Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!

Or, you know — not.

But why let a little truth ruin such a catchy little bumpersticker refrain?

After all, if progressives can’t get together at rallies and shout dubious rhyming slogans with impunity, the terrorists will have already won…

(thanks to JHo)

36 Replies to “BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!”

  1. cranky-d says:

    I still think that it’s likely that a lot of WMD was removed before the invasion.

    Bush made a strategic error in going with the WMD angle, and by letting all other reasons for the invasion fall by the wayside instead of keeping them in the forefront. However, we have long ago concluded, I think, that he did not do a good job handling the media.

    Ultimately, you go with the intelligence you have, which may not be completely accurate. In this case, it apparently was not accurate. Republicans, even spendy-spenders like Bush, cannot be forgiven for any decision. Even if the WMD had been there in abundance, progressives would have latched on to some other reason to call him a liar and to use the same bumper-sticker slogan.

  2. Crawford says:

    Bush made a strategic error in going with the WMD angle, and by letting all other reasons for the invasion fall by the wayside instead of keeping them in the forefront.

    He didn’t. The press simply refused to give the other reasons much attention, probably because they couldn’t understand them.

  3. Crawford says:

    Even if the WMD had been there in abundance, progressives would have latched on to some other reason to call him a liar and to use the same bumper-sticker slogan.

    This is an absolute truth.

    What really ticked the progressives off was seeing one of their own — another intellectual heir to Naziism — removed from power.

  4. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – You know it would be a waste of time to try to even broach the subject with anyone from the hard Left. They’ll all go to their graves clutching the “Bush lied” canard in their gnarled little Marxist fingers.

  5. Jeff G. says:

    I agree with Crawford. The resolution included quite a number of issues. The left press seized on one, and tenaciously hoped to disprove it so that they could justify running a counterinsurgency against their own country’s efforts.

    It was revolting, and is likely one of the causes of the death of much of the mainstream press, in retrospect.

  6. cranky-d says:

    I need to learn to write better. I know Bush put forth other reasons in the resolution, but he sure as hell didn’t try to reinforce that later, did he?

  7. alppuccino says:

    Yes, unless they found a missile as big as Teddy K’s head, these idiots would never admit to wmd.

  8. alppuccino says:

    I believe George W. kept liberty in the forefront of the operation. Hence Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    (absolutely no snark intended)

  9. JD says:

    I remember a time pre-Iraq when the mendoucheous leftists were arguing that President Bush had too many reasons, and was just making them up as they went along.

  10. Silver Whistle says:

    There was a time, alp, when Hope seemed to ooze out of your ass. What happened?

  11. Tman says:

    Hey Jeff,

    Did you see that interview of Bush by Mark Zuckerberg in front of the Facebook staff? You can practically feel the hatred in the audience of Bush in the beginning, but by the end you can tell they began to realize the media-fed image of Bush was completely wrong and made he wasn’t just a stupid cowboy.

    Video here for those interested, it’s fascinating.

    http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2010/11/mark-zuckerberg-interviews-george-w.html

  12. cranky-d says:

    I’m too stupid to comment here I think. Today, at least.

  13. alppuccino says:

    I’m schilling for GWB for a while. I’ll go back to the hope poop. You can’t pin me down.

  14. LBascom says:

    “It was revolting, and is likely one of the causes of the death of much of the mainstream press, in retrospect.”

    Ayup.

    Times before (sorry, couldn’t resist), the media would harp, and there could be little argument. Too bad for them, any dumbbell now can easily open a browser and find in seconds what Bush actually said, and post it in immediate response.

    It’s hard to get people to pay for lies.

  15. alppuccino says:

    I’m too stupid to comment here I think. Today, at least.

    Ain’t no way I’m letting you move in on my territory cranky. Don’t even try.

  16. Jeff G. says:

    Hadn’t see that, Tman. Will watch today.

  17. Tman says:

    Watch the whole thing Jeff, it’s totally worth it. You can tell Zuckerberg has a lot of respect for GW, much to the massive dismay of his staff. And Bush STILL maintains his silence in criticizing Obama. Kudos to the GW.

  18. LTC John says:

    I guess now that it has been leaked, I can at least mention when I was in Iraq, those rounds with the chem agent, mentioned in the summer of 2008 – sure made me a wee bit nervous at the time I saw that report. Of course, I was traveling the country a bit then, so I was not looking forward to running into Mr. IED and Mr. CHEM at the same time.

    Of course, I take my security clearance seriously, so I wasn’t running around bellowing about this on leftie sites or at morons like alphie on this site…. sigh. The price of holding one’s tongue, I guess.

  19. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – LTC, I hear you. Being connected in any way with the truth on the ground in real time makes the Big lie campaigns almost insufferable to watch at times. You want to just reach out and strangle a few scrawny necks, but having principles is never easy. If it was the Left would be doing it.

  20. sdferr says:

    Recall the Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview, touching on the bureaucratic cause of settling on WMD:

    Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden’s rage about that, which he’s built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there’s a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into —

    Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but [. . .]

    Wolfowitz: — there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there’s a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again. [. . .]

    Wolfowitz: To wrap it up.

    The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there’s the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we’ve arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.

    Q: So this notion then that the strategic question was really a part of the equation, that you were looking at Saudi Arabia —

    Wolfowitz: I was. It’s one of the reasons why I took a very different view of what the argument that removing Saddam Hussein would destabilize the Middle East. I said on the record, I don’t understand how people can really believe that removing this huge source of instability is going to be a cause of instability in the Middle East.

    I understand what they’re thinking about. I’m not blind to the uncertainties of this situation, but they just seem to be blind to the instability that that son of a bitch was causing. It’s as though the fact that he was paying $25,000 per terrorist family and issuing regular threats to most friendly governments in the region and the long list of things was of no account and the only thing to think about was that there might be some inter-communal violence if he were removed.

    The implication of a lot of the argumentation against acting — the implication was that the only way to have the stability that we need in Iraq is to have a tyrant like Saddam keeping everybody in check — I know no one ever said it that way and if you pointed it out that way they’d say that’s not what I mean. But I believe that really is where the logic was leading.

    Q: Which also makes you wonder about how much faith there is in spreading democracy and all the rest among some of those who —

    Wolfowitz: Probably not very much. There is no question that there’s a lot of instability that comes with democracy and it’s the nature of the beast that it’s turbulent and uncertain.

    The thing is, at a general level, I’ve encountered this argument from the defenders of Asian autocracies of various kinds. Look how much better off Singapore is than Indonesia, to pick a glaring contrast. And Indonesia’s really struggling with democracy. It sort of inherited democracy under the worst possible conditions too, one might say. But the thing that — I’d actually say that a large part of Indonesia’s problems come from the fact that dictatorships are unstable in the one worst way which is with respect to choosing the next regime. Democracy, one could say, has solved, not solve perfectly, but they represent one of the best solutions to one of the most fundamental instabilities in politics and that’s how to replace one regime with another. It’s the only orderly way in the world for doing it other than hereditary monarchy which doesn’t seem to have much of a future.

  21. Blake says:

    The whole wikileaks thing again proves the stunning incompetence of government. Yet, progressives will never see the document leak for the damning indictment against government that it is.

    ………………………..

    sferr, I’ve long understood the ME would have become Saddam’s bitch if he every acquired nuclear weapons.

    I think Wolfowitz said much the same thing, but in terms safe for viewers at home.

  22. Mueller says:

    If past performance is indicative of future behavior, then Bush and the rest of the western countries had every reason to be concerned. As far as I know he was the only modern head of state to purposefully use chemical weapons on his own people, since the second world war.
    Even if he was bluffing, Saddam was holding a gun against the heads of the people of his country. We’d have been foolish to think that gun was unloaded.

  23. The Monster says:

    Jeff used three dots in that final elipsis, but since it’s the end rather than the middle, it should be four dots.

    GOLDSTEIN MISPUNCTUATED! PEOPLE WERE HATED!
    or something.
    </LLL>

  24. Ric Locke says:

    Ah, how things do fall down the Memory Hole. The ME was already pretty much Saddam’s bitch. This is one of the reasons the mullahs of Iran wanted nuclear weapons.

    Saddam had the biggest and best-trained army in the ME, and wasn’t in the least bashful about reminding people of that, along with dark hints about what might happen if people, you know, got crosswise with him… It helped a lot that Bush I didn’t finish the job, because S. Hussein could claim he ran the Americans off by pure force of personality, which he regularly did. It also helped quite a bit that he’d fought the Iranians — a much stronger and more prosperous society, even with the mullahs in charge — to pretty much a standstill on their own territory. All that gave him a lot of weight to throw around, and he did so with gusto.

    Then the Americans came back, contrary to Saddam’s bluster; perhaps it wasn’t the sheer admiration of his awesome might that kept the infidels off. Then they walked over the biggest, baddest, best trained, and best equipped army in the ME as if it weren’t there, which caused both satisfaction and consternation in all kinds of places, not all of them predictable (especially by leftoid procedures). Among other things, Ayatollah Khameni and fellows reasoned thusly:

    1) Saddam almost knocked our army down on our territory;
    2) The Americans were barely inconvenienced by Saddam’s Army;
    3) THEREFORE if the Americans come after us — OSHITOSHITOSHIT! Nukes NOW!

    Then the Americans did what Americans always do, and nobody is ever able to anticipate or figure out: They picked their defeated enemies, the Iraqi army, up, dusted off their clothes, and said kindly, “Hey, you got beat ’cause you’re doing it wrong. Let us show you how to do it right.”

    And the mullahs went apeshit. Saddam almost beat them with his army; they were now faced with the possibility that someday an Iraqi army trained up to, say, a third to a half of American capability headed for Tehran, with LTC John & Friends sitting under beach umbrellas sipping drinks with bits of fruit on little sticks in, watching, cheering, and offering advice. OSHITOSHITOSHIT!, or however you say that in Farsi. (I still think that’s a possibility, though a remote one, and I’ll betcha the mullahs do, too.)

    That left “assymetrical warfare”, and Khameni & Co. turned to with a will, aided by fools (Muqtada al-Sadr and others), Shi’ia fanatics, and Western leftoids including the “news” organizations, whose determination to take Bush and the Bitter Clingers down a peg meshed perfectly with the mullahs’ intent to weaken the Americans. The rest, as they say, is General Science — or maybe Social Studies; anyway, one of those boring freshman-in-high-school thangs.

    Regards,
    Ric

  25. Crawford says:

    That left “assymetrical warfare”, and Khameni & Co. turned to with a will, aided by fools (Muqtada al-Sadr and others), Shi’ia fanatics, and Western leftoids…

    I still don’t understand why a career-hungry federal prosecutor didn’t make Code Pink his bitch for giving money and supplies to the jihadis in Fallujah. I guess the dangers of pissing off their Democrat sponsors were more than the gains from putting life-long smiles on the faces of Americans.

  26. Ric Locke says:

    Crawford, one of the things we’ve learned to our regret (well, my regret anyway) in the last few years is that we don’t have a Department of Justice. What we have is a Department of Social Justice that takes its orders from the leftoid wing of the Democratic Party regardless of who the President is, and which takes as its first order of business Bringing Down The Man, i.e. white males who are not Democrats.

    No member of the Do(S)J who might contemplate “making Code Pink his bitch” could ever reach the rank of prosecutor in the first place.

    Regards,
    Ric

  27. Spiny Norman says:

    Ric,

    1) Saddam almost knocked our army down on our territory;
    2) The Americans were barely inconvenienced by Saddam’s Army;
    3) THEREFORE if the Americans come after us — OSHITOSHITOSHIT! Nukes NOW!

    Of course, that doesn’t stop the leftist internet tough buys from claiming (boasting?) that the Iranian military would “wipe us out” if we dared cross their border.

    Of course, this same zit brigade claims we’ve been “run out of Iraq with our tails between our legs”, and are being “utterly destroyed” in Afghanistan, “the graveyard of empires” (the Taliban now calling for a “timeout” notwithstanding).

    Yeah, I troll some whacky web forums when I’m bored…

  28. Spiny Norman says:

    Oof. “buys” = “guys”…

  29. alppuccino says:

    The left never seems to see things the way they really are.

  30. newrouter says:

    Oof. “buys”

    soros would say buys

  31. Swen says:

    Didn’t the whole “Bush Lied” meme start with the infamous 16 words in his 2003 SOTU address — “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — and Joe Wilson’s assertion that it was a lie, because he’d sipped tea in Niger on the CIA’s nickel and knew Saddam hadn’t been trying to buy uranium there? Honestly, I never could figure that one out, unless some were so geographically retarded that they thought Niger = Africa.

  32. Danger says:

    Ric,

    You go from inspiring (#24) to discouraging (#26) in an eye blink amigo.
    More of the former please 8^).

    Oh and Ditto to LTC John! F*&^ing (insert JD’s best denouncement, happyfeet’s ragiest rage and Bob’s heaviest vowel strike here) Lefties!!!

  33. cranky-d says:

    “Bush Lied, People Died” started because it frelling rhymes and progressives love them some rhymey-rhymes that fit on bumperstickers. They decided which “lie” to attach it to after the fact.

  34. cranky-d says:

    Having said that, I think Swen is correct on the origins. However, recall that I’m not all that bright.

  35. LTC John says:

    “Hey, you got beat ’cause you’re doing it wrong. Let us show you how to do it right.”

    Heh. You just described MNSTC-I’s mission in a nutshell. And the Iraqis, for all their flaws, did a pretty good job of listening. Of course, getting walloped twice in the span of 1989-2003 by us, made them think “say, these Americans may have something here.”

    As we used to say, “everyone wants to be like Mike” (old Jordan/Gatorade ad reference).

    now that the IA is spinning up on M1 tanks, etc., I would suspect more than one sphincter in Tehrans is clenching.

Comments are closed.