« San Francisco repeals Second Amendment | Main | Okay »

Hitch weighs in...

...on the "Bush Lied!" meme. My favorite bit:

[T]he Iraq Liberation Act, during the Clinton-Gore administration, in 1998... which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote -- did expressly call for the removal of Saddam Hussein but did not actually mention the use of direct U.S. military force.

Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are.

Read the whole thing, though.

And keep at it. Don't let up on this.


Bush did lie. Except for that, the whole "Bush didn't really lie" thing might work. But he did. He scared the nation into a war with lies and innuendo, mushroom clouds, mass death, children dying in their day care centers -- all if we don't take over those Iraqi oil fields and give them to Halliburton RIGHT NOW!

wokka wokka wokka!

"Bush did lie. Except for that, the whole "Bush didn't really lie" thing might work. But he did." (BH)

If ONLY there were some kind of proof that any Intelligence agency in all the world disagreed with both MI-6 and the CIA that Iraq was "seeking to rebuild its chemical and biological WMD programs and seeking the means to build a nuclear weapons program," then the Bush administration could be accused of lying, but short of that and virtually EVERY Intel agency around the globe, the Italians, the Germans, the Russians, the Czechs, even the French had come to the very SAME conclusions that the CIA and MI-6 did...the very same Intel that spurred Clkinton to bomb Iraq and cut off the "No Fly Zones," in effect, cordoning off a large portion of Saddam's own country (an "act of war") by any standard.

Iraq had violated thirteen consecutive UN Resolutions, Engalnd and the U.S. unilaterally decided to give Saddam's Iraq one final chance with UN Resolution 1441.

He violated and with the way England and America presented that, they were compelled to invade once that Resolution was not complied with.

Your convictions are based on distortions.

But what else could we expect from a person who seems to relate Holocaust revisionism with Conservitivism?

"Bush did lie. Except for that, the whole "Bush didn't really lie" thing might work. But he did." (BH)

If ONLY there were an Intelligence agency anywhere that had disagreed with the assessment by both the CIA & MI-6 that Iraq was actively rebuilding its chemical and biological WMD programs and actively seeking to build a nuclear weapons program, BUT no one anywhere did. Not Italy, Spain, Czech, Israeli, German, Russian or even the French disagreed with that assessment before the invasion of Iraq.

Sadly, your convictions are based on distortions, BH.

But what could we expect from somewhere ignorant enough to link holocaust revisionism to Conservativism, as you trtied to do in claiming to be a pro-Reagan Conservative while questioning the Holocaust in another comment section?

I voted for Reagan. The Holocaust is exaggerated to the point of being a lie. All of this is true. Bush lied. That is also true.

Unlike lesser men, such as yourself, I don't have to "get on a team" and go with the party talking points. I can decide for myself what is true or false.

No honest historian has ever gone along with the "six million" murdered Jews. Most of them have been beaten down into keeping quiet, however. Telling the truth has ended many an academic career on this historical point.

The horror of the Holocaust is not found in its numbers.

It doesn't matter at all whether it was 6 million, or 5 million, or 3 million or 10 million...the FACT is that an authoritarian leader of a Socialist (pro-centralized State) nation tried to exterminate an entire group of people.

He failed, but not for any lack of trying.

We rightly waged war against what we called the "Fascist menace" (the war against Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan, which was really very similar, if not the same as the "Communist Menace" - the menace of the authoritarian Centralized State), then we waged a long and protracted "Cold War" against the Communist Menace (of Mao & Stalin)...today we're faced with yet another global menace, the menace of Islamo-fascism/Islamo-cultism.

Iraq was a leading State Sponsor of International Terrorism.

Saddam Hussein aided and harbored al Qaeda - the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq were funded and supported by Baghdad in their joint fight with the Kurds.

Ergo Iraq was a viable target and one far more strategicaly vital than either Syria or Iran, the other two major State Sponsors of International Terrorism in that region.

For those like you, whose convictions are born of distorions, "truth" is very ephemeral indeed.

Post a comment