The Numbers

Published June 29, 2005 in George W. Bush.

Ezra crunches the numbers from Dear Leaders propaganda speech. Surprise, surprise, WMDs are still missing.

41 Responses to “The Numbers”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Frank_D
Jun 29th, 2005 at 1:06 pm

Also missing:

French and German assistance
UN support
Democratic Party optimism

Present in large quantities (after the speech — from the Democrats):

“The President should have said what we wanted him to say”
2 pionar
Jun 29th, 2005 at 1:06 pm

Frank_D, I can’t speak for other Democrats, but I was thinking,

“That was a waste of my time. He didn’t tell us anything new. Why not just say, ‘Keep on keeping on’ and be done with it?”

Or perhaps he could have even said that there was an actual plan in Iraq.
3 TomY
Jun 29th, 2005 at 2:06 pm

I think that pretending that the Iraqi insurgency completely consists of foreign jihadis is a pretty bad thing for Bush to keep repeating, especially if he wants to look like he’s dealing with the situation realistically. I don’t know anyone who believes that that’s a good description of what we’re up against, and yet Bush kept contrasting brave Iraqis versus terrorists. I think this speech is going to come back to bite him in the ass.
4 evergreen
Jun 29th, 2005 at 2:06 pm

Frank. If I remeber correctly you are a Vietnam Vet. Let me ask you an honest question: As a Vietnam Vet, were ( are ) you troubled at all about the lies and distortions both Dem and Rep administrations fed the American people during that conflict?
5 Frank_D
Jun 29th, 2005 at 2:06 pm

What woke you all up?

I knew the truth about the war in Viet Nam, which I discovered myself before I went. I had asked myself the question, “Should I refuse to fight in this war?”, and more importantly, “Could I refuse to fight in this war, if it was justified”?
My “truth” was that I hated Communist guerrillas, and the Vietnamese were a fiercely independent people, who did not deserve to live under Communist rule. The ‘liars’ were on the left, and yes, they did, and do, disturb me.

My truth about the war in Iraq is that Hussein flooded his own people, used CBW on the Kurds, fired on our fly - overs, and never denied the existence of WMD. We were justified in taking him out when he invaded Kuwait.

Now we’ve created a “speed bump”, as it were, in the “Arab Street” — great!
No more rewards to the families of homicide bombers, no more “Francs and Marks for Oil” scandal, no more “son of Kofi makes out”, the Taliban is seriously weakened, Libyan’s singing a different tune, the Central Asian Republics are scattering away from the old USSR — all great stuff to me!!
Worth the price in human suffering? Yup!
6 evergreen
Jun 29th, 2005 at 2:06 pm

Frank_D, as my dad used to say, you’re a ’soup sandwich’.
7 Frank_D
Jun 29th, 2005 at 3:06 pm

evergreen: I don’t know what you mean, but I suspect you are baiting me to say something about your father — don’t!
8 pionar
Jun 29th, 2005 at 4:06 pm

Frank, you talk about Kofi’s son not making out and a reference to the oil for food scandal. It’s true that these things are no longer occurring. Instead, they’ve been replaced by the pentagon giving no-bid contracts to the president’s cronies and then looking the other way when they lose millions of dollars of our money.

Seems a fair trade-off, no?
9 Todd B.
Jun 29th, 2005 at 5:06 pm

My truth about the war in Iraq is that Hussein flooded his own people, used CBW on the Kurds, fired on our fly - overs, and never denied the existence of WMD. We were justified in taking him out when he invaded Kuwait.

You forgot to mention the part about Rumsfeld and the US going over to Saddam and selling him all those weapons in the 80’s. I guess Rummy didn’t feel he was a threat back then.
10 Frank_D
Jun 29th, 2005 at 6:06 pm

pionar and Todd B: I’m not going to argue with you over your version of history.

1) The so - called “no - bid” contracts were perfectly permissible under law (I’m not proving that to you — prove I’m wrong)

2) The overcharges were uncovered by routine audits — the money will be paid back.

3) In the “marks and francs for oil scandal”, Hussein and his cronies made billions, while Iraquis starved

4) You don’t know for sure that Hussein fired “left - over” weapons ftom the Iran - Iraq War at the Kurds. You don’t even know where the weapons he fired at the Kurds came from. But, even if he did, the US is not responsible for Hussein’s actions after the Iran - Iraq War. Only dreamy left - wingers blame gun manufacturers for gunshots fired by criminals.

5) And, what if you’re correct, and “Rumsfeld (I don’t know him “well enough” to call him “Rummy”) didn t feel he (Hussein) was a threat back then.” What, then?
11 Frank_D
Jun 29th, 2005 at 7:06 pm

I was aware of that, but never could have explained it so succintly, without a lot of “Googling”. Thanks
12 Mostly_Muppet
Jun 29th, 2005 at 7:06 pm

5) And, what if you re correct, and Rumsfeld (I don t know him well enough to call him Rummy ) didn t feel he (Hussein) was a threat back then. What, then?

Well, then, I’d have to bring in to question his decision-making abilities and expertise in his current role. If he didn’t recognize that arming a man like Saddam Hussein would be a bad idea he probably also mistakenly believed that fixing intelligence to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 was also a good idea.
13 Frank_D
Jun 29th, 2005 at 7:06 pm

Todd B: Take a quick look at the National Security Archives. The whole story of Reagan, Iran, Iraq, and Rumsfeld is there. No chemical weapons sales. Guess that was some secret stuff only DU and Democracy Now! know about, eh?
14 dugger1
Jun 29th, 2005 at 7:06 pm

Frank,

“The so - called no - bid contracts were perfectly permissible under law (I m not proving that to you prove I m wrong)”

You are correct. Actually they are orders placed against an existing contract. We (DOD) do it some times. The key is sometimes you need to respond so fast that you can’t wait for normal contracting lead time (easily 2-4 years). So, ahead of time, you negotiate contracts/instruments with large ceiling amounts against which orders can be placed. This original contract, sometimes called “time and material” (with pre-negotiated profit levels), is most often competed. My understanding is that the orginal contract for Halliburton was initiated during the Clinton years. But that is not to suggest any wrong doing on Bubba’s part or W’s. The Pres./VP are not in the approval cycle, which stops at secretarial level - even at the highest dollar amounts.

Dugger
15 Mostly_Muppet
Jun 29th, 2005 at 8:06 pm

I was aware of that, but never could have explained it so succintly, without a lot of Googling . Thanks

Was that an attempt at humor? If so, I’m flattered.
16 Todd B.
Jun 29th, 2005 at 9:06 pm

Todd B: Take a quick look at the National Security Archives. The whole story of Reagan, Iran, Iraq, and Rumsfeld is there. No chemical weapons sales. Guess that was some secret stuff only DU and Democracy Now! know about, eh?

Eh, It’s not exactly a secret that the United States was a key player in Iraq’s arms and chemical weapons buildup. The article didn’t really go in to the arms sales during and after the Iran/Iraq war of the 80’s.

In the marks and francs for oil scandal , Hussein and his cronies made billions, while Iraquis starved

The US backed sanctions on Iraq after Desert Storm also killed hundreds of innocent Iraqis as well - we can all agree that Saddam was not the greatest humanitarian, but there are ways to resolve things besides war, which only leads to more death and destruction (as evidenced by Iraq War II which has caused hundreds of American deaths [1], thousands more Iraqi deaths [2], and unbearable living conditions [1] [2] [3]
[4].
17 Mostly_Muppet
Jun 29th, 2005 at 9:06 pm

I m certain that that memo was not using the Runyonesque idiom, but was more likely using the verb meaning, set in time or place .

I’ll forgive you for being wrong in that regard, Frank. As Hanlon’s Razor so eloquently puts its: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

I know you don’t mean any harm.
18 JD
Jun 29th, 2005 at 9:06 pm

I suspect that Frank was referring to dugger’s post, not the intellectually bankrupt liberal tripe spewed out by you about Sec. Rumsfeld.
19 Mostly_Muppet
Jun 29th, 2005 at 9:06 pm

Thanks for clearing that up, JD. I, myself, was leaving a little joke of sorts.

It seems I’ll have to start leaving winking emoticons to lead the humor-deficient by the nose.
20 evergreen
Jun 29th, 2005 at 9:06 pm

Frank. Actually I wasn’t baiting you to say something about my father. Wrong Again. Although you cant tell because of my horrible grammar, I was calling you a ’soup sandwich’. Its a term we use in Tx for ppl who are just plain out there.
21 Frank_D
Jun 29th, 2005 at 9:06 pm

JD is, of course, 100% correct. Allow me to add that if Rumsfeld lacked foresight way back in the ’80’s, then what do you say about Clinton from 1992 to 2000?
By the way, just to finally settle something, over at WordNet, you’ll find that the noun “fix” has 5 meanings, the verb “fix” has 11 meanings. Only one is “an exemption granted after influence (e.g., money) is brought to bear”
Having had a British bureaucrat for an African Civilization professor, I’m certain that that memo was not using the Runyonesque idiom, but was more likely using the verb meaning, “set in time or place”.
22 Frank_D
Jun 30th, 2005 at 1:06 am

I spent two years in Texas (1967 - 1969), and I never heard the term. I guessed what you were talking about, but I wanted to see if you had any balls.
By the way, calling someone crazy sure saves a lot of that unwieldy debating, doesn’t it?
Mostly_Muppet: I’m not sure I want to know, but what the hell are you talking about?
23 Mostly_Muppet
Jun 30th, 2005 at 8:06 am
24 BinkyBoy
Jun 30th, 2005 at 10:06 am

that should read “well built”. My fingers arn’t quite awake yet.
25 BinkyBoy
Jun 30th, 2005 at 10:06 am

Hey Frank,

ever read the CIA files on the Iran-Iraq war, specifically the battle over Halabja? No one knows who fired the chemical gas, but right now the evidence is that Saddam gave the verbal “ok” to front line commanders to use gas against the Iranians. The Iranians also had the “ok” to use them. It is unknown whether the Iraqi’s fired them or the Iranians, however. It appears both sides did, but what is known is that neither side was targetting the civilians.

And since you already knew that, I’m sure you were aware that the town of Halabja sits on the largest reservoir of water in Iraq. It feeds the Tigris river. And I’m sure you are aware that the Iranians had made plain the fact they wanted to destroy the dam, thus flooding the lower plains killing upwards of 3 million people, right?

Not that that justifies using WMD’s against civilians, but since that was never the intention you were just overstating the situation, right?
26 BinkyBoy
Jun 30th, 2005 at 10:06 am

And I’m sure that Frank_D was vastly aware of the Iraqi engineering business that stepped forward, requesting to repair the northern Baghdad bridge for under $500,000, but our Government said no, the contract had already been awarded to an American company for $5,000,000, which ended up costing over $8 or $9 million.

You know, the bridge that it took 3 separate bombings to finally destroy because it was so we built by the above Iraqi company?

But you knew all that, I’m just reminding you, gently.
27 pionar
Jun 30th, 2005 at 10:06 am

Simply because the contracts were legal, Frank, doesn’t mean it was ethical or right.
28 Frank_D
Jun 30th, 2005 at 11:06 am

I guess all this minutiae is supposed to shock me into hating Bush and calling for the immediate withdrawal of our troops?
Can’t you guys ever find a link? Or do you just make it up as you go along?
29 Mostly_Muppet
Jun 30th, 2005 at 12:06 pm

http://afterdowningstreet.org/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html

And, personally, I think minutiae matters quite a bit. Regardless of your political stripes, we should all demand the most open and honest discourse from our elected officials. Keeping secrets only furthers the impression that what you’re hiding is illicit.

Maybe if most of the public had known the intentions of our leadership concerning war with Iraq, things would have turned out differently. Or not. I don’t know. We weren’t given the full, straight story and so it’s difficult to speculate.

My main concern is the ongoing insurgency and our protracted (permanent?) presence in Iraq. I have a high school buddy working as a military contractor in Mosul and I worry about him daily. He’s a policeman back in Indiana who felt called to duty. His stories are both heartwarming (the courage of the Iraqi men who sign up to be trained as police officers - something he supervises) and frightening (ill-equipped soldiers having to beg munitions).

I’ve rambled on here, but my gut feeling remains that I’m not getting a full, complete or accurate picture of the situation in Iraq and our government and our media is complicit in fostering a false view. Some things might be shittier than I’ve described. Some things might be great. I don’t know. But I do know that I don’t have that unflinching trust in our President that my grandfather had in FDR when he enlisted in the Army.

If I was asked to sacrifice - to buy war bonds, to build ships, to give more money than I already contribute - I would. But, instead, I’m being asked to have patience and that things are fine. Optimism is one thing and I try to be an optimist, but I want some acknowledgement of the reality of the situation.

I guess I’m saying what Fox Mulder used to say on the X-Files: “I want to believe”. Trouble is, I think the President’s vision of the situation is every bit as flawed as Mulder’s.
30 BinkyBoy
Jun 30th, 2005 at 12:06 pm

Gassing of the Kurds: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

As for the New Diyala Bridge, its contract is still doubted by many. The story was widely accepted at first, but no source has confirmed or denied it. It is said by an Iraqi that an Iraqi firm bid $300,000 to the CPA but was turned down. Some time later it was told a $50,000,000 bid was accepted for an American firm. It doesn’t mention the firm, but that would most likely be Bechtel, which doesn’t show a $50,000,000 contract in their reporting.

I’m still just shocked that you so eagerly believe that American companies that overcharge for services are going to return the money.
31 Quaker in a Basement
Jun 30th, 2005 at 4:06 pm

Can t you guys ever find a link? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

This from the same guy who told me to “go to the library” when I asked where you learned about all those Guantanamo detainees who are having such a good time they don’t want to go home?

Haw.
32 Quaker in a Basement
Jun 30th, 2005 at 4:06 pm

Oh, and Frank, don’t tell us you didn’t say that. You did.

I read newspapers and magazines, besides reading blogs. I m not going to list them all for you. Go to the library.
There have been numerous reports of prisoners not wanting to be released, stories of how they are treated, what they eat, etc.
33 Frank_D
Jul 1st, 2005 at 8:07 am

Quaker, you’ve been basking in Oliver’s light for too long, and it has blinded you. I told you that I wasn’t going to find several links for all the stories I’ve read, about one subject.

You lefties never use links for anything. I don’t blame you.
First of all, you don’t want anybody to see a source and judge for themselves the context and other factors in the story.
Second of all, most of your “information” comes from distortions posted at DU and similar locales, and the you just want to keep the myths rolling.

For example, BinkyBoy finds a link (yay!) about the gassing of the Kurds which says

Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town … The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq’s main target,” he wrote.
The former CIA official revealed that immediately after the battle the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report that said it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds.
Both sides used gas [emphasis mine - fd] at Halabja, Pelletiere suggested.
“The condition of the dead Kurds’ bodies however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent that is, a cyanide-based gas which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.”
“A War Crime Or an Act of War?” was the way The Times’ headline writer neatly summed up Pelletiere’s argument.
No doubt, Saddam has mistreated Kurds during his rule. But it’s misleading to say, so simply and without context, that he killed his own people by gassing 5,000 Kurds at Halabja

As I said, having read that, I guess I should now hate Bush, and call for the withdrawal of all our troops from Iraq.
While we’re at it, let’s put Hussein back in office — let’s see how long it takes him to kill 100,000 Iraqis. Without gas, of course.
34 BinkyBoy
Jul 1st, 2005 at 9:07 am

So I posted a link and you casually ignore it. Great. You’ll probably go around repeating the neo-Con mantra that “Saddam gassed his own people” some more, conveniently forgetting this exchange. Great to see you have a one track mind.
35 Quaker in a Basement
Jul 1st, 2005 at 11:07 am

And you still haven’t given me even one link where I can read about all those happy vacationers at Club Gitmo, Frank.
36 Frank_D
Jul 1st, 2005 at 11:07 am

I don’t think quoting from a link is ignoring it.
How’s this for a confession — liberal style?
With the exception of the poison gas exchange at Halabja, Hussein never killed his own people. And I thought he was a villain.
Silly me.
How’s that?
By the way, I’m not a neo - con.
37 BinkyBoy
Jul 1st, 2005 at 2:07 pm

Can you name another instance of him gassing his own people?

I’m not saying the man was a saint, he was far from it. I just believe there were better ways to remove him from power than killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and throwing the entire country into a civil war with us in the middle.
38 Frank_D
Jul 1st, 2005 at 5:07 pm

Of course, you will say there are only two, and they are suspect, so you can browse through these 169,000
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-16,GGLD:en&q=prisoners+guantanamo+say+treated+well

http://www.thebluesite.com/archives/2005/06/col_hunt_gitmo.html

Col David Hunt, said he talked to a former Gitmo detainee, now living in Pakistan (he said he was taliban who supported al qaeda). He was released after 2 years, and he said that he lived better at the prison than any other time in his life.

Afghan detainees say they were treated well

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-10-29-afghan-detainees_x.htm

Incidentally, I didn’t say I would do this. I said you could do it. Apparently, you’re better at righteous indignation, than you are at “Googling”
39 Quaker in a Basement
Jul 1st, 2005 at 6:07 pm

Well, right off the bat, your first Google “find” is a post at Little Green Footballs that says 70 percent of Americans say the detainees are treated well.

Now what was that about being good at Googling?
40 Quaker in a Basement
Jul 1st, 2005 at 6:07 pm

Put those goal posts down, Frank. You’re gonna hurt yourself.

Funny how you shifted from “not wanting to be released” to “treated well.”

Finally, try to get the point. On one hand you tell someone who asks you for a source to “go to the library.” Then you turn right around and whine that “you liberals can never find a link.”

There’s a word for that. It’s, um….on the tip of my tongue….
41 Frank_D
Jul 3rd, 2005 at 6:07 pm

Maybe I’ll just ignore you from now on, because you really are a pain in the ass, and these duels accomplish nothing…

Oliver Willis

The Numbers

41 Responses to “The Numbers”

Leave a Reply

Tag Cloud

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories