If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Donald Rumsfeld can't handle the hard truth... about why we went to war with Iraq   (motherjones.com) divider line 73
    More: Obvious, Rumsfeld, Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Isikoff, Errol Morris, United States Secretary of Defense, Saddam Hussein  
•       •       •

2033 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2014 at 9:20 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-28 08:31:09 AM  
We went to war in Iraq because:
1. Neoconservatives had visions of completing the unfinished business from the first Gulf War,
2. Neoconservatives were upset because the (at the time) quick and easy takeover of the third-world nation of Afghanistan had not allowed them to sufficiently show off the size of their dicks and thought they needed a tougher bully with a bigger army to knock over
3. Various defense contractors saw shiat-tons of money to be made.  Sometimes, quite literally:
static.guim.co.uk
and because
4: The people in items 1 - 3 convinced GWB that knocking over Saddam would really impress his daddy and prove that he was his own man who could succeed where Pops wisely decided to not even try.
 
2014-03-28 08:40:47 AM  
To be fair, the man is an idiot.
 
2014-03-28 08:49:43 AM  
FTFA: After a short recap of the initial US military action in Afghanistan following the horrific September 11 attacks, Morris notes that a "confusion" set in, with many Americans believing Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was involved in 9/11.

Maybe I'm tainted by the whole 'hindsight being 20/20' thing, but this really pisses me off.  Was there ever anyone who, with any sincerity, for one second truly believed that Hussein was in on that?  I just recall douches from the Bush administration trying to float it by us a few times and the overwhelming response from the American people was pretty much, "Eh, that's bullshiat."
 
2014-03-28 09:10:45 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Maybe I'm tainted by the whole 'hindsight being 20/20' thing, but this really pisses me off.  Was there ever anyone who, with any sincerity, for one second truly believed that Hussein was in on that?


My Mom still to this day is completely, incontrovertibly convinced that Saddam Hussein was "in on it". I mean, she's as convinced that this is the truth as she is the sun will come up tomorrow.

Part of it was the xenophobia that floated to the mainstream for a while after September 11; the brown people were suddenly an enemy in a world where since the fall of the USSR we didn't really have anyone to be mad at or blame for our problems. And they all kinda sorta did look alike to people that rarely, if ever, leave their own town, much less their country. Part of it was the factually accurate while still ridiculously misleading comments like the one from Rummie cited in the article.

But the main thing today is the refusal to admit that it was wrong, because that means my brother-in-law should never have been there and gotten injured in an IED attack and my Mom, like many friends and relatives of Iraq casualties, doesn't want to think about any possibility she was misled and supported a war that really had jack sh*t to do with "protecting American freedom." She'll believe until her dying day that our liberty was at stake and if we didn't invade Iraq the terrorists would have won already.
 
2014-03-28 09:11:13 AM  
Because he doesn't accept things that he's done as being wrong. He believes his own crap about how we're greeted as liberators and that we spread democracy through bullets and bombs. The man is a remorseless sociopath and the worst punishment, in the worst layer of hell is not enough for this man. McNamara at least felt remorse and shame for getting us into Vietnam. What's Rummy's excuse? oh right, he doesn't have one because he's a remorseless cock
 
2014-03-28 09:23:39 AM  

SilentStrider: To be fair, the man is an idiot.


I think what bothers me the most about the way he speaks is that smug farking smirk.  It's the look that stupid people get when they really think they've gotten someone good, and he wears it all the farking time.

But I guess you go to press conferences with the stupid farking face you have, not the stupid farking face you wish you had.
 
2014-03-28 09:25:00 AM  
Yet another person who disgusts me, and who would make the world a better place should they die.
 
2014-03-28 09:25:32 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: After a short recap of the initial US military action in Afghanistan following the horrific September 11 attacks, Morris notes that a "confusion" set in, with many Americans believing Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was involved in 9/11.

Maybe I'm tainted by the whole 'hindsight being 20/20' thing, but this really pisses me off.  Was there ever anyone who, with any sincerity, for one second truly believed that Hussein was in on that?  I just recall douches from the Bush administration trying to float it by us a few times and the overwhelming response from the American people was pretty much, "Eh, that's bullshiat."


yeah plenty of people fell for it, the polls had like 70% of Americans wanting to go to war with Iraq during the build up before the invasion. The Bush admin deserves plenty of blame for lying but the American people deserve plenty of blame for falling for the most idiotic bullshiat imaginable.
 
2014-03-28 09:26:34 AM  

Headso: The Bush admin deserves plenty of blame for lying but the American people deserve plenty of blame for falling for the most idiotic bullshiat imaginable.


REMEMBER THE MAINE!

Nothing ever changes.
 
2014-03-28 09:32:28 AM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-03-28 09:33:18 AM  
 
2014-03-28 09:39:34 AM  
Yeah, he can mark me down as one of the few who didn't believe the 'Saddam was connected to 9'11' lies, the 'Saddam is supporting AlQuaeda' lies or the 'Saddam has WMDs pointed at your bedroom' lies, but I can tell you that I was DEFINITELY in the minority, and the 69% figure is about right. These farking assholes pushed lies and then made questioning you patriotism a national sport if you didn't believe those lies.
 
2014-03-28 09:39:38 AM  

born_yesterday: SilentStrider: To be fair, the man is an idiot.

I think what bothers me the most about the way he speaks is that smug farking smirk.  It's the look that stupid people get when they really think they've gotten someone good, and he wears it all the farking time.

But I guess you go to press conferences with the stupid farking face you have, not the stupid farking face you wish you had.


That's the same thing that turned me off about GWB at first. That smirk that adds "you dumbass" to the end of the sentence.

/voted against GWB because he was a (R), but came to dislike him because of the smirk, and then despise him because of the wars.
 
2014-03-28 09:41:30 AM  

Mikey1969: Yeah, he can mark me down as one of the few who didn't believe the 'Saddam was connected to 9'11' lies, the 'Saddam is supporting AlQuaeda' lies or the 'Saddam has WMDs pointed at your bedroom' lies, but I can tell you that I was DEFINITELY in the minority, and the 69% figure is about right. These farking assholes pushed lies and then made questioning you patriotism a national sport if you didn't believe those lies.


That's kind of the point.  You didn't, but it was despite his and the admin's best efforts.
 
2014-03-28 09:43:14 AM  

Diogenes: Mikey1969: Yeah, he can mark me down as one of the few who didn't believe the 'Saddam was connected to 9'11' lies, the 'Saddam is supporting AlQuaeda' lies or the 'Saddam has WMDs pointed at your bedroom' lies, but I can tell you that I was DEFINITELY in the minority, and the 69% figure is about right. These farking assholes pushed lies and then made questioning you patriotism a national sport if you didn't believe those lies.

That's kind of the point.  You didn't, but it was despite his and the admin's best efforts.


And even - and this is being EXTREMELY gracious - they didn't push a causal link between Saddam and 9/11, they still used him as a justification for the invasion.  To ensure another 9/11 didn't happen.  Direct or implied, it was there.
 
2014-03-28 09:43:50 AM  

Headso: Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: After a short recap of the initial US military action in Afghanistan following the horrific September 11 attacks, Morris notes that a "confusion" set in, with many Americans believing Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was involved in 9/11.

Maybe I'm tainted by the whole 'hindsight being 20/20' thing, but this really pisses me off.  Was there ever anyone who, with any sincerity, for one second truly believed that Hussein was in on that?  I just recall douches from the Bush administration trying to float it by us a few times and the overwhelming response from the American people was pretty much, "Eh, that's bullshiat."

yeah plenty of people fell for it, the polls had like 70% of Americans wanting to go to war with Iraq during the build up before the invasion. The Bush admin deserves plenty of blame for lying but the American people deserve plenty of blame for falling for the most idiotic bullshiat imaginable.


Yes, but Bush was a good, decisive leader unlike that fancy pants Obama who wears Mom jeans and buys pink sweaters for his daughters.
 
2014-03-28 09:47:48 AM  

Headso: Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: After a short recap of the initial US military action in Afghanistan following the horrific September 11 attacks, Morris notes that a "confusion" set in, with many Americans believing Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was involved in 9/11.

Maybe I'm tainted by the whole 'hindsight being 20/20' thing, but this really pisses me off.  Was there ever anyone who, with any sincerity, for one second truly believed that Hussein was in on that?  I just recall douches from the Bush administration trying to float it by us a few times and the overwhelming response from the American people was pretty much, "Eh, that's bullshiat."

yeah plenty of people fell for it, the polls had like 70% of Americans wanting to go to war with Iraq during the build up before the invasion. The Bush admin deserves plenty of blame for lying but the American people deserve plenty of blame for falling for the most idiotic bullshiat imaginable.


And all those years I was just lurking on Fark. All of those comments. My God!

/(sigh)
 
2014-03-28 09:49:27 AM  

Headso: yeah plenty of people fell for it, the polls had like 70% of Americans wanting to go to war with Iraq during the build up before the invasion.


Just 70%? Immediately after the bombing, when GWB made his pronouncement about the decisive action to come, I remember some polls putting him at around 90% approval. It looked like a speech for the history books. And it was, just, well, not in the way that the administration hoped it would be received by history.

The Bush admin deserves plenty of blame for lying but the American people deserve plenty of blame for falling for the most idiotic bullshiat imaginable.

I could argue this. It was a time of crisis, and there were a lot of known unknowns flying around (so to speak). If you don't have time to research the speaker's history of truthfulness or the specific facts of the case, then you can be forgiven for falling for the lie. At the time, I was more upset with Americans acting scared, lashing out at anything and everything they thought was related to the cause rather than thinking sensibly about what happened. I even said then, "I refuse to credit terrorists for dumb shiat we do to ourselves."

Where I feel many Americans need to be taken to task is  continuing to believe that lie, even as it was unraveling and more and more evidence emerged poking holes in it, taking pains to remain enclosed in an echo chamber where they could convince themselves that they were the brave little warriors standing firm against a global conspiracy of  others, and defiantly shutting their minds to not just any facts to the contrary, but to anyone bearing those facts as if they were part of that global conspiracy. Those people should not be operating motor vehicles, using computers, or handling anything sharper than marbles.
 
2014-03-28 09:55:19 AM  

SilentStrider: To be fair, the man is an idiot.


Quite the opposite, the man is very smart and manipulative which is far worse than being an idiot in my eyes.
Now he is just pinned in a corner where he has no power and he is trying to justify his past.
 
2014-03-28 09:56:03 AM  
The entire initial strategy was deeply flawed. Rumsfeld and the various ranking commanders bypassed all the major cities in the drive for Baghdad, thereby allowing the insurgency to gain some serious momentum from the very start. We would pay in blood for this assholes retarded strategy.
 
2014-03-28 10:03:58 AM  

trotsky: The entire initial strategy was deeply flawed. Rumsfeld and the various ranking commanders bypassed all the major cities in the drive for Baghdad, thereby allowing the insurgency to gain some serious momentum from the very start. We would pay in blood for this assholes retarded strategy.


I blame "Command & Conquer"and StarCraft.
 
2014-03-28 10:06:47 AM  
I had thought in all honesty that there was some justification for the war in Iraq above what was made known to the general public in regards to WMDs. When that became known as a fabrication without so much as an apology, and soldiers were dying for no reason, was the point at which I wrote off the Republican party.
 
2014-03-28 10:12:15 AM  
Yes, you people are just realizing that. It must be hard to be Rummy, because his life's work is not only being undone, but he is being vilified for it.
 
2014-03-28 10:16:21 AM  
Is it bad that I read that as "Ronald Dumsfeld"?
 
2014-03-28 10:17:32 AM  

Diogenes: Diogenes: Mikey1969: Yeah, he can mark me down as one of the few who didn't believe the 'Saddam was connected to 9'11' lies, the 'Saddam is supporting AlQuaeda' lies or the 'Saddam has WMDs pointed at your bedroom' lies, but I can tell you that I was DEFINITELY in the minority, and the 69% figure is about right. These farking assholes pushed lies and then made questioning you patriotism a national sport if you didn't believe those lies.

That's kind of the point.  You didn't, but it was despite his and the admin's best efforts.

And even - and this is being EXTREMELY gracious - they didn't push a causal link between Saddam and 9/11, they still used him as a justification for the invasion.  To ensure another 9/11 didn't happen.  Direct or implied, it was there.


Don't forget that whole "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" bullshiat.
 
2014-03-28 10:17:34 AM  
I used to think Bush II and his administration lied to America to get us to invade Iraq.

I am now convinced he and his administration did actually, honest to God lie after 9/11 as they continue to deny and stick with their cover story of Saddam, WMDs and Al-Quada.

And they sweetened the Iraq invasion with the 2003 income tax cuts. That way, this generation of Americans wouldn't have to pay for it, except in the lives of someone else's sons and daughters.

/I will never vote Republican.
 
2014-03-28 10:24:47 AM  

Crabs_Can_Polevault: I could argue this. It was a time of crisis, and there were a lot of known unknowns flying around (so to speak).


if we want to be generous we could call the rest of 2001 a "time of crisis" but by 2003 the American people should have had their wits about them again.
 
2014-03-28 10:34:17 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: After a short recap of the initial US military action in Afghanistan following the horrific September 11 attacks, Morris notes that a "confusion" set in, with many Americans believing Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was involved in 9/11.

Maybe I'm tainted by the whole 'hindsight being 20/20' thing, but this really pisses me off.  Was there ever anyone who, with any sincerity, for one second truly believed that Hussein was in on that?  I just recall douches from the Bush administration trying to float it by us a few times and the overwhelming response from the American people was pretty much, "Eh, that's bullshiat."


Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

That was from June 18, 2004. I was very active in the election that year and, based on my anecdotal experience from that time, I can say that the perception of Iraq playing a role in 9/11 was as much a fact to the Fox News crowd then as is the "fact" of Obama's personal culpability in Benghazi now.
 
2014-03-28 10:37:28 AM  

Headso: Crabs_Can_Polevault: I could argue this. It was a time of crisis, and there were a lot of known unknowns flying around (so to speak).

if we want to be generous we could call the rest of 2001 a "time of crisis" but by 2003 the American people should have had their wits about them again.


With everyone in the Bush Administration beating the drums of fear every day while also telling us to wrap our houses in plastic and duct tape, it's a miracle the American people actually farking survived instead of tearing themselves apart.
 
2014-03-28 10:39:41 AM  

Mikey1969: Yeah, he can mark me down as one of the few who didn't believe the 'Saddam was connected to 9'11' lies, the 'Saddam is supporting AlQuaeda' lies or the 'Saddam has WMDs pointed at your bedroom' lies, but I can tell you that I was DEFINITELY in the minority, and the 69% figure is about right. These farking assholes pushed lies and then made questioning you patriotism a national sport if you didn't believe those lies.


I thought that Iraq probably did have some kind of "WMD" stocked up.  I doubted that they had a bunch of nukes and shiat stocked up (to create that "mushroom cloud" "smoking gun"), but maybe some chemical weapons.  Regardless, I didn't really see that as a solid enough justification for our action.

On the other hand, I thought for sure that if we didn't find any, we'd just make damned sure that we brought some over TO be 'found'.

So, I guess I was wrong at least twice.
 
2014-03-28 10:50:26 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Headso: Crabs_Can_Polevault: I could argue this. It was a time of crisis, and there were a lot of known unknowns flying around (so to speak).

if we want to be generous we could call the rest of 2001 a "time of crisis" but by 2003 the American people should have had their wits about them again.

With everyone in the Bush Administration beating the drums of fear every day while also telling us to wrap our houses in plastic and duct tape, it's a miracle the American people actually farking survived instead of tearing themselves apart.


Because it was too hard for people to actually look into the fact that Saddam's regime couldn't even project power inside their own borders let alone be a threat to America? Face it the majority of the American people thought it would be totally awesome and cool to go to war, if they bought the bullshiat W was selling it's because they wanted to not because there was no contradictory information out there. Obviously there was if 30% of people figured it out before the war and were against it.
 
2014-03-28 10:52:01 AM  

Diogenes: To ensure another 9/11 didn't happen. Direct or implied, it was there.


specifically, the "this guy hates us too and probably has chemical weapons which is bad because he will ally with bin laden" line. which is why the wmd line was such a Big Deal

trotsky: Rumsfeld and the various ranking commanders bypassed all the major cities in the drive for Baghdad, thereby allowing the insurgency to gain some serious momentum from the very start.


this implies anyone though there would be an insurgency. saddam was a dictator, and evil, and had that scary mustache, and gassed iran, and gassed kurds, therefore we would be greeted like we were kicking the krauts out of paris

Relatively Obscure: On the other hand, I thought for sure that if we didn't find any, we'd just make damned sure that we brought some over TO be 'found'.


some autists will no doubt post a link to how we found some barrels of shiat that we knew about and that were already overseen by the international community without mentioning the latter parts
 
2014-03-28 11:00:37 AM  

DeArmondVI: Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."That was from June 18, 2004. I was very active in the election that year and, based on my anecdotal experience from that time, I can say that the perception of Iraq playing a role in 9/11 was as much a fact to the Fox News crowd then as is the "fact" of Obama's personal culpability in Benghazi now.


Thank you for this. I'd assumed that the Bush administration had played it cagey, letting others imply the connection. I hadn't realized that they'd been this active in making this connection between Iraq and 9/11.
 
2014-03-28 11:04:04 AM  

Headso: Vodka Zombie: Headso: Crabs_Can_Polevault: I could argue this. It was a time of crisis, and there were a lot of known unknowns flying around (so to speak).

if we want to be generous we could call the rest of 2001 a "time of crisis" but by 2003 the American people should have had their wits about them again.

With everyone in the Bush Administration beating the drums of fear every day while also telling us to wrap our houses in plastic and duct tape, it's a miracle the American people actually farking survived instead of tearing themselves apart.

Because it was too hard for people to actually look into the fact that Saddam's regime couldn't even project power inside their own borders let alone be a threat to America? Face it the majority of the American people thought it would be totally awesome and cool to go to war, if they bought the bullshiat W was selling it's because they wanted to not because there was no contradictory information out there. Obviously there was if 30% of people figured it out before the war and were against it.


Agreed on several counts, and let's not overlook the cause-and-effect relationship here too. The Bush administration's constant war-drum-beat, feeding America's sense of moral panic, was likely what helped prevent analysis of the situation. Everybody  loves them some moral panic. That was almost a necessary component to his getting re-elected in 2004, rallying around that cause and ostracizing and pillorying anyone who  dared speak truth against it. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but if you can fool enough of the people enough of the time, you've got it made." And enough people believed it that discourse in this country jumped headfirst into the toilet and refuses to pull it out because it can hear the ocean.

This was the work of the "uniter"-uniting half of America against the other half.
 
2014-03-28 11:04:55 AM  

sprawl15: some autists will no doubt post a link to how we found some barrels of shiat that we knew about and that were already overseen by the international community without mentioning the latter parts


Please... they prefer to be called au-tistes.
 
2014-03-28 11:13:36 AM  

somedude210: Because he doesn't accept things that he's done as being wrong. He believes his own crap about how we're greeted as liberators and that we spread democracy through bullets and bombs. The man is a remorseless sociopath and the worst punishment, in the worst layer of hell is not enough for this man. McNamara at least felt remorse and shame for getting us into Vietnam. What's Rummy's excuse? oh right, he doesn't have one because he's a remorseless cock


It is interesting that you mention McNamara. The documentary Morris did with McNamara (The Fog of War, if any of you haven't seen it watch it now!) shows that McNamara was able to view his history, the things him and others he worked with had done, and realize that what they had done would be considered war crimes if we had been held accountable the way we held countries like Japan and Germany accountable for their actions in war. I presume Rumsfeld will not make any sort of admission.
 
2014-03-28 11:23:48 AM  

Conthan: It is interesting that you mention McNamara. The documentary Morris did with McNamara (The Fog of War, if any of you haven't seen it watch it now!) shows that McNamara was able to view his history, the things him and others he worked with had done, and realize that what they had done would be considered war crimes if we had been held accountable the way we held countries like Japan and Germany accountable for their actions in war. I presume Rumsfeld will not make any sort of admission.


I have, I actually own it. Rumsfeld will never admit to such things
 
2014-03-28 11:26:19 AM  
What's that you say?  A murderous profiteering sociopath is lying?
 
2014-03-28 11:26:46 AM  

Mikey1969: Yeah, he can mark me down as one of the few who didn't believe the 'Saddam was connected to 9'11' lies, the 'Saddam is supporting AlQuaeda' lies or the 'Saddam has WMDs pointed at your bedroom' lies, but I can tell you that I was DEFINITELY in the minority, and the 69% figure is about right. These farking assholes pushed lies and then made questioning you patriotism a national sport if you didn't believe those lies.


I remember I was pretty heavily swayed by Powell's UN appearance, but I would also listen to Democracy Now with a coworker and they had several people coming on regularly to debunk all the points, well lies, that were being used to sell the war. I respected Powell a ton, so I kind of deferred to his opinion. I remember thinking that spring of 03 "man when we find those WMDs all those libs saying there are none are gonna feel dumb". That summer of 03, as it dawned on me that wait, there were no WMDs, it really opened my eyes. I remember reading the Fark threads back then, and how much that realization and those conversations changed my political views since.

As someone who voted for Bush in 2000 (hey I was 18, young and raised in a household blaring Rush everyday, give me a break), I could not fathom how anyone would vote for him in 04.
 
2014-03-28 11:39:23 AM  

Conthan: Mikey1969: Yeah, he can mark me down as one of the few who didn't believe the 'Saddam was connected to 9'11' lies, the 'Saddam is supporting AlQuaeda' lies or the 'Saddam has WMDs pointed at your bedroom' lies, but I can tell you that I was DEFINITELY in the minority, and the 69% figure is about right. These farking assholes pushed lies and then made questioning you patriotism a national sport if you didn't believe those lies.

I remember I was pretty heavily swayed by Powell's UN appearance, but I would also listen to Democracy Now with a coworker and they had several people coming on regularly to debunk all the points, well lies, that were being used to sell the war. I respected Powell a ton, so I kind of deferred to his opinion. I remember thinking that spring of 03 "man when we find those WMDs all those libs saying there are none are gonna feel dumb". That summer of 03, as it dawned on me that wait, there were no WMDs, it really opened my eyes. I remember reading the Fark threads back then, and how much that realization and those conversations changed my political views since.

As someone who voted for Bush in 2000 (hey I was 18, young and raised in a household blaring Rush everyday, give me a break), I could not fathom how anyone would vote for him in 04.


I was disappointed in Powell, I knew it was bullshiat, and was hoping that he wasn't going to jump on board that farking bandwagon. I actually came home and told my wife we were going to end up in Iraq because the last person who could have swayed the American public had joined the group. I was on Yahoo at the time and was getting called all kinds of 'traitor' and 'enemy sympathiser'. Fun times... :-)
 
2014-03-28 11:43:14 AM  
Smart people didn't believe Sadam was behind it but it didn't stop the majority of morons stuffing freedom fries into their face while singing "Put a boot in his ass"
 
2014-03-28 11:44:41 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: After a short recap of the initial US military action in Afghanistan following the horrific September 11 attacks, Morris notes that a "confusion" set in, with many Americans believing Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was involved in 9/11.

Maybe I'm tainted by the whole 'hindsight being 20/20' thing, but this really pisses me off.  Was there ever anyone who, with any sincerity, for one second truly believed that Hussein was in on that?  I just recall douches from the Bush administration trying to float it by us a few times and the overwhelming response from the American people was pretty much, "Eh, that's bullshiat."


Others have responded, but I feel compelled to.  Not only did a clear majority of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, a huge percentage STILL believes this.  And the notion from Morris, above, that a 'confusion' set in is a deliberate lie.  The Bush Administration, supported by many in the mainstream media, worked very hard to make it seem like Hussein was directly involved.  It wasn't an accident.
 
2014-03-28 11:59:39 AM  

Karac: We went to war in Iraq because:
1. Neoconservatives had visions of completing the unfinished business from the first Gulf War,
2. Neoconservatives were upset because the (at the time) quick and easy takeover of the third-world nation of Afghanistan had not allowed them to sufficiently show off the size of their dicks and thought they needed a tougher bully with a bigger army to knock over
3. Various defense contractors saw shiat-tons of money to be made.  Sometimes, quite literally:
[static.guim.co.uk image 372x192]
and because
4: The people in items 1 - 3 convinced GWB that knocking over Saddam would really impress his daddy and prove that he was his own man who could succeed where Pops wisely decided to not even try.

Republican campaign contributors could make a staggering amount of money and all it would cost is some expendable military personnel.
 
2014-03-28 12:06:50 PM  

kregh99: Karac: We went to war in Iraq because:
1. Neoconservatives had visions of completing the unfinished business from the first Gulf War,
2. Neoconservatives were upset because the (at the time) quick and easy takeover of the third-world nation of Afghanistan had not allowed them to sufficiently show off the size of their dicks and thought they needed a tougher bully with a bigger army to knock over
3. Various defense contractors saw shiat-tons of money to be made.  Sometimes, quite literally:
[static.guim.co.uk image 372x192]
and because
4: The people in items 1 - 3 convinced GWB that knocking over Saddam would really impress his daddy and prove that he was his own man who could succeed where Pops wisely decided to not even try.
Republican campaign contributors could make a staggering amount of money and all it would cost is some expendable military personnel.


I think I covered that in point 3.
 
2014-03-28 12:14:04 PM  

Mikey1969: Yeah, he can mark me down as one of the few who didn't believe the 'Saddam was connected to 9'11' lies, the 'Saddam is supporting AlQuaeda' lies or the 'Saddam has WMDs pointed at your bedroom' lies, but I can tell you that I was DEFINITELY in the minority, and the 69% figure is about right. These farking assholes pushed lies and then made questioning you patriotism a national sport if you didn't believe those lies.


Funny that nobody ever hit them back with something along the lines of "patriotism is the arbitrary veneration of real estate above principal"

I was only about 16 or 17 at the time. But even at that age I knew it was bullshiat from day 1.
 
2014-03-28 12:19:48 PM  
I still can't look at Rumsfeld without thinking of Frank Booth. Seriously, I'm pretty sure they're the same guy. Have you ever seen a picture of the two of them together? Think about it.
 
2014-03-28 12:49:13 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: After a short recap of the initial US military action in Afghanistan following the horrific September 11 attacks, Morris notes that a "confusion" set in, with many Americans believing Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was involved in 9/11.

Maybe I'm tainted by the whole 'hindsight being 20/20' thing, but this really pisses me off.  Was there ever anyone who, with any sincerity, for one second truly believed that Hussein was in on that?  I just recall douches from the Bush administration trying to float it by us a few times and the overwhelming response from the American people was pretty much, "Eh, that's bullshiat."

Others have responded, but I feel compelled to.  Not only did a clear majority of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, a huge percentage STILL believes this.  And the notion from Morris, above, that a 'confusion' set in is a deliberate lie.  The Bush Administration, supported by many in the mainstream media, worked very hard to make it seem like Hussein was directly involved.  It wasn't an accident.


THIS.  It was a well-coordinated sales and marketing campaign.  Unfortunately, it was successful.
 
2014-03-28 12:50:26 PM  

pukingtrader: I still can't look at Rumsfeld without thinking of Frank Booth. Seriously, I'm pretty sure they're the same guy. Have you ever seen a picture of the two of them together? Think about it.


www.isleyunruh.comi.huffpost.com

/My sincerest apologies to Dennis and his fans :(
 
2014-03-28 12:58:39 PM  
I still suspect that at least some of the impetus to invade Iraq, I mean beyond it being PNAC's wet dream for a decade, came from a false flag effort by Iran to push 'chicken feed' intelligence of Iraq's WMD through Cheney and Rumsfield's stovepipe intelligence operation.  Remember when the CIA expressed serious doubts about the veracity of the WMD reports the administration responded by setting up a parallel, managed intelligence office to give them the reports they wanted?

This was staffed by nincompoops like Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.  At the time there was brief mention in the news and commentary about this and the benefits to Iran of having the US do their dirty work.

About the only thing that the war has accomplished has been that  the border between Sunni and Shia has been pushed well into Iraq, to the benefit of Iran.  Iran now has close and influential relations with their former enemy.  Either this happened inadvertently, or Iran nudged those credulous dummies in the Bush administration to accomplish with US blood and treasure what a decade plus of Iran's war with Iraq could not.
 
2014-03-28 01:00:09 PM  
I still go back to how they (Bush Administration) found such a willing dupe as Judith Miller from the NY Times to promote their specific line of BS.

One that stands out in my mind is the time she talked to Cheney and he "leaks" her some "scoop" which she puts into print without bothering to check its validity or accuracy and attributes to a "Senior Bush Official." Later, Cheney gets called on to check the accuracy of the info (given how dubious it sounded) and Cheney's response is:  "I didn't say that, I am only quoting the NY Times who is reporting it."

The absolute skill and gall of those who foisted this war on us is something to simultaneously view in awe and wonder, while at the same time being disgusted and saddened by their ability to pull it all off with such seeming ease.  And no agency was more indictable as an accomplice than the 4th Estate who for years displayed no backbone or independence, but rather seemed to serve as cheerleaders, banging the drums of war.  Outside of the usual suspects, like Mother Jones, Rolling Stone and eventually the McClatchy media group, it seemed like the vast majority of the media was afraid to expose this BS and thus there's a huge swath of Americans who believed then and will never be convinced now that Saddam didn't play a role in 9/11.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report