online and blogs like these provide me with much better information sources than what passes for the press in the US today. When I am exposed to MSM reports I am invariably disgusted by how shallow or incomplete they are. This is why I am no longer surprised at how little my fellow Americans know or think is important, though the "surge" appears to be getting their attention finally.

We are truly in a race to save US democracy from those who would frantically wave the flag while destroying the freedoms guaranteed in our founding documents.
Make It Stop | 01.16.07 - 6:37 pm | #

Brazile’s answer: “Absolutely. It shows that he has poor judgment.”

Donna Brazile thinks Ritter has poor judgment?

Isn't she the rocket scientist who thought that Al Gore's 2000 campaign should run away from Clinton's record of success?

Jesus. This country has a bumper crop of folks who should STFU forever.
r€nato | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 6:40 pm | #

>So for me it's irrelevant. I never listened to what he had to say on Iraq to begin with.

This is a double edged sword.

Peter Beinert, Jonah Goldberg and the rest of the pro-war fools are irrelevant to me; and should be to all others. In fact, they went out of their way to prove they were irrelevant, and fools to boot; never to be listened to again.

For me, I never did.

Lucky? Nope. Just smarter. I knew what was going to happen before the war started. I'm pleased to no end that my analytical skills are so accurate.

But there are still alot of foolish people out there. Stupid people. The proof comes from knowing that Beinert and Goldberg are still working in the news media.

Obviously, The news media doesn't care about hiring people with good solid analytical skills.

But then, I thought that was the whole point about the news media; Offering well thoughtout analysis for the public.
James | 01.16.07 - 6:41 pm | #

The main stream media does not have a lot of respect by more and more people each and every day.

The MSM seems to cater to Washington insiders and to people in the country that are more or less brainwashed to the max.

The longer the internet stays some what as it is today, even though there is a lot of misinformation and covert info action on the web as well by our government agents of deceit,at least most people can find out the "real story" still if one knows the good sites to frequent.

The MSM is consistently losing audience just as newspapers are because of the net.

It probably will not be long till they shut down the web or control it to such a degree that no one will want to use it anymore.
Gabe Gabriel | 01.16.07 - 6:41 pm | #

THESE MEDIA WAR MONGERS ARE ALL WAR CRIMINALS AND MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE! THEY ALL HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS!
dd | 01.16.07 - 6:44 pm | #

That was how our country debated whether to go to war against Iraq and how it was established that Saddam had WMDs (a belief which, even today, the establishment pundits and journalists attempting to excuse themselves for their war advocacy will insist was one which "everyone" accepted).

...of course, 'everyone' means, 'anyone who counts to the Beltway Kool Kidz™'. This group includes people whose acceptable comportment among polite society gets them invited to the best cocktail parties, like David Broder and Richard Cohen (enjoy that White House Correspondents' Dinner, guys. I'm sure that Rich Little will be quite a hoot).

It most specifically excludes Unserious, Frivolous people who happened to be Proved Fucking Right, as well as Dirty Fucking Hippies and other assorted proles.
r€nato | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 6:45 pm | #

"That was how our country debated whether to go to war against Iraq and the "certainty" that Saddam had WMDs (which even today, the establishment pundits and jouranlists will say that "everyone" accepted)."

And, that just goes to show you that certainty can be the hobgoblin of little minds.
Dr X | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 6:49 pm | #

Brilliant, Glenn. I'm in awe of just how articulate and accurate your observations are. The bankruptcy of the pundit class in 2003/2004 (and to this day) has done such damage to the National discourse I wonder if we'll ever recover. But blogs like this have given me hope.
JM | 01.16.07 - 6:51 pm | #

That's Peter BeinArt (with an "a").
Mimir | 01.16.07 - 6:52 pm | #

I'm glad you posted this, Glenn. There are 2 people I have thought about constantly since this nightmare started; Scott Ritter & Riverbend. Scott, because as you pointed out so well, told the truth and was destroyed for it. Riverbend, because very early on she wrote post after post about how success could be achieved after the war began. And we did exactly the opposite.

Bush and his gang somehow always do exactly the opposite of what makes sense.

Anyway, thanks for opening up an old wound.
garyb50 | 01.16.07 - 6:58 pm | #

My wife and I often wonder why Scott Ritter isn't invited to panel discussions on MTP, for instance, when proven liars like Bob Novak and proven fools like Bill Kristol not only remain in the public eye, they get new jobs.

The way Ritter was treated both during the buildup to the war and, perhaps more imporantly, since he was proven not only correct but truly brave, show how genuinely 'unserious' mainstream debate is these days.

re: Serious/Unserious. I noticed early in the 2000 election that Bush had a pattern of loudly accusing his opponents of whatever he was doing and/or about to do. An early, classic and successful example would be the debate when he said "no fuzzy numbers" or "fuzzy math" or whatever it was, when of course his numbers weren't just fuzzy, the were patently false.

Whenever I notice a pundit calling his opponents unserious I know they are not making anything like a serious argument. Ritter, on the other hand, was deadly serious, and right. So of course no one takes him seriously to this day.
Bullsmith | 01.16.07 - 7:00 pm | #

I suppose we all congregate here because we all feel The Anger.

But we can't write The Anger as well as Greenwald can. I know that I sure can't.

I hope Greenwald will take off for another day, two days. Week. Take a break. Smell the flowers, get laid, what have you. But if you do check in, Mr. Greenwald, let us know what the book title is. Don't forget "Shameless".

Meantime, I'm still stranded in my residence from this damn ice storm and the situation is dire. My provisions are running low. And I kid you not.

I will pay above market price for a bottle of Viu Manent Carmenere or Peirano Estate Old Vine Zin '99.

Holding on,
casual observer | 01.16.07 - 7:06 pm | #

A stunning summary. Thank you. If nothing else, this should teach us all to prick up our ears and be extra skeptical whenever the corporate media gangs up to thoroughly discredit and laughingly dismiss a person. On an intellectual level, this Blitzer exchange ranks down there with the creation of Freedom Fries.
Rueful | 01.16.07 - 7:07 pm | #

Re: Scott Ritter,

There was one place you could frequently hear Ritter hold forth, and that was Air America Radio, where he was interviewed frequently. Whatever one thinks about their inane management and many other faults, Air America has provided a unique service.
casual observer | 01.16.07 - 7:10 pm | #

Thanks for telling about the book on "The Authoritarians." I am sure it will be very helpful to many of us in understanding these people. I have started reading it and I love this author already. He's conversational, rather than overly scientific in his writing style.

Anyway, in the introduction he explains:

Chapter 1 of this book, Who Are the Authoritarian Followers? will appear on this website on January 15, 2007. A chapter a week will be added thereafter, until all seven chapters are present. They will then remain there for at least a year.

So read intro + chapter 1 now and keep coming back every week. Yes, the whole book is free to everyone.
RandyH | 01.16.07 - 7:11 pm | #

This is what authoritarianism does to a society. The pedophile smear is especially disturbing. This is why I was out in front of the Mark Foley nonsense. Mark Foley is not a pedophile and neither was Scott Ritter.

Now before anyone give's me any grief about this, I am NOT condoning Foley's actions and not necessarily condoning those of Ritter. Foley was clearly guilty of abuse of power with regards to the young interns he harrased. He should have been fired in disgrace for his behavior and essentially tha's what happened. But there is still no evidence he did anything criminal.

As far as Ritter goes, I would need much more information than he flirted with a 16 year old girl on the internet. That's not nearly enough information. I know girls as young as 16, maybe a bit older... and sometimes I might flirt with. Generally I wouldn't, given they're so young and it might not be appropriate. It depends on how well I know them and (this is the crucial element) how mature they are. For example, actress Scarlet Johannson was brilliant playing opposite Bill Murray in "Lost in Translation". She was 17 at the time the film was made (it was shot in Tokyo over a period of just four weeks in the fall of 2002). No one who watched the film, which was critically acclaimed, thought that it had anything to do pedophilia, although there was a clear sexual chemistry throughout between Murray and Johansson. In fact such a suggestion would be preposterous.

So the whole notion of letting people be automatically denounced as pedophiles for flirtatious behavior with teenagers needs to be revisited. The DSM-IV defines pedohilia as sexual interest in children less than 14. It is my understanding that the majority of child sex predators target kids between 6-11 years old. The laws of many US states and western countries do not prohibit sex who people are at least 16. I tend to think the Canadian government has the right idea, as they recognize the ambiguous nature of this issue and take a nuanced approach. Children under 14 are strictly off limits, persons over 18 are free to make their own choices, and people in between (14-17 years old) are off limits to adults if there is a relationship of authority or dependency. In practice this means that if a jury determines that a relationship is harmful or innapropriate, then it's illegal.

I think that's probably the best way to approach this issue. It's not perfect, but better than the mess we have now. I can't imagine that any jury would allow a person like Mark Foley to sexually exploit his teenage interns. At the same time, while I don't know the details of Mr. Ritter's indiscretions, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not as bad as were being made to believe, and that a jury would dismiss the case. Of course authoritarians in Canada hate the law and are working to replace it with a draconian law more to their liking.

I know that if held to the same standard as Mr. Ritter, I could easily be branded a child molester, although nothing could be further from the truth. Those who support authoritarian measures thinking they will only apply to "freaks" or "really bad people" need to go and talk to Scott Ritter.
Han Solo | 01.16.07 - 7:12 pm | #

What gets neglected in these discussions is that there were commentators, including mainstream commentators, who opposed the war. (Molly Ivings and Georgie Anne Geyer were the two I followed most, but there were others as well). So the impression that there was no respectable way to oppose the war, or that opposition was relegated to a fringe is false.

OTOH, I would really like to hear those people who joked that the last time the French wanted more evidence it came across the border in a German tank, or scoffed at UN weapons inspectors for not finding anything admit they were wrong. Fat chance.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 7:17 pm | #

Han,


Good, I agree with your take on Foley.

The easy smearing of homosexuals, dissidents, and otherwise unsavory people as pedophiles is disturbingly common. When Catholic Priests molest young children, the Church expels homosexuals, and ignores the whole idea of child molesters. The drive-by smear on Ritter was beneath contempt, and frankly beneath any kind of logic. The Foley case was a more telling example of the kind of casual misrepresentation of someone who abuses power as a pedophile when they are not.
Bullsmith | 01.16.07 - 7:17 pm | #

Speaking of pedophelia, the entire media community fetishizes that young girl in the Harry Potter movies after every movie comes out. Roger Ebert went on for five minutes about what a "hottie" the 13 year old would "someday be."

The hypocrisy on young women in media is astounding. Ritter is dismissable, but the collective turn-on by 13 year old Natalie Portman in "Beautiful Girls" was just "celebrating a gifted young actress."

Sorry, totally off topic.

Blitzer is a fraud.
JM | 01.16.07 - 7:22 pm | #

Over 90% of pedophiles are heterosexuals I believe.

But pedophelia is NOT THE POINT.

The point is that Blixer, a journalist, was moonlighting as a hatchet man.
casual observer | 01.16.07 - 7:22 pm | #

Glenn,

Your tale of how a war hero like Ritter was marginalized (disappeared?), and how he remains so even after vindication by history shows why this country is in deep trouble. No, not just in the middle east. We are in deep trouble because the truth no longer matters to most Americans. We live in a swap of propaganda, but we do not seem to mind it at all.

The Scott Ritter saga is deeply troubling on several levels.
Bucky | 01.16.07 - 7:24 pm | #

As for a good summary of Idiot Pundits (Brooks, Friedman, Goldberg, Zakaria), and the rewards they reap for being wrong about everything:

http://www.radaronline.com/ featu...g_on_iraq_1.php
MD | 01.16.07 - 7:24 pm | #

"from Krauthammer in The Washington Post, June, 2003: “Everyone thought Hussein had weapons because we knew for sure he had them five years ago and there was no evidence that he had disposed of them”)."

Who, precisely, is "Everyone"?
MD | 01.16.07 - 7:29 pm | #

If anyone needed a short primer titled "How Would A Chickenhawk Act", Glenn just provided it.

As for what has me riled (latel), it has to be the use of the Patriot Act to get rid of some troublesome U.S. Attorneys, and replace them with Rove stooges.

~
ifthethunderdontgetya | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 7:29 pm | #

Jonah Goldberg:

But as everybody said, Ritter's credibility, just on the basics of Iraq, was completely shot and now there's even less reason to listen to him.

Ritter’s online behavior had nothing to do with him being ostracized from the mainstream media as Goldberg’s point makes clear. They weren’t going to listen to him “before” this issue came up because he was saying things they didn’t want to hear, and didn’t want the public to hear. It’s just that simple, and it’s still going on.
zack | 01.16.07 - 7:29 pm | #

http://washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/ 2003_08/001986.php

August 24, 2003
...The Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate at Jadariyah was the repository for every Iraqi government record relating to its weapons programs...
...[In April, 2003], after occupying the facility for two weeks, the American soldiers simply withdrew. Soon after, looters entered the facility and ransacked it. Overnight, every computer was stolen, disks and video records were destroyed, and the carefully organized documents were ripped from their binders and either burned or scattered about. According to the former brigadier general, who went back to the building after the mob had gone, some Iraqi scientists did their best to recover and reconstitute what they could, but for the vast majority of the archive the damage was irreversible...

Glen, I know you've heard by now about the firing of (7?) US Attorneys for no apparent cause other than that they were investigating the administration.

Unprecedented and fast, legal under the Patriot Act.

Things are moving very quickly -- I hope that New Mexico moves fast and that Congress doesn't let us down.... I'm scared.
apprehensive | 01.16.07 - 7:33 pm | #

Charges were dismissed in the sex case. It sounds as if someone went to a great deal of trouble to get something on Ritter.
Laney | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 7:36 pm | #

Aside from Bush repeating several times the lie that Saddam refused to let the inspectors back in (and the corporate media letting him get away with it), my favorite bit of Kafkaesque Orwellian up-is-down insanity was this, from CNN at the time:

Rumsfeld: Lack of evidence could mean Iraq's hiding something
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 Posted: 6:03 PM EST (2303 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The failure of U.N. arms inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction "could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation" with U.N. disarmament resolutions, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.


R. Porrofatto | 01.16.07 - 7:39 pm | #

R. Porrofatto | 01.16.07 - 7:39 pm

Rumsfeld had a way with metadata, no? Given his dictum that "there are things we know, things we know that we don't know, and things that we don't know that we don't know".
casual observer | 01.16.07 - 7:44 pm | #

MD, in 1998 Saddam expelled the U.S. weapons inspectors, leading to the withdrawal of the rest of UNSCOM. This did lead Bill Clinton, along with plenty of other folks, to think he was hiding something.

In 2003, Hans Blix and UNMOVIC, having found no WMD, withdrew following the warnings of one George W. Bush.

(It is helpful to remember the acronyms when looking up information on teh google.)

~
ifthethunderdontgetya | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 7:46 pm | #

sysprog said:

"Oops! Lost the documents! Don't you just hate when that happens?"

The 3 guys assigned to security for Operation Iraqi Freedom had to leave Jadariya to guard the Oil Ministry while the other ministries in Baghdad were looted, and that looting was a known unknown. We can't deal with unknown unknowns, like missing documents.

Stuff happens.

Be all you can be (it only costs us 400 billion dollars a year).
MD | 01.16.07 - 7:47 pm | #

The word "smear" has been used a lot in recent years to describe (accurately) ad hominem attacks by right wingers to discredit people with whom they disagree and to avoid dealing with facts they would prefer to ignore. There was another period when this word had currency, namely c. 1950 to 1954, when national politics was overshadowed by Senator Joe McCarthy. The word, "McCarthyism" came to apply to "personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations esp. on the basis of unsubstantiated charges" (Webster's), mainly charges charges of disloyalty to America.

Senator McCarthy, who served to foment national fears as license for aggressive foreign policy, military buildup, and readiness to give up civil liberties, bit off more than he could chew. He attacked a popular Administration, and his influence waned as quickly as it had grown.

Today McCarthyism has become a pervasive feature of our political life, and is employed from the very top on down.

It may amaze us, but we better recognize it: egregious prevarication, unreason, and sociopathy characterizes the behavior of those who favor a inquisition over humanism, and who are furthering the transformation of the United States into a militaristic autocracy.
Walter Miale | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 7:47 pm | #

Great work, as always.

After you do complete this effort you might want to perform the same effort reading news accounts from 9/12/01 through January, 2002. Compare and contrast those in the US with those abroad.

I believe you will find that the same propoganda was in effect then, but that few Americans noticed because they were still in shock. Few people remember, for example, the press statements made by the Taliban in the aftermath, including their offer to send bin Laden to a neutral third country in Europe for trial.

The fact is, the Afghanistan invasion and occupation was as much a violation of treaties ratified by the US -- and hence part of US law -- as the Iraqi invasion and occupation was.
Reality | 01.16.07 - 7:50 pm | #

President Bush gave a very eloquent defense of his Iraq policy today on the Lehrer News Hour today. Please set aside your prejudices and give him a fair hearing:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/ politics/bush-interview_01-16-07.html
anonymoose | 01.16.07 - 7:57 pm | #

When will you set aside your prejudices and give reality a fair hearing, anonymouse?

~
ifthethunderdontgetya | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 8:00 pm | #

R. Porrofatto:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The failure of U.N. arms inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction "could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation" with U.N. disarmament resolutions, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.

This is just another deployment of the "Rumsfeld Doctrine," which first appeared in the '70s when he claimed that the complete lack of evidence of the existence of the Scary Undetectable Soviet Submarine was actually positive proof of its existence. Ya gotta give it to Rummy though--who else has the courage to not only consciously own up to the logic of their paranoia, but moreover proclaim this logic to the entire world?
Bob Gordon | 01.16.07 - 8:02 pm | #

The mind forever boggles at how those who lack all integrity and expertise are constantly afforded attention and exposure, their words taken at face value, while those who know what they're talking about are ignored, maligned, and sidelined.

One wonders how much longer before we all take to wearing blue or green and start butchering each other in riots after the NASCAR races. Hey, when taking after Rome, right?
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.16.07 - 8:03 pm | #

UNSCOM wasn't expelled-it was withdrawn by the UN after it was discovered to have ties to American and Israeli intelligence,causing Saddam Hussein to suspend what little cooperation he had been providing.Many of the facilities visited by UNSCOM were subsequently targeted in Operation Desert Fox.
AnonE.Mouse | 01.16.07 - 8:05 pm | #

anonymoose | 01.16.07 - 7:57 pm

After 6 years of fair hearings, I have established a position on the President's honesty, capacity, and leadership.

When a man has demonstrated all day long that he is a liar, surrounded by liars, you're done listening to him and his henchmen by 6 PM. It's now 6 PM in his presidency and I'm done listening.
casual observer | 01.16.07 - 8:06 pm | #

GG:A brief unedited excerpt from the manuscript, which I offer in order to expunge this from my system as much as for any other reason

Thank you. Another good reason is that it serves as a clear, succinct statement on why Blitzer should be laughed off the airwaves, and Goldberg expunged from the LA Times. I'll be emailing the editor (again) with this link to explain why their editorial pages are now useless to me.

Have a nice rest; you deserve it!
Susan | 01.16.07 - 8:15 pm | #

This morning I read yet another psychological profile of our boy king- pretty much describing the same stunted juvenile reactions that have been written about on this blog several times. The impulses that motivate too many of Bush's policy decisions, leading this country in the totally wrong direction are just that-- adolescent impulses, not logic & reasoning. Bush is also suffering(?) from a narcissistic grandiosity fed by fawning neocons feeding their own limpness by strongman warmongering, or greedy neocons getting fat on this war and the continuation of it. He is convinced that history will write a good story of him and his singular bravery to look evil in the eye and face it down. He is at peace with this knowledge and no amount of public pressure will deter him.
Well I had my own fantacy idea for trying to end this seemingly unstoppable force. Imagine with me, if you will, Bill Clinton (with that evil deviousness only a liberal could demonstrate) begins to 'leak', very loudly, what he would do if he was in the Oval Office now. His ideas coincidently would resemble closely what is occurring now-- the thinly veiled taunting of Iran, the arrest of Iranians in the consulate, moving the air carrier into the Gulf, sending more troops, reassigning top brass. Imagine the foot stomping while Clinton highjacks BUSH'S power fix!! His legacy!
What do you think 'Bush the contrarian' would do?
Okay, that was my fantacy. Alot less harmful than the fantacies leading this country over the cliff.
Sandbar | 01.16.07 - 8:18 pm | #

From anonymoose at 7:57 pm:

President Bush gave a very eloquent defense of his Iraq policy today

If by "eloquent" you mean "sauced out of his gills" or "clearly fried his brain on Ecstacy", then I agree.

Otherwise, this has got to be the most embarassing moment I've seen Jim Lehrer subject himself to in living memory.
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.16.07 - 8:24 pm | #

If by "eloquent" you mean "sauced out of his gills" or "clearly fried his brain on Ecstacy", then I agree.

This shows your dispassion and greatly enhances your credibility.

Note that both pundits, the centrist David Brooks and the leftist Mark Shields, were favorably impressed.
anonymoose | 01.16.07 - 8:39 pm | #

Glenn,

It was not just the pundits and media which chose not to listen to Scott Ritter. I recall sending email to Senators who were convening a panel hearing to discuss the threat from Iraq, asking them to include Ritter on their panel. Not only did they not include SR, they included no voices critical of the hyped threats.

Tom
thump | 01.16.07 - 8:54 pm | #

08/26/02 * Vice-President Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

02/05/03 * Secretary Powell: "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons.

03/17/03 * President Bush: "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."

01/27/04 * President Bush: "There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat."

* * Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere: http://youtube.com/watch?v=o9EbssUgHj4 * *

04/13/04 * President Bush: "And I have no doubt in my mind that [Saddam] would like to have inflicted harm..."

04/19/04 * President Bush: "And there's no doubt in my mind that Iraq will be free and democratic and peaceful."
sysprog | 01.16.07 - 8:55 pm | #

Sysprog, who knew they were all Gwen Steffani fans?

~
ifthethunderdontgetya | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 9:00 pm | #

anonymoose | 01.16.07 - 8:39 pm

"Note that both pundits, the centrist David Brooks and the leftist Mark Shields, were favorably impressed."

I reject your characterization of Brooks as centrist and Shields as leftist. But even if, for argument's sake, your fake characterization was accurate, I'm surprised that all it took was agreement between two pundits to put a ring through your nose.

It's sad, the lack of depth in what passes for conservative thought in this country. Especially since conservative thought is needed to push the country forward.
casual observer | 01.16.07 - 9:01 pm | #

The funny thing, in a deathly tragic kinda way, is that everybody knows The Surge is going to fail spectacularly.

I really don't think we need yet another example of Our Leader's grisly incompetence, but it looks like another nail in the Neo-Con coffin is on the way, albeit a coffin shared by so many innocents.
tiddlewinks | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 9:02 pm | #

David Brooks the centrist and Mark Shields the leftist. One of the most disgusting non-sequiturs I've heard in ages. If we want to talk about the progressive debasement of political discourse in this country in the past fifty years, we can surely find no better example than this.

Although anonymoose is as innocent of history as any of his partners in ignorance, the fact that he still thinks that a statement like this has any power over people who actually know things is nothing short of astonishing.

What would it take, I wonder -- and this goes for Brooks and Shields as well as the Moose -- for these folks to stop prancing in front of the mirror and start acting like Americans with some recognizable stake in the future. What they're doing is the equivalent of dumping the country into an open pit and pouring quicklime over it, and all they can think about is whether or not the dimple in their tie is properly centered.

If we survive the present nonsense, their names will be a curse for generations to come.
William Timberman | 01.16.07 - 9:09 pm | #

If we survive the present nonsense, indeed.

Will there be a "wrongness threshold" at some point in this disaster when all the consistently wrong pundits finally get the disgrace they so richly deserve? Why does it seem that the mechanisms that would normally have these people looking for jobs are so utterly broken?
tiddlewinks | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 9:17 pm | #

OK, I'm already ready to buy the book. Where can I do a preorder. tap. . . tap. . . tap.
pontificator | 01.16.07 - 9:22 pm | #

Shooter, I thought, was worth talking to. With sufficient patience and effort, one could coax a reasonable, serious comment out of him that might have some substantive value. I relished the challenge.

Anonymoose I would dismiss as a joke, except that Glenn and Mona apparently have inside information that he is for real. If he is for real, he is simply deranged. No reasonable dialogue is possible. Ignore Anonymoose.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 9:24 pm | #

tiddlewinks: Why does it seem that the mechanisms that would normally have these people looking for jobs are so utterly broken?

Asked and answered, I'm afraid. They're owned, as anyone would have to be to be where they are, and their owners are not disposed to allow the chaos of democracy to disrupt the moribund order which has so far enriched them.

What I'm afraid of -- and the sad example of the Soviet Union is what informs my fear -- is that they'll appear unassailable until the very day when they're swept away, and, unfortunately, us along with them.
William Timberman | 01.16.07 - 9:26 pm | #

I just love the way this guy writes:

Literally in a matter of minutes on CNN, Ritter – one of the nation’s preeminent experts on the subject of the Iraqi weapons program and one of the most vocal and knowledgeable critics of Bush's war plans (who was aggressively questioning the WMD orthodoxy) -- was quickly transformed by a panel of no-knowing war cheerleaders posing as experts into a grotesque cartoon – a pro-Saddam propagandist, a liar, a child molester and a know-nothing, integrity-free subversive whose loyalty was very much in question.

Did anyone see this? "Iran Shots (sic) Down U.S. Spy Plane" from Fars News Agency. It doesn't appear to be that extraordinary of a flight, but WorldNetDaily already has ahold of it. I don't see it at most other right-wing sites.

Probably it'll blow over, but I guess we'll find out in the next day or two.

Oh, link: http://www.farsnews.com/English/...p? nn=8510260294
Ryan | 01.16.07 - 9:53 pm | #

Ryan,

Yes, I did notice that. Chinese and Iranian news only. Nobody else seems to have picked it up. No way of knowing if there is anything to it until there is more coverage of it.
casual observer | 01.16.07 - 10:01 pm | #

While Scott Ritter was once indeed a distinguished soldier and arms expert, he has unfortunately suffered a total personality meltdown in recent years, indulging in a variety of self-destructive behaviors, including pederasty, alcoholism and drug addiction. His breakdown has been ruthlessly exploited by his leftist handlers to push their anti-Bush agenda. Anybody with half a brain will see through this tragic travesty.
anonymoose | 01.16.07 - 10:07 pm | #

Jeff Spiccoli -- you are absolutely right. That is a devastating paragraph.

If the rest of Glenn's book is like this, I don't think I can take the rage I'll feel. (Much like Franken's chapter on the Wellstone Memorial.)

The cirumstances of Ritter's investigation are very suspect. He was apparently arrested as a result of a "sting" in June 2001. There was some kind of plea bargain and it was adjounred in contemplation of dismissal and sealed. See: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j0...in/ j012203.html

A year and a half year old "sealed" case was leaked, just as war fever reached its peak in late 2002-03.
Upper West | 01.16.07 - 10:13 pm | #

Upper West | 01.16.07 - 10:13 pm

I hadn't heard any of this. I followed your link--don't suppose the case file has ever emerged?
casual observer | 01.16.07 - 10:23 pm | #

The cirumstances of Ritter's investigation are very suspect. He was apparently arrested as a result of a "sting" in June 2001. There was some kind of plea bargain and it was adjounred in contemplation of dismissal and sealed. See: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j0...in/ j012203.html

Raimondo is a paranoid hysteric without any credibility. If there is indeed anything fishy about the case (which I seriously doubt), I would find it more plausible that Ritter was being blackmailed by his leftist handlers.
anonymoose | 01.16.07 - 10:28 pm | #

I decided to read the moose's link.

Here is Bush's diagnosis of success, along with my footnotes:

PRESIDENT BUSH: “Yeah, well, success, Jim, means a government that is providing security for its people.(1) A success means for the American people to see Iraqi troops chasing down killers with American help initially.(2) A success means a Baghdad that is, you know, relatively calm compared to last year so that people's lives can go forward(3) and a political process can go forward along with it.(4) Success means the government taking steps to share the oil wealth(5) or to deal with a de-Baathification law, to encourage local elections. Success means reconstruction projects that employ Iraqis.(6) Success also means making sure al-Qaida doesn't get a foothold in Iraq, which they're trying to do in Anbar province.(7) So success is measurable; it's definable; and last year was a year in which there was a setback to success.(8)

(1)since we know that the DHS programs are only security theater, we know this has failed at home
(2)sounds like COPS in Baghdad
(3)with the UN estimate of 35,000 killed in 2006, that comes to a murder rate of 130 per 100,000 (much higher than any rate quoted by newsbusters.org to refute the deadliness of Iraq)
(4)I think several admin speakers stated that if Maliki doesn't shape up...that sounds like a local political process to me
(5)in this case, with US oil companies, as opposed to those who were going to be given contracts under Saddam
(6)is this why the majority of projects were initially sourced to American companies, especially KBR?
(7)please remember that prior to the invasion, Al-Qaida had no presence in Iraq
(8)i.e. 2006 (like previous years) was a failure.

So basically the eloquent defense of the Iraq policy confirmed that it has been a failure in every point. Moose, thank you for supporting Bush with this timely post.
Fraud Guy | 01.16.07 - 10:29 pm | #

"from Krauthammer in The Washington Post, June, 2003: “Everyone thought Hussein had weapons because we knew for sure he had them five years ago and there was no evidence that he had disposed of them”)."

Who, precisely, is "Everyone"? MD | 01.16.07 - 7:29 pm |

In case any readers moosed the Jim Lehrer interview Tonight with Mr. Bush, a passerbye student in basic psychology may have been able to critique/review it as a case-study. The follow-up of 'sportcaster-journalist' Shields & Brooks, wasn't much better...I was Wondering,...How shameless!

The talk came across as very priggish and less than eloquent. An authoritarian "leader" who condescends, remains plugged to a lethal lie, and persist to promote blunder after blunder is dangerously misguided. Why does he blink, giggle, smirk, and appear as one suffering incurable hiccups? The pathetic rote-cliche response to some fair questions by Jim Lehrer got very tedious. We got a Mr. President of No (ever) Doubts!

The man is emotional numb. He's like a drowning man (full of denial and trauma) being swept downcreek. When a rope with a inner-tube is tossed to save a drown-victim, the rope is angrily rejected. Is he sedated? Will some person order him to be placed on 24 hour bedridden-watch? Will a world be swept-away into his near catatonic condition? Whatever is terribly wrong with him appears contagious. Mr. Brooks gestures with twitches like a duck throwing his head backward drinking water. Mr. Shields seems to play safe, but opens his mouth with an appearance he wishes he could belch.
Complete shamelessness is wrong? Mr. Bush's lips pucker up as he talks of 'trucking' troops to the sectarian war chaos ...as if...their being sent to a moose (democracy) market. He's a butcher. Someone intervene.
clownsense | 01.16.07 - 10:47 pm | #

anonymoose:

Scott Ritter ... has unfortunately suffered a total personality meltdown in recent years, indulging in a variety of self-destructive behaviors, including pederasty, alcoholism and drug addiction. His breakdown has been ruthlessly exploited by his leftist handlers....

Long time reader, but more relevantly a big Who fan.

It's Townshend, not Townsend. It's Who, Not WHO (World Health Organization?).

And interestingly, you'll find that Mr Townshend was indeed implicated, but the facts are not what the public thinks.
Muttrox | 01.16.07 - 11:09 pm | #

Glenn: "That is a very dark period in American political discourse, and reading through it requires a strong constitution in order to endure it."

Amen. Thanks for doing it. As painful as it will be, I'm eager to read the finished product.
B Parker | 01.16.07 - 11:15 pm | #

Pete Townshend, a genius in my view, wasn't charged either. He claimed his one visit to a kiddie porn site was research for a book. Based on his previous work (Tommy), it's clear he's had a lifelong interest in the harm caused by pederasts.

As for Jonah Goldberg....

Ah, he's not worth the effort.
Jethro | 01.16.07 - 11:18 pm | #

"Shooter, I thought, was worth talking to. With sufficient patience and effort, one could coax a reasonable, serious comment out of him"

Were those hard earned, rare and fleeting moments worth all of the disrupting provacation and bravado? Not in my book.
Jeff Spiccoli | 01.16.07 - 11:18 pm | #

Thanks for bringing this up, in the wake of the Decider's latest lies on 60 Minutes (how I wish that Pelley would have said 'even Scott Ritter?' at that point).

Beyond that, I'd like to hear more about Mohamed Al-Baradei these days--his sliming was even easier than Ritters, it seems, given that he's a.) an Arab b.) associated with the UN and c.) won the cheese-eating surrender prize called The Nobel in 2005.

Thanks for speaking Truth to Power!
cheSF | 01.16.07 - 11:22 pm | #

None of this is any laughing matter, of course. But then again, if you can't laugh, nothing is funny.

Try plugging the URL for Glenn's blog into the box at http://regender.com/index.html. Do the same with Michelle Malkin's site, and Free Republic.

Dare ya.
anon | 01.16.07 - 11:23 pm | #

While Scott Ritter was once indeed a distinguished soldier and arms expert, he has unfortunately suffered a total personality meltdown in recent years, indulging in a variety of self-destructive behaviors, including pederasty, alcoholism and drug addiction. His breakdown has been ruthlessly exploited by his leftist handlers to push their anti-Bush agenda. Anybody with half a brain will see through this tragic travesty.
anonymoose | 01.16.07 - 10:07 pm |

I've have enough of this kind of blogging.
Jeff Spiccoli | 01.16.07 - 11:24 pm | #

None of this is any laughing matter, of course. But then again, if you can't laugh, nothing is funny.

Try plugging the URL of Glenn's blog into the box at http://regender.com/index.html. Then try Michelle Malkin's URL, and the URL for Free Republic.

Dare ya.
anon | 01.16.07 - 11:24 pm | #

Thanks for bringing this up, in the wake of the Decider's latest lies on 60 Minutes (how I wish that Pelley would have said 'even Scott Ritter?' at that point)

Beyond that, I'd like to hear more about Mohamed Al-Baradei these days--his sliming was even easier than Ritters, it seems, given that he's a.) an Arab b.) associated with the UN and c.) won the cheese-eating surrender prize called The Nobel in 2005.

Thanks for speaking Truth to Power!
cheSF | 01.16.07 - 11:25 pm | #

this 'success', 'victory', 'failure', is all a false dichotomy

it is not if we leave , we fail;

if we stay, surge or otherwise, some good stuff will happen and some bad stuff will happen;
if we leave , some good stuff will happen and some bad stuff will happen;

which option leads to a more palatable solution; the comparative result is what is to be weighed

of course, we know what will happen if we stay, because it has already happened; we will continue to lose soldiers, alienate large parts of the iraqi populace, kill innocents as well as non-innocents, prop up a gov't that need to stand on its own(which, btw, probably weakens it), and continue to be thought of as a joke by the rest of the world;

obviously, some of those bad things will happen if we leave; but, if we leave, we have a chance to reenter the world diplomatic community, get some assistance, stop losing soldiers(and, btw, stop arbitrarily extending tours of duty for people who were patriotic enought to enlist), and force the iraqis to face up to their responsibilities.
i am so tired of hearing "if we leave, we lose any chance of success"; it is not only a lie, it is illogical
jw | 01.16.07 - 11:32 pm | #

This is good stuff.

An authoritarian "leader" who condescends, remains plugged to a lethal lie, and persist to promote blunder after blunder is dangerously misguided.

Why does he blink, giggle, smirk, and appear as one suffering incurable hiccups? The pathetic rote-cliche response to some fair questions by Jim Lehrer got very tedious. We got a Mr. President of No (ever) Doubts!

The man is emotional numb. He's like a drowning man (full of denial and trauma) being swept downcreek. When a rope with a inner-tube is tossed to save a drown-victim, the rope is angrily rejected.

Will a world be swept-away into his near catatonic condition? Whatever is terribly wrong with him appears contagious. Mr. Brooks gestures with twitches like a duck throwing his head backward drinking water. Mr. Shields seems to play safe, but opens his mouth with an appearance he wishes he could belch.

Complete shamelessness is wrong? Mr. Bush's lips pucker up as he talks of 'trucking' troops to the sectarian war chaos ...as if...their being sent to a moose (democracy) market. He's a butcher. Someone intervene.

clownsense | 01.16.07 - 10:47 pm |

Ryan:

Did anyone see this? "Iran Shots (sic) Down U.S. Spy Plane" from Fars News Agency. It doesn't appear to be that extraordinary of a flight, but WorldNetDaily already has ahold of it. I don't see it at most other right-wing sites.

Probably it'll blow over, but I guess we'll find out in the next day or two.

Oh, link: http://www.farsnews.com/English/...p? nn=8510260294

It would not be unusual for the military to send in a "probe" plane in advance to measure (and analyse) the anti-aircraft response, to determine radar settings, coverage, missile sites, C3I traffic, etc. That they can do it with Predators is so much the better; no need to get a pilot killed ... yet.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 01.16.07 - 11:47 pm | #

CNN.com / TRANSCRIPTS
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/13/ ltm.02.html

CNN AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN
Interview With Scott Ritter
Aired September 13, 2002 - 07:05 ET

ZAHN: People out there are accusing you of drinking Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid.

RITTER: Have you seen the movie?

ZAHN: I have not.

RITTER: ...I made a movie to explain to the American public what had been achieved in regards to disarmament of Iraq and why inspectors aren't in Iraq today and detailing the very complex, murky history of interaction between Iraq, the United Nations and the United States. It is most definitely not a pro-Iraq movie.

ZAHN: Who paid for your last trip to Baghdad?

RITTER: I paid for it, together with donations from American anti-sanctions movement, the Institution for Public Accuracy and South African -- the Iraqi government had nothing to do with funding this trip, or even organizing this trip.

ZAHN: Not a single cent.

RITTER: Not a single cent.

ZAHN: The International Institute for Strategic Study says that Iraq is very close to producing nuclear weapons if it could get its hands on fissile material. The report goes on to say that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

RITTER: No, the report does not say that. The report...

ZAHN: That's exactly what the report says.

RITTER: Absolutely not. Read it. The fact is, there is no hard evidence...

ZAHN: We're going to have to leave it there this morning. Scott Ritter, thanks for joining us -- appreciate it.

"These are the times that try men's souls," wrote Thomas Paine, the Glenn Greenwald of the 1700's, "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." link
Jeff Spiccoli | 01.17.07 - 12:33 am | #

I remember that Paul Zahn segment. I don't know that I watched it live, but I read it.

Wow, I forgot how much I cannot stand that woman and now I'm reminded exactly why.

That is the worst, craven...

Gaah!

If Glenn's new book is going to bring this stuff back, I don't know that I can read it. I'll buy it. But I can't be required to re-live that.

phat
phat | 01.17.07 - 12:36 am | #

Glenn et al,

This item seems right up the ol' PATRIOT Act alley, so I'm hoping I'm not out of line with this.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/arch...ives/ 002348.php

[Copy]
WH Moved Swiftly to Replace US Attorneys
By Paul Kiel - January 16, 2007, 3:22 PM

The administration is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country. How'd they get that power?

It was an obscure provision in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, and it didn't take them very long to use it. The president signed it into law in March of last year -- by June, they were already moving to replace unwanted prosecutors.

Former Arkansas USA Bud Cummins told the Wall Street Journal that "a top Justice official asked for his resignation in June, saying the White House wanted to give another person the opportunity to serve." Cummins was finally forced out in December, replaced with Timothy Griffin, formerly the research director of the Republican National Committee.

Section 502 of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, which was first drafted in July of 2005 and finally signed in March of 2006, changed the law regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorneys. Whereas before the relevant federal district court would have appointed a replacement within 120 days after the Attorney General picked one, now that pick stood without challenge.

How did this (brief, legalistically worded, but powerful) section get in to the bill? It's not clear. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has consistently referred to the provision as "little noticed." What is clear is that Feinstein and her colleagues did not expect the provision to be used in this way. We'll have more on this as we learn more.
[END COPY]

Sen. Feinstein's comments on the GOP misuse/abuse of 2006 PATRIOT Act chicanery for obvious political gain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N...WbJV1eBMk& eurl=
Ray Duray | Homepage | 01.17.07 - 12:37 am | #

"I am completely without objectivity. There is nothing you can say that would make me feel positively about President Bush."
- Potential Juror in the Irving Scotter Libby Trial; excused for cause. link

Jeff Spiccoli | 01.17.07 - 12:48 am | #

"I am completely without objectivity. There is nothing you can say that would make me feel positively about President Bush."
- Potential Juror in the Irving Scotter Libby Trial; excused for cause. link

Jeff Spiccoli | 01.17.07 - 12:48 am | #

"Ritter was desperately warning his fellow citizens of the dangers of Bush's war plans." - Mr. Greenwald

Yes, he was. So was the U.N.

This war was sold to the media and it made them lots of money. This war was sold to the Senate and the Congress and it made for great rhetoric. It was sold to the American psyche because we had to fight back against something and we trusted our leaders to pick the right enemy.

No matter how this ends, hundreds of billions of dollars are going somewhere. If one thinks the media, or private contractors, or political interests, or the nations lending us money have no vested interest in the outcome, then they're kidding themselves. The war in Iraq was a moral issue before it started. It's an economic issue now. Maybe it was all along.

Deepthroat had it right when he said "Follow the money."
troglaman | 01.17.07 - 1:11 am | #

Before the invasion, I remember rebutting, point by point, the notion that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. with some right-leaning friends of mine. I had no special expertise or inside information, just the ability to reason, for instance, that chemical weapons are pretty much useless as tactical weapons (they disperse into the atmosphere and, with a shift of the wind, can kill your troops instead of you enemy's) unless possessed in vast quantities. I don't think that I was particularly prescient about what would result, I just firmly believed that war is serious business and that because the justifications we were being offered were flatly ridiculous and demonstrably false, untold horrors were going to result. Having been right doesn't make me feel good, it fills me with sadness, because those who have been wrong, loudly, monstrously, lethally wrong, not only lack the character to own up to their tragic ignorance, they continue to be afforded forums in which they can bray their evil delusional views.
Tokyokie | 01.17.07 - 1:37 am | #

And even now, in 2007, more than two years after the Duelfer report, the true believers continue to avert their gaze from the facts.
sysprog | 01.16.07 - 11:59 pm | #

Sysprog - As a hindsight hero, based on subsequent information, you now believe Ritter can safely be proclaimed a prophet. That position does ignore facts, the fact that Saddam would not let us verify that he had destroyed previously known quantities of WMD required under the terms of the First Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement and that he would not let us inspect to see that he was not ramping up additional or new programs. Those are facts that your analysis or comments ignore. They also ignore Saddam's ability to provide quantities of chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups to be delivered to the U.S., which, after the anthrax poisonings after 9/11, did represent a real danger to the U.S. in spite of Ritter's blatherings about Saddam's crushing of extremist groups, which presumably was only within Iraq. Saddam supported terrorism plain and simple. That is another fact that can't be ignored.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 1:41 am | #

Troglaman - Follow that money straight to the U.N. and our erstwhile allies who were all making so much money subverting the oil for food program they didn't want it to end. None of them wanted to kill the golden goose.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 1:48 am | #

Keep dancing, maybe nobody will notice you're not wearing pants.
Jeff Spiccoli | 01.17.07 - 1:48 am | #

Jeff - Find some proof to the contrary at the time, not years later and maybe I'll listen.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 1:51 am | #

You don't make any sense.
"Find proof at the time"
"maybe I'll listen"
Jeff Spiccoli | 01.17.07 - 1:55 am | #

If Sysprog is a hindsight hero then you're a present day delusioanl ignoramus.

Face it, you bought the mushroom cloud story and you were fooled. Now, most people see it for what it is, you still do not.
Jeff Spiccoli | 01.17.07 - 1:58 am | #

"That position does ignore facts, the fact that Saddam would not let us verify that he had destroyed previously known quantities of WMD required under the terms of the First Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement and that he would not let us inspect to see that he was not ramping up additional or new programs."
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 1:41 am | #

The fact that Saddam wouldn't let us verify says only that we didn't know. It certainly wasn't portrayed that way. It was portrayed as known fact that he had WMD. The administration said he had them without a shadow of doubt. That's what they said.
troglaman | 01.17.07 - 1:59 am | #

Troglaman - Follow that money straight to the U.N. and our erstwhile allies who were all making so much money subverting the oil for food program they didn't want it to end. None of them wanted to kill the golden goose.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 1:48 am | #

Really. Think China is making more now than with 'oil for food'? Or the Saudis? Do you think 'oil for food' was worth 2.5 billion a week? You're a persuasive lemming.
troglaman | 01.17.07 - 2:06 am | #

Troglaman - You're making no sense. Is France making that kind of dough? Was Koffing Anus at the U.N. or his son Cujo?
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 2:13 am | #

Jeff - No one claimed an imminent mushroom cloud. You guys keep repeating the same lies so often you begin to believe them. Find contemporaneous proof that Saddam had no WMD - say late 2002 - I'd be interested. That goes for you too Troglodyte.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 2:16 am | #

Well, yes, Ritter was smeared, pointedly smeared. Seems to me if we want to know how to avoid the problem in the future we need to know why and how as well as calling out Beinert, Goldberg, Brazile, and George, and Blitzer. Sure they all need to be held accountable but there's just not enough evidence to know why, exactly, Ritter got smeared. Could be chance; five careerists converging on war booty. Or, someone was handing out folder after folder of crap on Ritter, bugging his phone, culling through his bank records and so on. In short, if there was--and that show looks like evidence of--a government (or, hah, a public-private partnership) to reduce Ritter's influence on Iraq war decision making by smearing him, well, whodunit?
Nigel Marvin | 01.17.07 - 2:23 am | #

Troglaman - You're making no sense. Is France making that kind of dough? Was Koffing Anus at the U.N. or his son Cujo?
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 2:13 am | #

We're borrowing 2.5 billion a week. Where's it going and who are we borrowing it from? Tell me, smart guy.
troglaman | 01.17.07 - 2:24 am | #

Find contemporaneous proof that Saddam had no WMD - say late 2002 - I'd be interested.

Are you deliberately disregarding Glenn's post or just trying to be as obtuse as possible.

Or, does Scott Ritter not exist in the faith based community?
Politically Lost | 01.17.07 - 2:24 am | #

PL - Glenn's post is not proof. He talks about Ritter speaking to Iraqis about how to forestall war. How exactly does that constitute proof? He talks about a CNN show where Ritter is smeared and how Ritter's comments turn out to be true AFTER THE FACT. How does that constitute proof in the 2002/2003 timeframe. I guess we are supposed to take it on faith that if Ritter says it, it must be true, after all, he traveled to Iraq and made an antiwar movie, so he is completely without bias on the subject, right?
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 2:34 am | #

About those US attorneys...

Was there a signing statement attached to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act?

I'm thinking that maybe we can glean some "executive intent" if there was an accompanying signing statement that spoke to how the president would give his unitary blessing to certain US attorney appointments.

Anyone familiar with legislative intent will cringe mightily at this new form of legal research.
Politically Lost | 01.17.07 - 2:36 am | #

Jeff - No one claimed an imminent mushroom cloud. You guys keep repeating the same lies so often you begin to believe them. Find contemporaneous proof that Saddam had no WMD - say late 2002 - I'd be interested. That goes for you too Troglodyte.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 2:16 am | #

There is no contemporaneous proof he didn't have WMD. But, you jackass, we were assured he did. Remember? Telling us it wasn't proven just highlights the fact the administration didn't know either. They didn't say "Weren't not sure if he's got them but we're going to make sure he doesn't". They said he had them, right? Pick a different argument.

And your statement about mushroom clouds makes you a less persuasive lemming. They all said it over and over and over again.
troglaman | 01.17.07 - 2:45 am | #

"Find contemporaneous proof that Saddam had no WMD"

Find proof you didn't have two dicks in March of 2003.

Before invading a country, it is incumbent upon those making the case for war to demonstrate, with substantial and compelling evidence and in good faith, the national security threat.

The facts, as we know them know now, is that Bush and Cheney were wrong and so are you.

People who 'think' suspect that Bush and Cheney didn't actually care if there was a nuclear bomb threat from Iraq. It was merely the case they thought Americans would find most compelling. How insidious to roll-out 'the smoking gun comes in the form of a mushroom cloud' meme to manipulate the fears of US citizens. Insidious and treasonous.

Keep dancing you sad and sorry pantless sycophant.


Jeff Spiccoli | 01.17.07 - 2:46 am | #

he traveled to Iraq and made an antiwar movie, so he is completely without bias on the subject, right?

You're right, excellent point Scott Ritter's words are meaningless in this context because he "traveled" to Iraq and made an antiwar movie.

Just before he was smeared, Scott Ritter was the head of US weapons inspectors in Iraq, do his reports to the US government and the UN somehow not count as proof? I'd submit that his expert testimony and reports would be acceptable as evidence in a federal court. Could any of the pundits on Wolf's show do that?
Politically Lost | 01.17.07 - 2:47 am | #

PL - No inspectors were in Iraq between 1998 and the end of 2002/early 2003. When did Ritter make his report that Saddam had destroyed all the WMD he was supposed to under the 1991 cease fire. Could you provide a citation for that please. You lefties keep saying you were certain there were no WMD before the war, but offer up no proof. Hell, even Ray McGovern was worried about ghemical or biological weapons being used against our troops during the invasion. I'd like to see some credible sources of this dantastic proof apart from hindsight for a change.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 3:02 am | #

Jeff - Keep moving those goal posts buddy. You can't prove lies. You can't prove you knew Saddam didn't have WMD at the time of the invasion so all you can do is move the goalposts. Typical.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 3:05 am | #

How does that constitute proof in the 2002/2003 timeframe

Occam's razor...

To steal from the moose....
Antbody with half a brain could see that the amount of energy spent increasing the volume of the fear-generating talking points while ignoring every caveat and reservation being expressed by those in a position to know, particularly Scott Ritter, pointed to the fact-since verified in spades - that the American people were being sold a bill of goods.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 01.17.07 - 3:08 am | #

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Condi 1/10/03

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Bush 10/7/02

So who's believing their own lies, daleyrocks? I assure you it isn't me.

"But Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine intelligence officer and chief weapons inspector in Iraq, said that inspectors had certified the country was 90 percent to 95 percent disarmed when they left." CNN 9/8/02
troglaman | 01.17.07 - 3:11 am | #

You lefties keep saying you were certain there were no WMD before the war, but offer up no proof. daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 3:02 am | #

No. The administration said they HAD PROOF that he DID have WMD. There's a difference. You keep saying again and again that no one had proof. And yet the administration said they did have proof. They didn't but said they did. That's not a "lefty" problem as much as you may want it to be. Brainless lemming. I hope you're not near a cliff.
troglaman | 01.17.07 - 3:26 am | #

HINDSIGHT?

Hindsight is sometimes proper (learning from experience) and sometimes improper (arguing that a decision should have been based on information that was unknowable at the time of the decision).

But, the White House didn't claim, in 2002 and 2003, that the WMD information was unknowable, or dubious, or less than certain.

And, the White House didn't argue that invading Iraq was necessary in order to determine whether or not Iraq had WMDs.

The White House claimed, repeatedly, in 2002 and 2003, that there was "No Doubt".

Thanks to hindsight, we know that, in fact, among the intelligence agencies reporting to the White House in 2002 and 2003, there was doubt.

That's proper hindsight.
sysprog | 01.17.07 - 3:28 am | #

As I wrote recently on Gilliard's blog, we don't need the ham-fisted approach of Brezhnev's USSR circa 1980 or Pinochet's Chile to stifle dissent in this country.

Our brand of fascism does not require piano wrires, psychiatric asylums or electrodes attached to genitals, just a cacophony of voices to drown out the truth.

I would argue that the average Soviet citizen circa 1980 saw the truth about his government better than the average American today.
Lupin | 01.17.07 - 4:19 am | #

Thanks to everyone who went toe-to-toe with daleyrocks. Great job!

As for the "mushroom cloud"?
Saddam had at best some yellowcake uranium with no way to process it into bomb grade fissile material.
Iran is currently processing uranium, ostensibly for nuclear fuel...
North Korea had enough plutonium and enough technology to successfully detonate a nuclear device.

So if our dear leaders really WERE concerned about "mushroom clouds" why did we invade Iraq?
Fabian | 01.17.07 - 5:04 am | #

Jeff - Keep moving those goal posts buddy. You can't prove lies. You can't prove you knew Saddam didn't have WMD at the time of the invasion so all you can do is move the goalposts. Typical.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 3:05 am | #

Daleyrocks: You ridiculous screw-mellon. Hundreds and thousands of people knew Saddam didn't have WMD at the time of the invasion. You didn't, of course, because you were - and still are - a rightwing-kept mooncalf. You were, and still are, obviously, willing to romanticize your own romanticized screw-mellon mooncalf bleatings because, well, once a rigtwing screw-mellon always a rightwing screw-mellon. Oh, to bend over the glorious velvet GOP presidential party couch and be inseminated with whatever hot creamy splurge your romaticized GOP captors chose to squeeze up your ripened screw-mellon shoot. Moooooed, Dalerocks, you was moooooed! And you, Daleyrocks, enjoyed it, didn't yoo?

Still do? Every last grunt and BIG TIME screw-the-mellon moo! Yoo, daleyrocks, were cooed and mooed and skroooed like so many stupid beasts just like yooo under a rightwing moon-calf moon! Yeah, you Daleyrocks! You buttery screw muffin yoooo! You enjoyed it then and you obviously enjoy recommending it to others now. Obviously! And you come here now to squeal about it all as if what you have to sell is some some romantic tail-tagged tale to tell..

In short Daleyrocks: You were fucked. Fucked up your come-n-get me rightwing mooooooooooo-hole! Simple as that! Thats all there was and is to it. So, well, rock me silly, Daley bung-hole-boy.... you was fucked up your spastic tooting rightwing kazoo by Stubby Big Time Dick and The Codpiece Cowboy and the entire NeoConservative piano banging whorehouse of screeching crotch lice hags! Yeeee-Yaw, Daleyrocks! Yeeeeee-Yaw! You is and was a rightwing butt-boy doggie! Tell it all to yer grandchildrens!

You have been punked in your sleep by your sexy-war chickenhawk boyfriends Daleyrocks! What a sad screw-mellon mooncalf you are. If you had any decency or ethical constitution or even a shred of self respect by now you might consider such tespass and screw-hole adventurism, well, at the least icky. Icky! But oh no! Not Daleyrocks. No siree. Daleyrocks pines for the day when his cod-pieced chickenhawk prince will return again to shoe his little foot.

To lead Daleyrocks and the lost flock of rightwing moooon-calves back to the barn for a proper and utterly cowed mooncalf milking. And the great screwing and bleating and mooncalf romance will resume as before.

Ick.

*
the farmer | 01.17.07 - 5:09 am | #

sysprog,

How do you pull out of the 'cosmos' such amazing, timely, relevant, and daily make old-age-of-Reason 'stuff' applicable, updated, and useful information?

It's such a valuable Communal Service.

I guess you took a google computer course? It is a precious gift and keeps me spellbound. It's magic to me. Almost rhapsode...Thanks.

I'd not want you to divulge how you always pull a Rabbit out of your 'left' hat you seem to wear? (I realize a sock/hat in interchangable and your know-how benefits whatever shadowey side of the isle, lefty/righty) we pledge allegience too, but
You a pitch-hitter...even for Mr. Ritter when he's in a slump? Whatever the topic> out of the ballpark>Homeruns from you seems all the time!
What/how (?) in a brief answer, okay? I'm scared to ask how to 'cut & paste.' I'm so tech-backwards.
clownsense | 01.17.07 - 5:52 am | #

From anonymoose at 8:39 pm:

This shows your dispassion and greatly enhances your credibility.

Says the man claiming he's the next Mohammad.

Note that both pundits, the centrist David Brooks and the leftist Mark Shields, were favorably impressed.

David Brooks is about as centrist as Josef Stalin was a humanitarian philanthropist. And Mark Shields is at best a centrist journalist who has been inside the Beltway too long.

In any case, I find it curious you simply dismiss the President's continuous incoherence when it comes to rationalizations and explanations for this disaster of his. Are you hitting the bottle or the pipe as well?
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.17.07 - 6:11 am | #

Another question?
The last couple of comment I've made comes forth "Scrambled"
It stated, ..."Not Able To Submit Comment" /?# *//? etc.,...?
A real scramble of words come to the screen, but then it's on Glenn's blog as written... What's that mean?
clownsense | 01.17.07 - 6:27 am | #

It does it (Scrambled) each time. At 6:27 it was scrambled again...but my comment get's posted, anyway. Can someone give me Pax mentis?
clownsense | 01.17.07 - 6:32 am | #

From Fabian at 5:04 am:

So if our dear leaders really WERE concerned about "mushroom clouds" why did we invade Iraq?

I believe the current tally for pre-invasion rationalizations stands at 27, and includes everything from 'bringing democracy to the Middle East via domino theory' to 'Because the Archangel Michael told me to.'

Personally I think it comes down to Bush's massive Daddy Issues, Cheney's greed, and Rumsfield's half-baked militarism.
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.17.07 - 6:33 am | #

Everytime..."Unable to save comment," followed by a big scramble...(?)
Pax mentis clownsense | 01.17.07 - 6:34 am | #

Iakonaan said:

"The mind forever boggles at how those who lack all integrity and expertise are constantly afforded attention and exposure, their words taken at face value, while those who know what they're talking about are ignored, maligned, and sidelined."

Their words aren't intended to be taken at face value, nor are they expected to deal in objective fact.

They are paid to create an atmosphere, to begin and sustain a conversation on their implicit terms, to complete the seduction on the warrant that it is morally required.

They are hand wavers, myth makers, dream weavers.
MD | 01.17.07 - 6:35 am | #

Er.... nice plug for your book. Some of your readeers might be interested in a plug fo Ritter's recent book "Target Iran." Here's an Interview of Scott Ritter by Seymour Hirsh on the topic.
GDAEman | Homepage | 01.17.07 - 6:54 am | #

daleyrocks said:

"Jeff - Keep moving those goal posts buddy. You can't prove lies. You can't prove you knew Saddam didn't have WMD at the time of the invasion so all you can do is move the goalposts. Typical."

As if the burden of proof is on those who counseled caution, rather on those who launched an unprovoked invasion resulting in a humanitarian catastrophe and tens of thousands of deaths, not to mention the expenditure of treasure and loss of international goodwill.

As for the "evidence" prior to the invasion, consult this for starters, Ilana Mercer's article "What WMD?", documenting open and obvious evidence, from both the IAEA and the National Intelligence Estimates, prior to the invasion casting serious doubt on the Bush administration assertions:

http://www.wnd.com/news/ article....RTICLE_ID=36851

Here's a sample:

"Kay, a former top U.S. weapons inspector, endeared himself to the media as an invasion enthusiast. The evidence he now marshals to explain why no WMD were found in Iraq is the same old evidence those of us who opposed this war cited back in the dying days of 2002. So, no, not everyone was bullish about the Bush administration's WMD balderdash. And, yes, Kay has done no more than validate some very old verities: There have been no WMD in Iraq for some time.

"What Kay now parrots, the International Atomic Energy Agency's Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council before the war: There were no nuclear-designated aluminum tubes in Iraq; no uranium was imported, and no nuclear programs were in existence. Between 1991 and 1998, the IAEA had managed to strip Iraq of its fuel-enriching facilities, tallying inventories to a T. Or in Kay's belated words: "Iraq's large-scale capability to produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced – if not entirely destroyed – during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections."

"According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Congress in 1999 was privy to intelligence reports which similarly attested to a lack of "any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox (1998) to reconstitute its WMD program ..." Accounts of this nature have evidently been available to Congress for years. They reiterated, as one report from the Defense Intelligence Agency does, that, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were [sic] destroyed between 1991 and 1998."

"Kay's "news" ought not to have been new to the blithering boobs in Congress.

"The CEIP further bears out that in October of 2002, Congress was apprised of a National Intelligence Estimate, a declassified version of which was released only after the war. Apparently, entire intelligence agencies disputed key contentions that the administration – its experts, and its congressional and media backers – seized on and ran with."

Heh.
MD | 01.17.07 - 6:58 am | #

Your readers might be interested in Scott Ritter's new book "Target Iran" and his interview with Seymour Hersch.
.
GDAEman | Homepage | 01.17.07 - 7:00 am | #

Your readers might be interested in Ritter's new book "Target Iran" and an interview by Amy Goodman.
.
GDAEman | Homepage | 01.17.07 - 7:03 am | #

wow. My day, fortunate/unfortunate (?) is away from the blog-world. I've lots to tend to, but, Mahatma Ghandi's Granddaughter was interviewed on PBS radio on Martin Luther King's birthday.

I wish every person in the world would listen to that interview/discussion. "Enemy" is a dark myth-myth. It is Not a metaphysical or common wisdom realization. A projection of dark-side 'enemy' 'stuff' was done-well in a Sam Keene (?) book of WW2 'stuff,' Faces Of The Enemy."
It's a excellent work about sketch-cartoons visuals. Thanks.
"You/We have war's because stife&war is within us." yes. Pax mentis for 'peace of mind' to all. I'm sure this will come-up scrabled. If not, I'll apologize. Is it happening to other commenters? Later.
Pax mentis clownsense | 01.17.07 - 7:04 am | #

As for Idiot Pundits in general, and Bill Kristol in general, see Paul Campos in the Rocky Mountain News, in an article entitled appropriately enough: "Not Just Wrong, But All Wrong."

"Since the start of the war, Kristol has claimed that "there's almost no evidence" Iraqi Shiites wouldn't be able to get along with Sunnis; that it was a mistake to worry that Iraq "would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a bloodbath"; that the January 2005 Iraqi elections represented "a genuine turning point," comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall; that the situation in Iraq wouldn't get worse in 2006, and thus opposition to the war would prove to be an electoral disaster for Democrats; and that the Iraqi response to the bombing of the Samarra mosque this past February was "evidence of Iraq's underlying stability in the face of attempts to undermine it."

This is just a sample of the many things Kristol has said about Iraq that turned out to be not merely wrong, but the exact opposite of the truth. They represent nothing less than the Maximum Possible Error on all these matters."


http:// www.rockymountainnews.com..._86_105,00.html
MD | 01.17.07 - 7:05 am | #

Yep. Scrambled? It's time for scrambled eggs. Broken eggs, not just scrambled hump-dump dee....
Pax mentis clownsense | 01.17.07 - 7:06 am | #

The funny thing about Ritter? Back when he was a weapons inspector, he was perhaps the most gung-ho, skeptical, convinced Saddam had nukes hiding in his palace toilets person you can imagine (See e.g. Said K. Arburish's biography of Saddam Hussein for details). You never would've guessed then that he would oppose a war against Iraq.

So what happened? Simple. He and his colleagues did their job and concluded Saddam no longer had any WMDs and could not have gotten any.

In a sane world, their testimony would've been enough to stop the war, but of course it never was about WMDs in the first place...

(Saw Ritter speak in Amsterdams hortly before the war: hell of a speaker.)
Martin Wisse | Homepage | 01.17.07 - 7:11 am | #

Daleyrocks is ignoring the fact that UNSCOM was operating in Iraq, looking for WMD, and finding none. There was absolutely no reason they could not have continued to keep looking, except for one thing: Bush declared they were out of time, and had to leave before we started dropping bombs.

He is making a wholly dishonest argument that relies on poor memory.

~
ifthethunderdontgetya | Homepage | 01.17.07 - 7:42 am | #

daleyrocks has a point.Ritter couldn't provide conclusive proof(say,for instance,photographic documentation of every square inch of Iraq)of the lack of Saddam's WMDs.Therefore,Ritter's a fraud,and the only answer is to invade.Similarly,my wife insists I provide her proof I have never cheated or she will divorce me.I'm sure this all seems logical in some bizarro universe.
AnonE.Mouse | 01.17.07 - 7:53 am | #

Whoops, I mean UNMOVIC, not UNSCOM (as mentioned earlier in the thread).

~
ifthethunderdontgetya | Homepage | 01.17.07 - 8:04 am | #

I remember those days vividly, and I remember thinking, "This can't be how our country collectively behaves and thinks during a great national crisis." I remember the ugly weaving of post-911 feelings of national unity into a manufactured mission in Iraq.

I remember, quite profoundly and with lingering bitterness, the way antiwar voices like Ritter's were poo-pooed and shunned into the back alleys of discourse, and openly mocked whenever their faces surfaced in the traditional media. In particular, I remember one appearance by Ritter on Politically Incorrect, where Dennis Miller mericlessly mocked him to the crowd's delight, and while the jokes were witty, the message was absolutely nauseating: "Here's a fringe wacko interfering with our patriotic right and duty to destroy a muslim country in the wake of a national tragedy." Absolutely disgusting. It exposed an ugly truth about human behavior, and the lengths to which people can be blatantly exploited and misinformed en mass.

I clearly remember arguing with people, sometimes passionately, that there were likely no WMD in Iraq, that Saddam was effectively pigeon-holed, and there was no cause for war there. The responses I got were incredulous and verged on violent -- one momentarily did turn violent, to my utter amazement. The guy questioned "where I was from" and slapped my cell phone out of my hand. I thought I was in a movie, the blind, ignorant rage was so unreal.

Every time I think back on those days, I feel unmitigated disgust. This feeling has been made all the worse now that the voices that were so marginalized turned out to be so tragically right. And then the same pro-war voices that ridiculed and mocked those against invasion now have the gall to say "Don't look at me, everyone thought we should invade." The compounding of boorishness with dishonesty is truly breathtaking and loathesome.

Absolutely disgusting. And I hope it burns into every American's awareness memory, though apparently it hasn't sunk through enough to keep these same terribly wrong "experts" out of of our farthest-reaching media.

Now I'm going to think about this all the way to work!
DCLaw1 | 01.17.07 - 8:08 am | #

Glenn, can you delete my first comment? I got a message saying it wasn't saved, so I edited it a bit and reposted.
DCLaw1 | 01.17.07 - 8:10 am | #

he traveled to Iraq and made an antiwar movie, so he is completely without bias on the subject, right?

It's really funny to see Daleyrocks et al say stuff like this, and not realise they're only proving Glen's original post right. :)
EGB's Smelly Sox | 01.17.07 - 8:11 am | #

"Man, my friends," said General Lorens Loewenhielm, "[humankind] is frail and foolish...foolish and short-sighted...For this we tremble!" The moment comes when our eyes are opened and we acknowledge..."Grace!"..."My friends, grace brothers and sisters, See!"

"Take not thought for food or raiment careful one, so anxiously" and "Wouldst thou give a stone, a reptile to thy pleading child for food?" Incredible.

Is this the day of Babette Time or what? We tease, but (I get very sleepy after two beers and incomprehensible-giddy from a glass of wine--i not a serious winebibber, honest) a blind man/lady can remark "Amontillado! This is the finest Amontillado that I have ever tasted." To test the senses, turtle-soup was served in the Babette story. The blind person said, "Yuck, I hate turtle soup." There was panic. Then the wine-glass was emptied. Vagabonds get dead-drunk and become courtiers that ruin a nation. The best wine in the world given to a non-noble soul will become dregs and froth spewed from his/her mouthpiece.

General Loren Loewenhielm was worrisome about his immortal soul. He (bush's hand-picks) was ruddy, bright in uniform, strutting with his breast covered in some unearned decorations. The external bosom shone like a ornamental golden peacock, black crow, and had jacjdaws in toe...(within) That comes from Babette's feast. I'm pretty sure this gets scrabled.
Pax mentis clownsense | 01.17.07 - 8:33 am | #

It was a (not a cracked egg) scrambled egg... Later. It's a sunny day.
Anonymous | 01.17.07 - 8:35 am | #

Glenn....

I bookmarked the Amazon link and per your instruction, will not fire until I see the whites of their eyes!
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 01.17.07 - 8:42 am | #

Clownsense, you must be east of me; it's still dark here. Since no one answered your question, I'll have a bash. Sometimes the HaloScan server goes nuts. That's the simplest way I know to describe it. It'll scramble your text, or tell you it can't save it, then tell you when you try it again that you've already said that. If you change it a little and try it a third time, It'll tell you that you can't post twice in such a short amount of time.

Best thing to do, I've found, is to copy your comment to the clipboard before trying to post it, just in case, or compose it in a text editor and copy-and-paste it into the HaloScan edit window.

Eventually things go back to normal. When HS partially eats your cookie, though, it helps to delete it and start over. If you don't, you wind up having those nasty anonymous posts.

To make a long story short, patience is the only cure. Pax mentis indeed.
William Timberman | 01.17.07 - 8:44 am | #

Mmm...today HaloScan has a new trick. It scrambles what you see, but does actually post it correctly. So...check first before trying again. Eventually your HaloScan jiujitsu gets good enough to earn you a black belt.
William Timberman | 01.17.07 - 8:49 am | #

Glenn,

I am really looking forward to read your book: since I live oversea (Italy) do you know if it is going to be available also for Amazon UK from the day of the release? Will the Europeans have to wait a little longer to get their hands on it? Any info will be greatly appreciated...
Kimba1970 | 01.17.07 - 8:53 am | #

Yup, count me in as a purchaser of your book.

Those who are actually proud of America, and you know, think it IS the strongest nation in the world, will have to do our best to stand up to the fearmongers in the world, who hide under the bed at the sound of a creaking door.
LnGrrrR | 01.17.07 - 9:21 am | #

"wrote Thomas Paine, the Glenn Greenwald of the 1700's"

Wow. Do you really think that Tom Paine rose to that level?
casual observer | 01.17.07 - 9:40 am | #

Glenn---copyediting note: Pete Townshend's name has an "h" in it, and he was a member of the rock band The Who, not the World Health Organization.

Keep up the good work!
mugwumpia | 01.17.07 - 9:45 am | #

"Ick."
the farmer | 01.17.07 - 5:09 am

I was laughing so hard I had to stop three times, couldn't see the screen. The feel-good post of the year, in my IMHO. Thanks farmer.
casual observer | 01.17.07 - 9:53 am | #

WT--

"Eventually your HaloScan jiujitsu gets good enough to earn you a black belt."

I've found you can post, get the extended greek alphabet, but then right click and go back--Halo will tell you that you have failed and the world is about to be destroyed, but your post is up without distortion.
casual observer | 01.17.07 - 10:01 am | #

DaleyRocks -- if you have once again emerged to respond, the simple question (overlooked even here by those responding to you) is this:

In 2003, inspectors were in Iraq. They were finding nothing. They would have found nothing.

Why did Bush start the war?
Upper West | 01.17.07 - 10:48 am | #

Here is a devastating refutation of the chickenhawk smear leveled against supporters of President Bush's Iraq policy:

Jeff, I don’t know how much troop demoralization there is out there. From what I’ve heard, troop morale is pretty good, because they can see for themselves the progress they make and the situation as it actually stands. Sure, they’re pissed about media coverage, but they don’t believe it, unlike the folks at home, who have little or no information beyond what the MSM feeds them.

I would contend that the defeatist drumbeat is having its greatest effect here at home, and that’s where we’re going to win or lose the battle of Iraq. Even if troop morale remains sky-high for the duration, they can’t win a war if their funding is pulled, the ROE are too restrictive, the strategy is too tentative, or any of a number of factors that originate entirely within the US.

The defeatists have convinced the US public that We Can’t Win, and that is reflected in opinion polls and elections. It’s hard to argue for diminished troop morale because of the defeatists, but the causality between the news reports and how people vote is much tighter and much clearer.

We often talk about the hazards of Emboldening the Jihadis, but what about Emboldening Murtha and Pelosi? Our military can handle the jihadis, but they are helpless against a Congress who sees retreat as the only viable solution and who believes that the public supports them.

We can win the war against the jihadis only if the US public have the will to do so. The erosion of will and determination can be placed squarely at the feat of the defeatists in the media and elsewhere.

Anonymoose, we're not defeatists when it comes to the likes of you. Get used to being toothless; you've got years of it ahead of you.
William Timberman | 01.17.07 - 11:43 am | #

Moose,

Great unsourced quote. What about the poll of active duty service personnel that shows that over half want us to pull out?

I showed you last night that, by the very signposts that your dear leader has espoused, we are losing the war, and not by defeatist attitudes, but by failure of strategy, which is supposed to be his job.

Instead of looking inward and admitting his mistakes and trying to change, Bush "accepts" the failures but then points to everyone else (the generals, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Syrians) to blame them for the collapse of his failed strategy. Your unsourced quote blames the country, Murtha, and Pelosi for Bush's failure. The failure traces to him, his cabal, and to those who blindly and uncritically accept his uninspired leadership. Do not blame those who oppose the war for its failure; understand that those who espouse it and created the strategy are also the architects of that failure.
Fraud Guy | 01.17.07 - 11:57 am | #

GDAEman | Homepage | 01.17.07 - 7:00 am

"Your readers might be interested in Scott Ritter's new book "Target Iran" and his interview with Seymour Hersch."

GDAEman, thank you very much for this link. Lots of good information and insight.
casual observer | 01.17.07 - 12:03 pm | #

way to break it down brother!

it's just so hard to believe that people like jonah goldberg are STILL given a platform to spew their "wisdom"
darladoon | 01.17.07 - 12:03 pm | #

Scott Ritter:

"But note that the Bush administration has taken this and now changed course, like they did with Iraq. Saddam said, “We don’t have any weapons. The inspectors aren’t finding any weapons. Keep looking.” Why? Because the onus isn’t on the inspectors to find the weapons. The onus is on Iraq to prove that none exist. But how can you prove a negative? The same thing is in play today with Iran. We have told the Iranians it is their responsibility to prove to the international community beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran. How can you prove a negative?

But that’s not the point, because it’s not about a nuclear weapons program. It’s about regime change and the Bush administration using the perception of threat from a nuclear weapons program to achieve their ultimate objective of regional transformation, which is, again, a policy born more in Tel Aviv than Washington, D.C. "

http://www.democracynow.org/arti...e=thread& tid=25
casual observer | 01.17.07 - 12:09 pm | #

I suppose in bizzaro, Bushspeak world, "devastating refutation" may have a different meaning.
Lawstsoul | 01.17.07 - 12:21 pm | #

Go back to LGF or playing with your feces.


Say what you will about me, but I never play with my food.

*
anonymoose | 01.17.07 - 12:22 pm | #

My suggestion for a post topic when you can resume blogging would be the official (who has something to do with overseeing the detainees cases) who made to Countdown's Worst person list that demonized the lawyers representing the "detainees" at Gitmo, saying something to the effect of he couldn't believe the firms be trying to protect the very terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

How did the Bush administration find so many people that hate democracy, the rule of law, and human rights?
m.b.f. | 01.17.07 - 12:44 pm | #

Also, as Olberman pointed out. This was a tacit threat, suggesting that Americans and companies stop doing business with these firms.

Its like a new McCarthysm.
m.b.f. | 01.17.07 - 12:46 pm | #

Long time reader, first time commenter. Love the show, as it were. The Ritter stuff is a pointed example of the smearing and rejection of the experts and the elevation of detached war automatons.

One fly in the ointment of this example: how credible is the mention of his solicitation of someone he thought to be a 16 year old girl on the internet. That really is a no no, and can loose even the most expert of experts a hearing on many subjects. Anyone have any good info on this? Is it true? Was he set up? What's the deal with that? Is it like some latter day Hoover op to destroy an emeny of the administration, or did Ritter really pull something unseemly/criminal? Seems like an important variable in using Ritter as an example. I mean, whatever the deal people in the government should have used him for a resource, but if he auto-distructed in some way it would be understandable if it was harder for him to find a soap box.

Thanks for the supreme flow of commentary and analysis, Glenn, et al.
trypticon | 01.17.07 - 1:03 pm | #

http://www.crooksandliars.com/20...on-due-process/

That's what I'm talking about. Unbelievable. The guy - Cully Stimson - is deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs.
m.b.f. | 01.17.07 - 1:07 pm | #

trypticon, up-thread there are links that will answer your questions. In my opinion a "Hoover op" is the most likely answer, or perhaps we should say he was "Plame-ified".
Make It Stop | 01.17.07 - 1:08 pm | #

Google? It's clownsencical. Google's like six degrees of separation (Kevin Bacon). Everything is connected to everything else via a half dozen web links. We're all in the turtle soup. I remember my father, who long ago taught me to pray for my daily bread, taking me to a service at the Kaiser's Berliner Dom, the Kaiser's attempt to make Berlin into the Rome of the North. My German doesn't go much beyond having learned to say "Ich spreche nicht viel Deutsch" but the cathedral provided a radio headset with simultaneous translation, like at the U.N., and I sat and listened to a Luther hymn and the Lutheran sermon. Nearby, on the museum island, in the 1920s, my atheist Jewish grandfather was the keeper of the print room, where he analyzed Dürer's reverent but clear-eyed and naturalistic portraits of Luther and Melancthon. The four central pillars of the Berliner Dom are statues of four pillars of protestantism, Luther and Melancthon and Calvin and Zwingli. And my how they'd dispute such a grouping if they could talk and not just stand and scowl.

Babette's Feast is rich with ironies, such as singing about not giving your child a stone (Matthew 7:9) instead of his daily bread, in a story about a man who burdens his daughters with pietous stones when he names them Martine (Luther) and Philippa (Melancthon) -- a story written by a woman, Karen Blixen, who probably inherited syphilis from her father, and who could hardly digest anything in her last days, when she dreamed of Babette's Feast. Can we forgive our fathers their trespasses? If we don't, can we find pax mentis anyway? Is faith and piety enough for grace? Or does salvation require sacrifice and good works? Danish Lutherans and French Catholics can trade charges of antinomianism, or they can see the beauty in each other's faith and music and art and food. Karen Blixen forgives all, and all find grace.
sysprog | 01.17.07 - 1:50 pm | #

MD | 01.17.07 - 7:05 am | # - Did Kos call for a coordinated attack on Kristol? AL has done it. Crazy Campos has done it as have numerous other pundit on the left recently, all using essentially THE SAME ARGUMENT. It does seem as if they are taking marching orders, much like early last summer.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 1:51 pm | #

casual observer--

"We have told the Iranians it is their responsibility to prove to the international community beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran. How can you prove a negative?"

So basically the Bush administration has turned jurisprudence on its head. An attorney friend once explained that the standard of proof of guilt in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which he equated to 95%+ certainty of guilt (in other cases, it can be "clear and compelling"--75% and "preponderance of guilt"-->50%). Also, the prosecutor must prove guilt, then the defense can present its case.

For the administation, the standards are completely reversed; not only must you prove your innocence, you must also prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (if Cheney's 5% doctrine is accepted). If that is the maladministrations standard, no wonder why we invaded.

As an aside, it is easy for US citizens to prove our innocence; we merely must state that we support "victory" in the GWOT. Anything else indicates that we may not be so patriotic, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fraud Guy | 01.17.07 - 1:58 pm | #

Thanks MD, sysprog, Jeff, Farmer, et. al. for admitting that you did not know that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of our invasion in 2003. That's a big admission in contrast to the usual lefty certitude expressed on most blogs, which, in the face of then contemporaneous evidence could not rationally be expressed in terms other than as a belief as opposed to a fact. The citation referenced above by Ritter, which I have not checked out, that Iraq was 90-95% WMD free is interesting and may explain in part the artillery shells and other artifacts we have found. Would any of you like to see 5-10% of Iraq's chemical or biological weapons wind up in the U.S. or Western Europe given Saddam's unwillingness to allow people to witness or certify their destruction?
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 2:12 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 2:12 pm:

Thanks MD, sysprog, Jeff, Farmer, et. al. for admitting that you did not know that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of our invasion in 2003.

Will you, in turn, man up and admit the 2003 invasion was case of "going overboard" to verify the otherwise obvious fact that the Hussein regime was NOT armed with WMDs and WAS NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES?

I somehow doubt you have the piles to do so, but do feel free to surprise me.
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.17.07 - 2:28 pm | #

daleyrocks, all I admit is that I was only 99% certain in 2003 that Bush was lying -- I thought there was a 1% chance that he had some secret intelligence findings that justified his claim of "NO DOUBT".

In hindsight, I'm 100% certain that he was lying, since I don't believe his deliberate falsehoods can be attributed to insanity or stupidity.

Of course, I'd have been against the war whether or not Saddam had WMDs, because the war wasn't a last resort, and a war which isn't a last resort is an unjustified war.
sysprog | 01.17.07 - 2:50 pm | #

Glenn:

Great Post. Let me recommend the Washington Post "Style" section's profile of Ritter during the runup.

This Donna Brazile is really fishy. I think she works for the other side. I find it more and more peculiar that Gore had people like her and Lieberman on his team, as if someone was holding a gun to his head.
brendan | 01.17.07 - 3:01 pm | #

That's a big admission in contrast to the usual lefty certitude expressed on most blogs, which, in the face of then contemporaneous evidence could not rationally be expressed in terms other than as a belief as opposed to a fact.
daleyrocks | 01.17.07 - 2:12 pm | #

Do you mean like the certitude expressed by the administration that the WMD existed which..."could not rationally be expressed in terms other than as a belief as opposed to a fact"? Yes, I think you do.
Troglaman | 01.17.07 - 3:07 pm | #

On "daleyrocks":

Sickening. Saddam Hussein called our bluff and allowed unfettered inspection (the same thing happened on a lesser scale in 1998). That was the trigger for war. And it was certainly enough to make clear that our own government was negotiating in bad faith. At that point, whether Iraq had weapons or not was of secondary importance.

I actually read the Post cover to cover during the 2002-2003 period (the very pro-war Post) and remember saying to myself (like many others, I'm) that they would very soon start saying "Saddam kicked the inspectors out", that front page news would very quickly go down the memory hole. And now slavish little pieces of shit like "daleyrocks" come around to tell me none of this happened the way I remember it.

And now "daleyrocks" is so proud to get people to "admit they didn't know for sure" whether Saddam Hussein had WMD. No shit! That was not the issue in early 2003. The issue was that the administration were sabotaging the possibility of an inspections regime in the interest of starting the war. This little masochistic speck of shit shouldn't even be engaged in argument. He needs to get Bush's dick out of his ass and his thumb out of his mouth and start thinking like a grownup.
brendan | 01.17.07 - 3:19 pm | #

sysprog and others:

How could you get outfoxed by "daleyrocks" that way? He pulled the classic Republican trick of changing the subject and demanding that you disprove a negative. He is an accomplished troll, getting people to argue unverifiable, absurdly hypothetical or irrelevant things.
brendan | 01.17.07 - 3:30 pm | #

My suggestion for dealing with BJ Daleyrocks would be to ban him, or at least refuse to respond to him, until he can provide conclusive proof that he is not working for Osama bin Laden. You know, things like he could point to all the letters he hasn't received from Afghanistan, or show the secret password that he doesn't have to a well hidden web site that he can prove he doesn't know about where his instructions are contained in graphics files that he can prove that he hasn't downloaded, or show that he can't even speak Arabic, or prove that he has never gotten his instructions in code from a seemingly innocent wrong number. Until he can prove conclusively that he has done none of these things or any number of other equally compromising acts, he should not be allowed to post.

But going beyond that, there is no point in responding to anything he says. You cannot change his mind. He is a jihadi -- an ideological warrior. He fights a holy war, a crusade, and cannot be distracted by evidence or facts. Logic and rational thought are not part of his arsenal. He can only disrupt through misdirection and straw man arguments copied and pasted and Limbaughesqe scatological appellations. He should not be allowed to do this. He shouldn't be banned permanently, of course. Only until he can prove conclusively that he doesn't have secret access to Weapons of Mass Destruction that he plans to give to Osama bin Laden. Or perhaps it could just be until he conclusively proves that he has never spit on the sidewalk.

Frankly, my dear, ... | 01.17.07 - 5:29 pm | #

OK. At 10:48 I asked DaleyRocks:
"If you have once again emerged to respond, the simple question (overlooked even here by those responding to you) is this:

In 2003, inspectors were in Iraq. They were finding nothing. They would have found nothing.

Why did Bush start the war?"

Daley emerged with several posts since then, but has not answered the question.

I must assume that he has no answer.
Upper West | 01.17.07 - 5:37 pm | #

It's funny watching dead-end wingnuts beat up on the 'lefty' straw man in their own heads, and like WWII-era Japanese soldiers stranded on deserted islands, they continue their vigil to keep on fighting (still haven't found any WMDs in Iraq, though).

After all, if the existence of WMDs in Iraq were really a 'slam dunk,' then why were the 16 lying words added to Bush's infamous speech, and why bother creating the falsified 'Niger uranium' documents?
cheSF | 01.17.07 - 5:53 pm | #

Hey Glenn - Seems like Saddam's government never took Ritter's advice...they never let the inspectors back in, they never disproved the existence of WMD, choosing instead to play chicken with the US, gambling wisely (based on history), but wrongly, that the UN would be able to run interference for them. So, they failed to live up to their international obligations....huh...

Not saying that alone justifies invasion. But the fact that you brought it up, and that you don't (or can't) rebut it cripples your argument.

Funny that.

L.
L. | 01.17.07 - 10:26 pm | #

Anonymoose: Go back to LGF or playing with your feces.

Say what you will about me, but I never play with my food.

Am I wrong or did Anonymoose just admit that he eats shit?
Lish | 01.17.07 - 10:28 pm | #

L. -- They absolutely did let the inspectors back in in 2003. You are simply misinformed or lying. The inspectors left in 2003 because the war was starting.
Upper West | 01.17.07 - 10:54 pm | #

Brendan, Upper West,

DaleyROCKS!!!! But he ignores facts.

In Daley's world, Saddam didn't let the inspectors in. Maybe he wasn't actually armed with WMD, but the ONLY way to prove that was to invade. UN inspectors don't count. Hence the invasion was a success and it is now up to the rest of us to offer a better way forward than Bush's.

If you disagree with any of this, you are unserious and ignorant. Your 'facts' are unserious. He will not consider them because you failed to identify that Anbar province and Fallujah would be key hotspots before the invasion. The fact that these were, in fact, key hotspots during the British occupation/creation of Iraq are not relevant. Brits. History. Pah.
DaleyROCKS!!!! We don't.


ps. We know Saddam was the worst bastard in the world because we armed him with chemical weapons and helped him target Iranians and "his own people" (actually rebellious Kurds) so he could gas them effectively. And when I say 'we' I mean Bush Sr., Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Bullsmith | 01.17.07 - 11:25 pm | #

What is L. talking about? Is there really a group of people who believe Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? This was one of Bush's greatest diplomatic successes. Is it forgotten so easily, even by his supporters?

Seriously L., are you serious?
Bullsmith | 01.17.07 - 11:30 pm | #

The Washington Post also went to great lengths to assassinate Scott Ritter's character.

They made many false and defamatory charges, and published or quoted Republican operatives like Victoria Toensing to do it.

It's a very rich vein of attack 'journalism'--I'm sure you've run across this, but the egregious nature of the Post's treatment of the issue, and the profound, knowing mischaracterization of Scott Ritter's character and psychological makeup was deeply disturbing.
SombreroFallout | 01.18.07 - 7:13 am | #