June 29, 2007
Why We Went to War in Iraq
David Horowitz lays an incomparable smackdown on Algore and his assaults on fact, history and reason.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Read it all, and serve your favorite lib a nice helping of contemporary history regarding UN resolutions, violated treaties, and an distorted lies that Gore and his ilk have effectively convinced themselves of since the war began.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
01:07 PM
| Comments (46)
| Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Horowitz is a neocon baffoon and the article is a joke.
There are so many false statements in it that it does not even deserve the courtesy of a rebuttal. But for the joy of it, I will pick on just one - the main one: he claims WMD was not the main reason for invasion - the removal of Saddam was.
Ha ha ha!! Horowitz must think all us non-neocons have been asleep the past 6 years. He's kidding right?
Removal of Saddam / regime change was never the main sale's pitch. We went in because Cheney, Bush, Condi and Powell told everyone that we had absolute proof that Saddam was hidding WMD - then proceeded to spook the population with a whole host of phoney "terror alerts."
There are so many false statements in it that it does not even deserve the courtesy of a rebuttal. But for the joy of it, I will pick on just one - the main one: he claims WMD was not the main reason for invasion - the removal of Saddam was.
Ha ha ha!! Horowitz must think all us non-neocons have been asleep the past 6 years. He's kidding right?
Removal of Saddam / regime change was never the main sale's pitch. We went in because Cheney, Bush, Condi and Powell told everyone that we had absolute proof that Saddam was hidding WMD - then proceeded to spook the population with a whole host of phoney "terror alerts."
Posted by: Bo at June 29, 2007 03:19 PM (rMxJF)
Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at June 29, 2007 04:32 PM (5CE38)
3
The only nail is the one sticking out of Horowytz's head.
Why do you guys listen to a former Marxist anyway?
Why do you guys listen to a former Marxist anyway?
Posted by: Bo at June 29, 2007 05:18 PM (7Ji9J)
4
Bo,
If you're not going to provide a constructive argument to Horowitz's article, with sources that support your arguments, then STFU. People like you need to learn how to properly engage in a debate instead of just trying to scream the loudest. Instead, you just spout the same old tiresome lies and accusations. Grow up.
If you're not going to provide a constructive argument to Horowitz's article, with sources that support your arguments, then STFU. People like you need to learn how to properly engage in a debate instead of just trying to scream the loudest. Instead, you just spout the same old tiresome lies and accusations. Grow up.
Posted by: haffee at June 29, 2007 06:27 PM (JQjo+)
5
Haffee,
The whole myth that Clinton did nothing pre 9/11 to combat terrorism has been proven demonstrably false by people like Richard Clarke (counterterrorism expert) who testified that Clinton was absolutely engaged and took the terrorism threat seriously. Conversely, it was Bush who was briefed after coming to power and did absolutely nothing.
Go read Against All Enemies then report back son.
Horowitz is lying through his teeth and simply trying to do a smear job on Gore. Lying and twisting facts is something neocons do very well. It is because they do not have America's best interests in mind but Israel's (that old dual loyalties stuff). Everything they write with respect to foreign policy is 100% Lukid positioning and spin. They should not be taken at face value. It is like expecting a Serb to give you unbiased advice on Balkan policy.
Ironic that you would accuse me of not following proper rules of debate. That is commonly a trait given to Coulter Republicans.
The whole myth that Clinton did nothing pre 9/11 to combat terrorism has been proven demonstrably false by people like Richard Clarke (counterterrorism expert) who testified that Clinton was absolutely engaged and took the terrorism threat seriously. Conversely, it was Bush who was briefed after coming to power and did absolutely nothing.
Go read Against All Enemies then report back son.
Horowitz is lying through his teeth and simply trying to do a smear job on Gore. Lying and twisting facts is something neocons do very well. It is because they do not have America's best interests in mind but Israel's (that old dual loyalties stuff). Everything they write with respect to foreign policy is 100% Lukid positioning and spin. They should not be taken at face value. It is like expecting a Serb to give you unbiased advice on Balkan policy.
Ironic that you would accuse me of not following proper rules of debate. That is commonly a trait given to Coulter Republicans.
Posted by: Bo at June 29, 2007 07:10 PM (euN4c)
6
It was the Jo0oo00's
Posted by: davec at June 29, 2007 07:56 PM (kcDpP)
7
Davec,
Not entirely. The Christian Right, fixated on the second coming of Christ, are in some ways the real power base behind this war. An unholy aliance between the Zionists and the Christian Right (together with oil interests) is what brought you this war.
But something tells me that you already sense this - but prefer not to speak or discuss it. That sort of attitude does not serve our country well.
Not entirely. The Christian Right, fixated on the second coming of Christ, are in some ways the real power base behind this war. An unholy aliance between the Zionists and the Christian Right (together with oil interests) is what brought you this war.
But something tells me that you already sense this - but prefer not to speak or discuss it. That sort of attitude does not serve our country well.
Posted by: Bo at June 29, 2007 08:20 PM (euN4c)
Posted by: Richard Romano at June 29, 2007 10:53 PM (iD1fP)
9
I've always got a kick out of Horowitz ... I think he truly believes his own bullshit. Take another example besides Bo's, Gore part of the "cutting and running" from Mogadishu in '93 ... then go watch a few CNN film clips congressional emergency hearings up on the Hill immediately following the Blackhawk incidents, with Republican senators screaming for us to get out of there, "we have no interests there, this is an affront to the American people, we aren't the worlds police force" and on and on it went. Who wanted to cut and run? The Republicans and they got their wish. recall any of this Horowitz?
Posted by: B at June 29, 2007 11:01 PM (YTpW6)
10
Question for Bo, would you get down on both knees and service the Goracle? How about bend over and let Shrillary do you strap-on style? Simple yes or no will suffice.....
Posted by: Weasel Zipper at June 29, 2007 11:07 PM (//96s)
11
B:
Very interesting, I mean I like comparing Apples and Oranges as much as anyone but here's the essential difference:
Mogadishu - United Nations Peace keeping operation.
Iraq: not so much.
Very interesting, I mean I like comparing Apples and Oranges as much as anyone but here's the essential difference:
Mogadishu - United Nations Peace keeping operation.
Iraq: not so much.
Posted by: davec at June 29, 2007 11:15 PM (kcDpP)
12
So what was Horowitz' point in accusing Gore of a cut-and-run in the obfuscating article when indeed it was GOP congressional leadership that was leading the charge?
Posted by: B at June 29, 2007 11:29 PM (YTpW6)
13
B: Hell if I know, I didn't say I agreed with the article. However the current Congress has been calling for a 'Cut & Run' strategy in Iraq. I do not see President Bush implementing it.
The President had no need to withdraw, it wasn't like he could be pressured by Congress by stopping funding - They did order the withdrawal, and so that particular 'cut and run' belongs to them solely.
The President had no need to withdraw, it wasn't like he could be pressured by Congress by stopping funding - They did order the withdrawal, and so that particular 'cut and run' belongs to them solely.
Posted by: davec at June 30, 2007 12:49 AM (kcDpP)
14
Fact check of Clinton on Somalia:
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:ixK1Q4XzmZsJ:justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/09
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:ixK1Q4XzmZsJ:justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/09
Posted by: Sharm at June 30, 2007 01:39 AM (q51o4)
15
Bo mysteriously, curiously, deliberately neglects to mention the scores of violated UN resolutions or the violated Gulf War truce in his screeds.
Ask yourself why.
Why do you guys listen to a former Marxist anyway?
Because former Marxists are more intelligent than Marxists.
Ask yourself why.
Why do you guys listen to a former Marxist anyway?
Because former Marxists are more intelligent than Marxists.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 30, 2007 02:33 AM (yMbfY)
16
Lt. Dan,
Think what it would be like if countries went to war the moment a UN sanction was broken?
Israel is in violation of how many UN Sanctions? Does this give arab countries, Russia or anyone else the right to invade, overthrow, and occupy them?
Horowitz also neglects to mention how Republicans (like pappy Bush) made Saddam an ally during the Iraq / Iran war (ie: the famous Saddam - Rumsfeld handshake). That is why he is so full of shit. You cannot lay all the blame at the foot of Clinton.
Let us not pretend all muslims are evil.
Let us not pretend Al Quida is behind all the violence in Iraq.
Let us not pretend all Liberals are traitors and hate this country.
Let us not pretend our government does not torture.
Let us not pretend that we can win a war against a tactic (terrorism).
Let us not pretend that our government leaders have completely mismanaged Iraq from day one, not openly lied to Congress and the American people.
Let us not pretend Dick Cheney and the other neocons did not sign a radical Likud inspired paper called PNAC back in the 1990s, want from day one to turn the Republic into an Empire, and are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Let's go back and start tackling these problems in a pragmatic way instead of through some world of make believe and maybe this can all be turned around. Until then, we can expect more of the same.
Think what it would be like if countries went to war the moment a UN sanction was broken?
Israel is in violation of how many UN Sanctions? Does this give arab countries, Russia or anyone else the right to invade, overthrow, and occupy them?
Horowitz also neglects to mention how Republicans (like pappy Bush) made Saddam an ally during the Iraq / Iran war (ie: the famous Saddam - Rumsfeld handshake). That is why he is so full of shit. You cannot lay all the blame at the foot of Clinton.
Let us not pretend all muslims are evil.
Let us not pretend Al Quida is behind all the violence in Iraq.
Let us not pretend all Liberals are traitors and hate this country.
Let us not pretend our government does not torture.
Let us not pretend that we can win a war against a tactic (terrorism).
Let us not pretend that our government leaders have completely mismanaged Iraq from day one, not openly lied to Congress and the American people.
Let us not pretend Dick Cheney and the other neocons did not sign a radical Likud inspired paper called PNAC back in the 1990s, want from day one to turn the Republic into an Empire, and are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Let's go back and start tackling these problems in a pragmatic way instead of through some world of make believe and maybe this can all be turned around. Until then, we can expect more of the same.
Posted by: Bo at June 30, 2007 08:58 AM (euN4c)
17
Davec,
Not entirely. The Christian Right, fixated on the second coming of Christ,
Gee, that's news to me. And I'm on the christian right.
Not entirely. The Christian Right, fixated on the second coming of Christ,
Gee, that's news to me. And I'm on the christian right.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 30, 2007 09:44 AM (yJKSD)
18
Bo,
I know Liberals are wrong because they make such stupid arguments. You're the perfect example. None of the resolutions ever made against Israel are Chapter 7 (gee, what's that, asks the stupid Liberal!!!) which means they are non-binding. That's not the case with the resolutions made against Iraq and Iran.
I know Liberals are wrong because they make such stupid arguments. You're the perfect example. None of the resolutions ever made against Israel are Chapter 7 (gee, what's that, asks the stupid Liberal!!!) which means they are non-binding. That's not the case with the resolutions made against Iraq and Iran.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 30, 2007 09:52 AM (yJKSD)
19
The only reason Chapter 7 resolutions are non-binding is because they don't have the force of military action behind them, oh great Wikipedia scholar.
Posted by: B at June 30, 2007 10:49 AM (YTpW6)
20
The only reason Chapter 7 resolutions are non-binding is because they don't have the force of military action behind them,
Precisely! Sounds like you just answered your own question about why us going into Iraq doesn't mean Russia or the Arabs can go into Israel, ya moron. LOL.
So goddam schooopid.
Precisely! Sounds like you just answered your own question about why us going into Iraq doesn't mean Russia or the Arabs can go into Israel, ya moron. LOL.
So goddam schooopid.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 30, 2007 11:49 AM (yJKSD)
21
"Smackdown" great choice of words there Lt. Yeah it was a smackdown exactly like the ones in WWE, and has about the same connection to reality as does the WWE.
Which WWE wrestler do you envision Horrowitz being most similar to ?
Which WWE wrestler do you envision Horrowitz being most similar to ?
Posted by: John Ryan at June 30, 2007 12:00 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: Good Lt at June 30, 2007 12:21 PM (yMbfY)
23
He succeeded in derailing any intelligent discussion of the article.
Posted by: Phillep at June 30, 2007 12:36 PM (1VmXl)
24
circular bullsh*t
Indeed. And it's about as fruitful as arguing with my dog. I do it strictly for the shits and giggles of it all. LOL.
Indeed. And it's about as fruitful as arguing with my dog. I do it strictly for the shits and giggles of it all. LOL.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 30, 2007 12:37 PM (yJKSD)
25
He didn't even address the article. He went into a rant cycle about rightwing Christians, Zionists, PNAC, Zionist foreign policy, etc. He sounds like a Twoofer.
Not only is his off-topic ranting plainly anti-Israel, but it flatly ignores everything Horowitz said in the article. He didn't even read the article - he just wants to drop leftwingnut feces all over the thread (like always).
That's OK - if you get him typing enough, he eventually defeats himself.
Not only is his off-topic ranting plainly anti-Israel, but it flatly ignores everything Horowitz said in the article. He didn't even read the article - he just wants to drop leftwingnut feces all over the thread (like always).
That's OK - if you get him typing enough, he eventually defeats himself.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 30, 2007 12:44 PM (yMbfY)
26
Precisely! Sounds like you just answered your own question about why
us going into Iraq doesn't mean Russia or the Arabs can go into Israel,
ya moron.
I didn't ask any question about why us going into Iraq doesn't mean the Russia(ns) or the Arabs can go into Israel, ya twit. If you're going to try and sound informed, you almost have to start by addressing the issues raised rather than those you wished would've been raised.
The point is a UN censure is a UN censure. Chapter 7 has military provisions behind it. No one on the UN Security Council is going to move militarily against Israel. So they lodge condemnations without the teeth. If you want to call that "non-binding" that's your call. Doesn't mean Israel's getting a pass; just means the UN doesn't want to step on Zionist toes.
I.D.I.O.T.
us going into Iraq doesn't mean Russia or the Arabs can go into Israel,
ya moron.
I didn't ask any question about why us going into Iraq doesn't mean the Russia(ns) or the Arabs can go into Israel, ya twit. If you're going to try and sound informed, you almost have to start by addressing the issues raised rather than those you wished would've been raised.
The point is a UN censure is a UN censure. Chapter 7 has military provisions behind it. No one on the UN Security Council is going to move militarily against Israel. So they lodge condemnations without the teeth. If you want to call that "non-binding" that's your call. Doesn't mean Israel's getting a pass; just means the UN doesn't want to step on Zionist toes.
I.D.I.O.T.
Posted by: B at June 30, 2007 01:45 PM (YTpW6)
Posted by: Good Lt at June 30, 2007 01:50 PM (yMbfY)
28
I didn't ask any question about why us going into Iraq doesn't mean the Russia(ns) or the Arabs can go into Israel, ya twit.
Israel is in violation of how many UN Sanctions? Does this give arab
countries, Russia or anyone else the right to invade, overthrow, and
occupy them?
Gee, that sounds suspiciously like a question to me! LOL. What a retard.
Israel is in violation of how many UN Sanctions? Does this give arab
countries, Russia or anyone else the right to invade, overthrow, and
occupy them?
Gee, that sounds suspiciously like a question to me! LOL. What a retard.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 30, 2007 02:11 PM (yJKSD)
29
We had a good reason for going to war in Iraq. But we didn't really go to war. Who declared war? We were right to go in but wrong to give a shit about them and stay. They're muslims. Which means they are the enemy. We didn't declare it. They did. Muslim huggers are cowards.
Posted by: Greyrooster at June 30, 2007 03:21 PM (J67jn)
30
Dear Jesusland and Lt. Dan,
If you allow your mind to open up a bit, maybe try reading this:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
And then we'll have a nice chat about the Joooooos.
If you allow your mind to open up a bit, maybe try reading this:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
And then we'll have a nice chat about the Joooooos.
Posted by: Bo at June 30, 2007 03:27 PM (euN4c)
31
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe anyone in leadership at this time cares about anything except their own agenda. American people are dupes who don't hold elected officials accountable. Many of our leaders should have been and still need to be lynched.
Posted by: Greyrooster at June 30, 2007 03:28 PM (J67jn)
32
Greyrooster,
Proceed with the lynching - or tar and feathering at a minimum. They have failed miserably and should answer for it.
I still get pissed when I think of the comment Bush made 6 months ago - the one where he stated that he slept perfectly well at night (the war in Iraq does not bother him too much it seems).
And Cheney has a lot to answer for. Why this cowardly congress has not removed him from power is beyond me and shows how screwed up things have become.
Proceed with the lynching - or tar and feathering at a minimum. They have failed miserably and should answer for it.
I still get pissed when I think of the comment Bush made 6 months ago - the one where he stated that he slept perfectly well at night (the war in Iraq does not bother him too much it seems).
And Cheney has a lot to answer for. Why this cowardly congress has not removed him from power is beyond me and shows how screwed up things have become.
Posted by: Bo at June 30, 2007 04:33 PM (euN4c)
33
Bo:Why haven't the PEOPLE removed the cowardly Congress?
The Jooooos aren't perfect. Far from it. What you fail to understand is they don't wish to kill us. The friggin muslims do.. If you would rather have a Nancy Pelosi than George Bush you're nuts. Easy to find fault with those that do something. When we jumped on Iraqs' ass all the lying, suckass democrats where for taking the action we did. George Bush didn't lie to anyone. He took the advice of worthless professional government employees. Of whom 80% are liberal democrats who are products of liberal academia. The same academia that educates our muslim enemy. So up yours on that one.
The Jooooos aren't perfect. Far from it. What you fail to understand is they don't wish to kill us. The friggin muslims do.. If you would rather have a Nancy Pelosi than George Bush you're nuts. Easy to find fault with those that do something. When we jumped on Iraqs' ass all the lying, suckass democrats where for taking the action we did. George Bush didn't lie to anyone. He took the advice of worthless professional government employees. Of whom 80% are liberal democrats who are products of liberal academia. The same academia that educates our muslim enemy. So up yours on that one.
Posted by: Greyrooster at June 30, 2007 05:07 PM (IvQrN)
Posted by: Good Lt at June 30, 2007 05:41 PM (yMbfY)
35
Bo,
I read your article. Yes, we support Israel, yes it's a burden. So? Your point? We wouldn't have to support Israel, and it wouldn't be such a burden IF THE ARAB WORLD WEREN'T SUCH GENOCIDAL MANIACS.
I read your article. Yes, we support Israel, yes it's a burden. So? Your point? We wouldn't have to support Israel, and it wouldn't be such a burden IF THE ARAB WORLD WEREN'T SUCH GENOCIDAL MANIACS.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 30, 2007 07:01 PM (yJKSD)
36
True there:
Posted by: Greyrooster at June 30, 2007 07:19 PM (INBbP)
37
Greyrooster,
Bush took the advice of government professionals? Are you high? Did you know that a dozen high ranking government officials wrote a letter to Powell after the invasion of Iraq and prior to the 2004 elections saying that they object to the neocon approach to solving problems?
You guys are really out to lunch.
Bush took the advice of government professionals? Are you high? Did you know that a dozen high ranking government officials wrote a letter to Powell after the invasion of Iraq and prior to the 2004 elections saying that they object to the neocon approach to solving problems?
You guys are really out to lunch.
Posted by: Bo at June 30, 2007 07:33 PM (euN4c)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 30, 2007 09:10 PM (yJKSD)
Posted by: Bo at June 30, 2007 09:14 PM (euN4c)
40
Bo,
Often. But seldom with Liberals, because I find it hard to take you seriously. I hope that helps.
Often. But seldom with Liberals, because I find it hard to take you seriously. I hope that helps.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 30, 2007 11:28 PM (yJKSD)
41
Yes we know about the letter. As I said above, merely the products of a liberal academia that should have been turned over to Pol Pot's successor years ago. Twelve "high ranking" don't know who these high ranging individuals are. Twelve out of a thousand isn't too bad. Coupled by the fact that he letter was to Powell, THE TOKEN says it all. What has Powell ever done for the people paying him a big pension for being the good boy.
Posted by: Greyrooster at July 01, 2007 01:26 PM (LypZL)
42
When them Texans bug me I just call for rain. I do miss Dallas Dick Head but he's probably swimming somewhere.
Posted by: Greyrooster at July 01, 2007 01:28 PM (LypZL)
43
Just trying to green up their brown dry state.
Posted by: Greyrooster at July 01, 2007 01:29 PM (LypZL)
44
i bet if al gore himself wrote that article you stupid anti-semitic lefties would say he was kidnapped by bush and given a fucking lobotomy,and that trademark karl rove brain washing . you dumb asses probably said as soon as you saw who wrote the article "oh that's a filthy Jew lier i don't have to read it because i know it's a bushhitler Zionist conspiracy" you people make me sick.
Posted by: dave at July 01, 2007 07:35 PM (3uZkF)
45
As Al Sharpton would say. Who you calling you people?
Posted by: Greyrooster at July 01, 2007 08:32 PM (7hGJW)
46
Jesusland,
Do you ever contribute anything substantive to any discussion? Just curious....
Ooh, let me answer that one: No, he never does. He typically falls back on some tired, boilerplate tripe then nearly breaks his own arm patting himself on the back for his "insights" into the liberal psyche. LOL, JC, LOL< LOL< LOL<
Do you ever contribute anything substantive to any discussion? Just curious....
Ooh, let me answer that one: No, he never does. He typically falls back on some tired, boilerplate tripe then nearly breaks his own arm patting himself on the back for his "insights" into the liberal psyche. LOL, JC, LOL< LOL< LOL<
Posted by: B at July 02, 2007 03:16 PM (Zlbra)
51kb generated in CPU 0.0472, elapsed 0.1191 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0961 seconds, 201 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0961 seconds, 201 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
