Why Liberals Can’t Be Trusted With Our National Security
I have always said that regardless of what issues liberals may be stronger than conservatives on (can’t think of any now, but I’m sure one will come to me) you can’t support them because they can’t be trusted with our national security. They used to have a few patriotic hawks like Joe Lieberman who could recognize pure evil when he saw it and advocated peace thru strength. But no room for Joe anymore as the McGovernite wing of the party has now taken it over.
There is no better illustration of the dangerous mindset of the modern day uselful idiot liberal than moneybags Ted Turner’s speech at the National Press Club Today.
There are a lot of things about this war that disturb me, one of them is?the attitude? that was well expressed by our president [when he said] ??you??re either with us or you??re against us.? And I had a problem with that because I really hadn??t made my mind up yet. You know, what if you hadn??t made your mind up yet? You know, what if you??re thinking about it, doing some studying, doing some reading??
Jessica deGraffenreid of Family Security Matters had this to say:
I have to say, there are a lot of things about this war that disturb me too: the IEDs that kill our soldiers, the Cindy Sheehans who go down to Cocaine-land and flirt with Chavez, and American media personalities who go on television claiming they don??t know which side of the war they want to be on.
Hadn??t made up his mind yet? My mind was made up, oh, about the time the second plane hit the World Trade Center. What exactly is he waiting for?
One wonders, with all this thinking, studying, and reading he??s doing, has he noticed that a totalitarian dictator is out of power? That terrorists are being forced to work on the run? That we??re stopping attacks on our homeland? Good grief, Ted, what is it that you think we are doing?
Turner then incredulously uttered these words:
I just really wonder, during the last war, what business did ? the news desks [have] to have the American flag flying in the background? I mean, it was like the news media covered the Iraq war, at least at the beginning of it, like it was a football game ?? us vs. them?Certainly it was inappropriate for CNN to do it that way.
In Ted’s world the “objective” U.S. press (like CNN) shouldn’t show any sort of partiality. That would not be tolerant of the Taliban and Al Qaeada and other terrorist organizations who chop off people’s heads. It would probably be a violation of the Geneva Conventions and may make them feel “uncomfortable.” On second thought, perhaps Ted has a point. Perhaps if American newsmen hadn’t worn those dam American flag pins so much the terrorists wouldn’t have hated us so much. And we would probably be at peace with the savages by now.
Bottom line is that Ted’s little “speech” today should be a reminder to Americans that when they go to vote in a few weeks they should think long and hard about sitting this one out or voting for “change.”
Yes the GOP has had thier issues (spending and immigration being the two most prominent) that we have consistently chroincled on this blog, but to allow liberals with the Ted Turner globalist/anti-American view of the world control Congress would put our nation at greater risk.And at least Ted had the guts to be honest about his anti-American views. But Senator “global test” Kerry, Howard “unwinable war” Dean, and the rest of the Defeaticrats hold the same views that Commie loving Ted Turner has. Don’t kid yourselves.
Mr. Turner, for the brave men and women who daily protect and defend our nation from the Jihadist throat cutting savages who seek to impose Islam on the world it’s much more than a “football game.” It is whether we will defend Western Civilization from extinction.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
The mainstream media has evolved into a finely tuned propaganda outlet for the government and corporate/military war machine. These propaganda methods, including the constant appeal to patriotism/nationalism that channels like FOX News utilize, were perfected at the Tavistock Institute in London in the 1940s. Dr. John Coleman has written an illuminating book on this topic for those who are interested. The sad reality is that the mainstream media serves the interest of the state and not the public. I remain disappointed that Kevin and Gregg only attack those mainstream media outlets which they don’t believe promote their own conservative beliefs. The real contention should be with all of the mainstream media as I have repeatedly said. None of them deliver the unfiltered truth.
I have exhaustively shown in the past that the so-called “terror” plots pushed by the government have been uncritically advanced by the media. All of these plots have proven baseless with just a modicum of honest research, as can only be found on the internet these days.
This excellent piece is a must read:
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=548&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
October 10th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Come on Gregg,
This is your response to my questions and points in the c-span thread? This is exactly what I was mentioning about emotionally based partisan cherry picking. Who the hell cares about what Ted Turner has to say? I??m 24 years old and I cannot remember the time when Ted Turner was the head of CNN; he gave up leadership a decade ago?
It has been consistently shown that Fox News is bias; the amount of lies and misrepresentations attributed by their news casters is astonishing. CNN attempts to represent the issues, show what both parties positions on an issue, and explain their respective believes about the other side??s position; Fox News doesn??t even come close to this, they will not attempt to represent the opposition??s opinion.
When I say opposition I??m speaking of any detractor of the Bush policies; which, as funny as it is, is the majority of the country. Not to mention that recent polling shows more US citizens trust democrats on national defense and the war on terrorism than they do republicans
But, the inaccuracies in Fox News and the lack of power and influence attributed to Ted Turner are well documented (and obvious), especially when compared to CNN or elected Republican Policy makers who control all three branches of government.
I don??t think I need to comment on the context of your post any further. (I was going to point out that you betrayed your ??FACCE? by not using any facts; I was also going to ramble on about how you did the same thing in your mock interview with taking something that is either not a clear opposition opinion or an ineffectual misrepresentation.)
What I will comment on though, is that you haven??t addressed any of the points I made about torture, habeas corpus and flag burning?. So I bring you: ??Reasons Gregg and Republicans cannot be trusted with our nation or our security.?
You??ve supported, and continue to support, the whole sale destruction of our constitution by ignoring fundamental principals our country was founded on.
You, and anyone in the world reading this (yes that includes US citizens) can be detained indefinitely, tortured, and executed without Habeas Corpus; this means you don??t have the right to see the evidence against you, question your accusers, or even question why you are being detained and tortured. (Read the constitution! It mentions the ONLY times habeas corpus can be suspending are in rebellion or invasion.) The Founding Fathers even discussed not writing the first ten amendments [known as the bill of rights] because they assumed these were/are freedoms that needn??t be written because they seemed so obvious.)
They [Republican administration Gregg he so blindly supports] have continually lied and protected any wrong-doings, such as sexual predators, corruption, whistle blowing, and dissent; when someone dissents they are labeled ??un-American?? (which is a concept that escapes me) or terrorist sympathizers; or even worse as idiots.
Look at the facts about one simple thing Gregg. You defended torture with an almost zealous attitude in your c-span mock interview, where you used the same argument motioning cutting off people??s heads.
Can you name, on ten fingers, ten people who have had their heads cut off? I thought not.
There has been ONE notable media event surrounding cutting off heads; this was perpetrated by a group of fundamentalists! We are the most powerful country in the world, we have been a bastion of freedom and human rights, and we have worked tirelessly to prevent injustice. (We established and spread the modern day ethic of the rule of law for Christ??s sake). Yet you believe we, as an entire people and nation state, should institute a policy of torture because fundamentalists have cut some peoples heads off?
This reasoning is fear mongering at its worst. I have stated before that torture has NEVER been proven effective. Both conservative and liberal organizations and think tanks have written about it as an ineffectual means in getting information.
The Israeli government, which has fought terrorism for decades upon decades, has said torture doesn??t work. Our own government has released reports and written at great length about torture not having any benefits.
There have been two instances since September 11th that were briefly mentioned as a justification of torture working; they BOTH are no longer mentioned or discussed by conservatives because they had NOTHING to do with the US, and the governments/interrogators who uncovered ??plots?? have been implicated in either planning these plots or knew of them beforehand. (That??s why you will not hear a conservative speak of ??reasons torture works;?? all they have is George Bush and Gregg saying ??torture works;?? while claims of it working have been shown to be fake.)
This administration and the republican revolution are crumbling. (Goldwater would roll over in his grave if he had any idea how distorted his vision had become.) The American people do not have faith in their President or the republican leadership in congress. They have awoken and found years of fear-mongering, with nothing to show for it but the destruction of: our civil liberties, the constitution, our fundamental freedoms, equality, and the rule of law. (Basically, anything they had envisioned for our country in the constitution.)
Are you aware that you are more likely to win the lottery, die in a plane crash, or be struck by lightening, than you (Gregg and anyone reading this) are to be a killed by a terrorist (even when traveling the world)?
You and I both know that your C-SPAN appearance, your radio show, and this blog are doing nothing to further the American cause. You must come to your senses and realize that this type of radical partisanship, finger-pointing, and desperately emotional pleas about the ??anti-American dissenters?? (with not a damned fact to back them up) are just as bad as anyone on the far left, or the radical terrorist??s propaganda; this garbage is neither true, or representative of the real world.
Mike Molzahn
Post Script: I tried to be dignified and subtle, but you say you can defeat liberal arguments with facts, where are the facts Gregg, where are they? Refute torture, getting rid of an 800 year old freedom such as Habeas Corpus, or even defend the flag burning amendment! (It??s all injustice and not the American I know. If I were to understand the concept of anti-American: I would say that destroying the constitution fits the mold.)
Again, to your supporters: Do some research about some of the things Gregg says, they are not gospel and if he is using raw emotion or quotes from people who don??t matter: take a look a little deeper; what he says may not be right on the money.
(Ohh, and Gregg, if you think a few fundamentalists can wipe out the greatest nation the world has ever seen: doesn’t that seem a little alarmist? I hope you don’t have any money in the stock market, or tied up in US dollars since we are so close to utter obliteration. I’d like to have a little more faith in my country and my people…)
October 11th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Once a liberal says what they truly believe, it becomes very clear that liberalism is a mental condition, not an ideology.
October 11th, 2006 at 12:08 am
That’s exactly what I??m talking about? No-one comments on the last post, or refutes my facts. Then I post another, long and well thought out post, but all i get is a facsimile of “you like the ACLU so you??re off your rocker.”
‘KnightBridage:’ show me facts that torture works, or give me a rationale for getting rid of the fundamental principle our laws are based upon, or for banning flag burning?
It??s the same garbage, and the sad fact is that with such a quite response I know it someone who is subscribed to the post (being a moderator or contributor) who probably didn??t take the time to read it.
Mike Molzahn
October 11th, 2006 at 12:43 am
It??s become abundantly clear that Gregg and his proponents don??t wish to engage in discussion. It??s just misrepresentations, name calling, and pleas based on nothing but emotion and partisanship.
Mike Molzahn
October 11th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Dear Mr. Jackson,
I was unable to send you an e-mail through the website for your book, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies (the mailbox was full), so I though I would just post this question on your blog.
On Sunday, while watching C-SPAN 2, I enjoyed watching the event hosted by the Eagle Forum during which you spoke about your book, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies. During the discussion, you provided me with a lot of ammunition for my debates with liberals.
One of your suggestions, however, troubled me. In order to respond to liberals who claim that Bush lied about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, you suggested that I pose the following question: “What did Bush lie about?” You also suggested that, based on a portion of his State of the Union Address in 2003, President Bush never claimed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
I am troubled because I have come across a speech that President Bush gave in Cincinnati in 2002, in which it appears as if he clearly stated that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The transcript from this speech appears on the White House’s website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Could you please give me some insight as to how I might be able to respond to a liberal who may confront me with this speech from 2002?
Thanks.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Thanks for your kind words JC.
I would suggest re-reading the transcript you sent me. Again, Bush never said that Sadaam possessed WMDs only that he had used them in the past and that we had credible intelligence saying that he was attempting to acquire enriched uranium. Here is the most significant portion of the speech in which Bush says:
“Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer — the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.”
“Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.”
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
“If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.”
“Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there’s a reason. We’ve experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.”
Bush never says “We know for a fact that Saddam has nuclear weapons he is planning on using on the USA.” or anything approaching that. He makes a compelling and logical case for disarming Saddam.
Again, my question to anybody who says “Bush lied” is what did he lie about? Usually the person to whom I am speaking will say “he said Iraq possessed WMDs” referring to his now infamous “16 words”: ??The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .?
This statment as I point out in my book is factually correct. It is the liberals who continue to perpetuate this fallacious assertion who are engaging in lying. http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
Thanks for buying the book. I hope that it helps you.
Sincerely,
Gregg
October 11th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Dear Gregg, Michael has exhibited the liberal’s fear of hearing anything “but their side of a story”…for decades I have been subjected to one sided NEWS…Dan Rather’s babble about “the story is true, the docs may be PHONY, but the Story IS True” is a fine and oustanding example! Even ABE LINCON ..the uneducated President would have seen thru that one. TODAY THE LIBERALS THINK THAT ONLY THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD…they Do not believe there may be another side of the STORY. Anyone who disagrees is a Right Wing extemeist..well, news for Michael..I am Not the Dreaded Religious Right Wing Extremist..I am just an ordinary American..Work, pay taxes, and raise a family is my life…But guess what Michael..I have a degree, Night School, but EARNED with a lot of hard work..I have a decent IQ..and I have a gift You Do not Have..Intellectual Curiousity..I AM NOT AFRAID TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE..BUT WHILE I LISTEN I ALSO VERIFY! I did not go to Colleg to be TOLD what to think, I went to Learn How to Think…too bad you didn’t. I am one of those Reagan Dems…TRUST BUT VERIFY..I HAVE DONE THAT..and I do not have any FEAR of Hearing the OTHER SIDE..there is a point in your life where you really wonder just who is telling the truth..luckily for me I am not Indoctrinated and still like to RESEARCH..these days it is REALLY easy with the Internet..I read the Bills Congress passes with no fear..I believe in the First Ammendemnt..NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD, BUT SO DOES THE OTHER SIDE..YOU BELITTLE THOSE WHO HAVE OTHER IDEAS..FOR ME I LIKE TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE. I am not so naive as to think Only one side is Correct! DAN RATHER IS YOU IDOL..THE “DOCUMENTS MAY BE FAKE, BUT THE STORY IS TRUE!”… Just think about that statement…just because you THINK Fox Lies…doesn’t mean the Brilliant media you read is telling the truth either. Gregg did a lot of thinking before he reached his position….he was lectured to and yet remained curious..YOU TOOK THE LAZY WAY..JUST TRUSTING BUT NOT VERIFYING…try it some time…but I know you don’t want to..BUT STOP DENYING ME MY EQUAL RIGHTS AND MY FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS AS WELL..that is just what you are doing and you fail to realize that in the USA I also have a right to my beliefs and to express them! Proudly, when I express my beliefs they are not dependent on one sided writing and no RESEARCH..I am curious and I love history and I have the patience to RESEARCH …sadly you are Indoctrinated and afraid to THINK OUTSIDE THE LIBERAL BOX! THEIR ARE ALWAYS TWO OPINIONS AND MORE..YOU ARE AFRAID TO EVEN READ OR SEE THEM…UNTIL THEN YOUR BRILLIANCE IS VERY LIMITED! AND YOUR COMPLAINTS ARE AN EXAMPLE..NEVER FORGET THAT IN AMERICA ALL VIEWS ARE ALLOWED..BUT ANY VIEW CAN BE DEBATED..As long as you are afraid to debate or hear a different opinion..then you are no better than a NAZI..Everyone is respected when they exhibit well rounded thought..and can present arguments..YOU JUST HAVE TALKING POINTS…AND NO RESEARCH!
October 12th, 2006 at 8:34 am
The fairy tale is that Bush was misled by faulty intelligence into believing Saddam sought uranium from Niger. The truth, completely ignored by the mainstream media, is that the Italian parliament conducted an investigation which inventually linked neocon assets Michael Ledeen and Ahmed Chalabi among others to the forged Niger documents. Ledeen, as we know, advises Karl Rove on foreign policy.
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7256
We also know that Rumsfeld sought to connect 9/11 to Iraq only hours after the attack had taken place.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Plans to attack Iraq were in place even before the coup that brought Bush into the White House. These plans were drawn up by the rabidly pro-Israel PNAC.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
October 12th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Dear Mr. Jackson:
Thank you very much for responding to my question.
Unfortunately, I am now a little confused. In your response, you point out the portion of President Bush’s speech in which he addressed Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. President Bush, however, also spoke of Iraq possessing chemical and biological weapons, which most people, including President Bush, consider “weapons of mass destruction.” In fact, in the 2002 speech I referenced, President Bush said Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and then stated, “Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.”
Meanwhile, other than recent claims made by Representative Peter Hoekstra and Senator Rick Santorum, I do not know of any other Republicans who have claimed that investigations conducted after our invasion on 2003 turned up evidence of any weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq since 2003, including chemical and biological weapons. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html).
Again, thank you so much for your previous response. In order to combat the liberal lies effectively, however, I really need some clarification. Thanks again.
(For your convenience, I will post the link again to the 2002 speech I referenced before: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)
October 13th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Dear Mr. Jackson:
Thank you very much for responding to my question. Unfortunately, now I am a little confused.
In your response, you point out the portion of President Bush’s speech in which he addressed Iraq’s nuclear weapons capabilities. President Bush, however, also spoke of Iraq possessing chemical and biological weapons, which most people, including President Bush, consider “weapons of mass destruction.” In fact, in the 2002 speech I’ve referenced, President Bush said Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and then stated, “Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.”
Meanwhile, other than recent claims made by two Congressmen, Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Sen. Rick Santorum, I have not heard any other Republican leaders claim that investigations conducted after our invasion in 2003 turned up evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction at the time we invaded, including chemical and biological weapons. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html).
Again, thank you so much for your previous response. In order to combat the liberal lies effectively, however, I really need some clarification. Thanks again.
(For your convenience, I will post the link again to the 2002 speech I referenced before: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)
October 14th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
JC,
Regarding your comment:
“Meanwhile, other than recent claims made by Representative Peter Hoekstra and Senator Rick Santorum, I do not know of any other Republicans who have claimed that investigations conducted after our invasion on 2003 turned up evidence of any weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq since 2003, including chemical and biological weapons.”
You can easily google this one. chem and biological waepons have been found since 2002- chem and biological weapons that Saddam used and nobody doubted he would use again if given the opportunity.This is a documented fact that neither Santorum nor any other Bush “Neo-con” contrived.
“The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found,” Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. “The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 — U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq: US intelligence
Jun 22 1:56 AM US/Eastern
US-led coalition forces in Iraq have found some 500 chemical weapons since the March 2003 invasion, Republican lawmakers said, citing an intelligence report.
“Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent,” said an overview of the report unveiled by Senator Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra, head of the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives.
“Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf war chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf war chemical munitions are assessed to still exist,” it says.
The lawmakers cited the report as validation of the US rationale for the war, and stressed the ongoing danger they pose.
“This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false,” Santorum said.
A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions “in such a degraded state they couldn’t be used for what they are designed for.”
The official, who asked not to be identified, said most were 155 millimeter artillery projectiles with mustard gas or sarin of varying degrees of potency.
“We’re destroying them where we find them in the normal manner,” the official said.
In 2004, the US army said it had found a shell containing sarin gas and another shell containing mustard gas, and a Pentagon official said at the time the discovery showed there were likely more.
The intelligence overview published Wednesday stressed that the pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market.
“Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out,” it said.
Santorum said the two-month-old report was prepared by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a military intelligence agency that started looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the Iraq Survey Group stopped doing so in late 2004.
Last year the head of Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, said that insurgents in Iraq had already used old chemical weapons in their attacks.
Nevertheless, “the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn’t find anything,” Hoekstra said.
“But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq,” he said.
Asked just how dangerous the weapons are, Hoekstra said: “One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country, can be very, very deadly.”
The report said that the purity of the chemical agents — and thus their potency — depends on “many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions.”
“While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal,” it said.
Reporters questioned the lawmakers as to why the Bush administration had not played up the report to boost their case for continued warfare in Iraq.
“The administration has been very clear that they want to look forward,” Santorum said. “They felt it was not their role to go back and fight previous discussions.”
Fear that Saddam Hussein might use his alleged arsenal of chemical and biological weapons was a reason US officials gave for launching the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html
Gregg
October 14th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Since carol took the time to respond I will respond to her.
I never tried to tell Gregg ??you can??t advocate your views,? or to belittle his rights to speak his mind. I never called anyone a Nazi or another derogatory term (as you have me); I even made the point to go out of my way to show that I DO NOT equate anyone (especially Gregg) on this blog as KKK or some other detested organization.
I am, indeed, glad that you are educated and believe in your positions. I am glad Gregg has something to believe in as well; however, I was making the point that Gregg has misrepresented some arguments and uses emotionally based partisan pleas to forward his positions. (I have made the point of mentioning that I believe ??Gregg??s partisan hackery is doing nothing to help unite the US, and is doing little to further the common goals we have on conservative [and US] issues.? That is my real problem, and I have denounced the same garbage on the left here as well.)
I also never made the point of calling myself a liberal. I have called myself a liberal in the past, and in today??s political climate I would most likely be considered liberal. I consider myself a moderate; if I had to pigeonhole myself it would be a libertarian leaning democrat.
These are the points I believe Gregg is wrong about, has mischaracterized, and used emotional rhetoric that has little, to no, bearing on the issues facing us as a nation.
1) Torture works, Gregg contends that it does.
As a response to this, I pointed out that every study done on torture cannot point to a single credible instance of torture working. Israel, who has battled radicalism for many decades, has repeatedly said that torture doesn??t work. The US government, the UN, conservative and liberal thinks tanks all have said ??torture doesn??t work?. I believe this is a credible claim and can point to hundreds of studies and articles about this issue. (You will find a few claims of torture working since 9/11, they have been discounted as false because the governments interrogating had either helped plan the plots or knew of them ahead of time; also it??s notable that these plots didn??t involve the US in any way.
2) Gregg has also made the claim that torture is necessary to fight those who cut off our heads. He infers that we have the moral high-ground because we don??t kill people.
I??ve made the point that there has been one notable media incident of terrorists cutting off the peoples heads (I??m sure there are more, but only one that has been notable). I also contend that we do not have the moral high-ground here. I??ve made the point that the US government, the most powerful nation in the world, has killed many detainees by beating them to death and through other various heinous means. I would contend that this nullifies his ??moral high-ground argument.? I would also make the point that the most powerful nation and government in the world is far different from a few radical individuals that are committing radical acts, we as a country are creating an institutional policy of torture. It??s really apples and oranges in my opinion.
3) Gregg contends that we must support Republicans, torture, and disregard the fundamental principle our laws are based upon because: ??we are defending western civilization from extinction?.
To me, this is yet another emotional ploy. I cannot imagine that the US will collapse because of fundamentalists. We have suffered through quite a bit as a country and we have always come out on top. Our country is the most stable in the world and not in serious peril. (I??m not downplaying the need to stamp out fundamentalism, I??m just saying that when someone contends that they are going to bring down western civilization: that??s really a poor argument based in emotion. It only leads to people nodding their head when we curtain fundamental rights and rewrite the constitution.)
That??s?? what I think about torture and I would go on to explain why I don??t argue with his justification for getting rid of habeas corpus, or the republican ??scare tactics?? and ??flag waving?? that comes up in issues such as the flag burning amendment, or other things that I deem as ??as waste of time, or inciting further partisanship.??
I would argue if we stopped attacking President Bush and Clinton on their past mistakes, or their character, we could actually discuss issues instead of calling people Nazis or saying their opinions don??t matter because they are an ACLU supporter or a right-wng blogger.
I did say a few inflammatory things in my first posts in the C-SPAN thread, but never did I call Gregg a Nazi, or discount his rights to be a proponent of anything he believes (I have only said I don??t like his characterization or arguments used to justify some of the positions I don??t agree with.)
All I am really trying to say is: I believe this partisanship from Gregg, and from others on the left, am not helping the country.
I would also point out Caron, that you didn??t take the time to argue against my positions, you just attacked me and discounted my positions because of some perceived political ideology, as everyone else here has done; I understand this, Gregg is a right-wing political operative (I hope that phrase is not offensive, I think it??s a just characterization without any negative connotations.) It??s Gregg??s job to be partisan; I would say most of the readers here agree with him whole-heartedly.
I have no problem with that choice, nor do I have a problem with Gregg as a person. It??s the lack of discourse and misrepresentations. (I??m sure you can find the same thing on left-wing blogs.)
Michael D. Molzahn
Postscript: As for the chemical and biological weapons Saddam had, we gave them chemical and biological weapons, and we taught them how to make them. When Saddam was gassing his people we were increasing our military technology exports to Iraq. (So, we gave him the technology and support to create them.)
The day Saddam attacked Kuwait the US halted its military shipments. (It took Britain until the next day to turn their ships around.)
I won??t fault the US for previous positions and support; we??ve supported many countries that became hostile to us in the future. I??m also not saying Bush lied to us, I??m just stating well documented facts, and you can infer what you want from them.
This is my dénouement on this blog, I am a college student and have a great deal of work to do for my upcoming midterms, volunteering to do, and case briefs to write. I (most likely) bid you all farewell and good luck in your future endeavors.
October 14th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
One additional quick thing: (lol and I said the last post would most likely be my last)
Mr. Jackson, I see you??re taking the time to respond here without any ‘crazy’ partisan rhetoric or name calling. Even though I think the title of this post is inflammatory, you are using quotes and representing your beliefs in these responses without the ??rabble-rousing?? I saw on c-span. I??m glad that the ??mischaracterizations?? that compelled me to post here in the first place aren??t all there is to punditreview.com; I commend and thank you for your thoughtful actions/responses.
That’s all I really want to see, US citizens (who believe strongly in our respective positions) can disagree respectfully without name calling and ill-willed statements for the good of our country through civil discourse.
Mike
Postscript: I do apologize to you, or anyone else, if they felt I was trying to widen or exacerbate this divide. I just disagree with some of your positions and characterizations strongly, as I??m guessing you do mine.
October 15th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Mike,
Thanks for your thoughtful response and comments.
As to your comments on “torture” I only claimed that wateroarding was the most humane and effective physical interrrogation techinique at the CIA’s disposal. Nobody dies and there is little if any physical harm done. This technique is performed rarely to obtain actionable intelligence to thwart potential terror attacks before thousands and perhaps millions of Americans are murdered. Frankly I don’t care what the corrupt bunch at the UN calls it. They should focus more on how the members of the “Human Right’s Council” treats their own citizens as they do criticizing our “inhumane” interrogation techniques. I have not “misrepresented” anything here regarding waterboarding and the case for it as an effective interrogation technique. And some forms of agrressive interrogation (if you prefer to call waterboarding “torture” you may do so) such as waterboarding do work and I documented the recent cases where it has been successful in aiding CIA in obtaining actionable terror related intell (LA Tower planned attack et al).
As to your claim that I am a political “operative”. That’s a good one. I am a registered independant and didn’t know I worked on behalf of a particular political party. Thanks for letting me know Mike. By the way it’s ok to be “partisan.” no matter what your professors tell you. Being partisan means having a difinitive opinion and standing up for it and fighting for what you believe. If we had a little bit more of it in Congress and less Senators calling each other my “good, distinguised, frined from accross the isle, blah, blah, blah we wouldn’t have a lot of the problems we are dealing with in this country. I have more respect for socialists like Brenie Sanders fro VT than I do with a lot of Republicans who call themselves “conservative.” At least Sanders admits to being what he is and argues passionately for his socialist agenda. So there is nothing wrong with being “partisan.” It means you have guts and a spine.
Good luck on those mid-terms.
Gregg
October 15th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Gregg I think it is very naive and ignorant of you to constantly speak of liberals as a whole. To make generalizations about millions of people is extremely foolish. I think in me you would find an interesting perspective on our America. If there is some forum on which i could directly speak to you about some issues i would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you your fellow american Phil
October 15th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Just read a post questioning WMD’s ..in Iraq..suggest he spend some time researhing speeches by HIS HERO..John Kerry..or Better nancy Pelosi and all the other Dem WARRIOR OF THE 90′S. Clearly in the Senate and House Records are speeches by all of them justifying a Clinton Attack on Iraq..THEY WERE IN FEAR OF THIS MAN..SADAAM WAS SEEKING WMDS THEY ALL SAID…He had an Active Program for Bio/Chem Weaponry as well and they were in COMPLETE AGREEMENT..but of course that was in the 90’s and CLINTON was President…I love to read those silly posts from undergrads at elite schools..they have no Idea about research and no desire to do any!
There was a tape of some of these floor speeches, played on pundit review recently, you who doubt my word just ask for a replay! Sadaam, was seeking Yellow Cake in Nigeria..too bad you didn’t read the rest of the book Mr. Wilson wrote…Sadaam didn’t get it ..because the Nigerians were afraid/intimidated by the US..or so they told him…BUT CAN YOU TRUST THAT EXPLANATION? THERE were forged docs..not found out about TILL AFTER THE WAR HAD COMMENCED..but is it possible that you ralize it was the Brits and Italians and Spanish and French who were mislead and misstating things to our CIA? Our Cia was merely INFORMED they did not gather the info themselves…due to Liberal Laws and Regulations AMERICA WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK TO THE BAD GUYS..The Dems/Libs thought that we should not deal with any crooks..So for years now we are gathering mostly second hand info…
ANOTHER GOOD READ FOR A BRILLIANT STUDENT WOULD BE THE VERONA PAPERS NOW HELD SAFELY (UNTIL SANDY BERGER GETS ACCESS) AT YALE UNIVERSITY..NOT TOO FAR FROM HERE ..VERY INERESTING AND ENLIGHTENING …AMERICA IS SUCH A NAIVE COUNTRY..WIRETAPPING IS BAD..In England it is OK and in Italy it is Okay..and have you ever been to Paris and observed the Secret Police they have??? If England didn’t have Strong Laws ALLOWING THEM TO SPY ..HOW MANY AMERICANS WOULD HAVE DIED..ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS IN THE LONDON TERROR ATTEMPT? I know you will say it was all a FARCE..but I sure do not want to be on a Plane with YOU..if you were on the Plane with the Shoe Bomber it would have been your pleasure to LIGHT HIS MATCHES FOR HIM!
I fear for my family with IGNORANT GENIUSES LIKE THIS… AND IF YOU AND YOUR COHORT DO TAKE SOME TIME OFF FROM INDOCTRINATION CLASS..DO GO TO YALE AND CHECK THE VERONA PAPERS…GIVE YOURSELVES A FEW DAYS..YOU MAY COME BACK A CHANGED STUDENT!
October 16th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Caron, I sense some anger, frustration and fear. Please understand that partisan politics is a ‘game’, a ruse specifically designed to divide the country. If the country appears more bitterly divided than ever, it’s because this was the goal from the outset. Provacateurs within all avenues of society (politics, media, entertainment, etc.) have promoted this hidden agenda for years now. Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not serve the people and are a lot closer in ideology than they publicly appear. The war in Iraq was conceived well before the thoroughly misunderstood 9/11 attacks and will be continued for some time to come regardless of whether or not the Democrats take back Congress. George W. Bush, for all his faults, is nothing more than a figurehead, and he is certainly not a ‘decider’.
Do NOT fear large scale “terrorist” attacks, global war, pandemics or massive environmental catastrophes. None of these will occur. Notice the onslaught of TV shows and movies in recent years that have promoted such events. Some have been presented as fictional and some as informational, but the dark design is the same in both: to promote fear. Yes, this is purposeful. Ignore it.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
John the 9-11 Conspiracy Kook says: “Do NOT fear large scale ??terrorist? attacks, global war, pandemics or massive environmental catastrophes. None of these will occur. Notice the onslaught of TV shows and movies in recent years that have promoted such events. Some have been presented as fictional and some as informational, but the dark design is the same in both: to promote fear. Yes, this is purposeful. Ignore it.”
No the global Jihadist threat is merely a figment of your imagination. Those terrorist attacks by the throat cutting Jihadists were just a figment of our collective imaginations. John, you are truly insane.
Gregg
October 17th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Dear Mr. Jackson:
In your last response to me, you reference 3 articles that you claim support your position that “chem[ical] and biological weapons have been found since 2002- chem[ical] and biological weapons that Saddam used and nobody doubted he would use again if given the opportunity.”
You reference the following:
1) a Fox News article, dated 5/17/04;
2) a Washington Post article, dated 8/14/05; and
3) an article from Breidbart.com, dated 6/22/06.
I have reviewed all three articles carefully.
I. FOX NEWS ARTICLE
As you note, the article is about a roadside IED, which the Iraq Survey Group confirmed contained sarin nerve agent. The article goes on to state, however,
“The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a ‘very small dispersal of agent.’However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.”
Furthermore, with regard to that IED and another found which the Iraq Survey Group claimed contained mustard gas, the article states,
“An official at the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) headquarters in New York said the commission is surprised to hear news of the mustard gas. ‘If that’s the case, why didn’t they announce it earlier?’ the official asked. The UNMOVIC official said the group needs to know more from the Bush administration before it’s possible to determine if this is ‘old or new stuff.’”
Meanwhile, on September 30, 2004, the Iraq Survey Group issued the Duelfer Report, its final report on Iraq’s WMD programs, finding that Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group)
II. WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE
As you note, this article is about a suspected chemical weapons factory. The article goes on to state, however,
“[Military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A.] Boylan said the suspected [chemical weapons] lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein’s government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.”
III. BRIEBART.COM ARTICLE
This is simply another article about the same shells addressed in the Washington Post article I cited previously, which states that despite the claims made by Rep. Hoesktra and Sen. Santorum,
“intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.”
Mr. Jackson, I have been a staunch Republican for over 20 years. As such, I have consistently relied on the hard work of intellectuals like you in order to find hard facts to support the Republican cause. Unfortunately, your inadequate and poorly researched responses, as demonstrated above, have discouraged me greatly.
Therefore, I have decided to leave the Republican party and become a Democrat. In fact, I have realized that the simple act of writing that last sentence has eased my conscience about the WMD issue.
In addition, although I did purchase your book, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, I will be returning it immediately and will be expecting a prompt refund.
Good luck to you, Mr. Jackson, and I again thank you for responsing to my questions.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
From Yahoo:
“Disaffected people living in the United States may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet and that could present the next major U.S. security threat, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Monday… To help gather intelligence on possible home-grown attackers, Chertoff said Homeland Security would deploy 20 field agents this fiscal year into ‘intelligence fusion centers,’ where they would work with local police agencies.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/tc_nm/security_chertoff_dc_5
This has nothing to do with catching terrorists and everything to do with more closely monitoring dissent on the internet, especially regarding 9/11.
President Bush, in his own words, before the UN assembly on Nov. 10, 2001:
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html
This is very telling. Why would the president invoke 9/11 “conspiracy theories” and ask for absolute intolerance of them before a world body just two months after the attacks?
October 18th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
John wonders to himself: “This is very telling. Why would the president invoke 9/11 ??conspiracy theories? and ask for absolute intolerance of them before a world body just two months after the attacks?”
Perhaps b/c there were conspiracy theorists such as yourself John who believed that many other previous terrorist acts that preceded 9-11 had been part of an organized conspiracy and Bush wanted to condemn the conspiracy theories that were already being posited by people in your crowd only days after the 9-11 attacks. That’s why he mentioned it only a few months after 9-11. Perhaps the President knew that unsubstnatiated rumors about “inside jobs” from people like you may hinder our ability to fight a unified war on Islamic Terrorism- a war by the way- that you have said is an illusion.
You probably believe that the debunked conspiracy theory that 4,000 Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on September 11 is true don’t you John?
Gregg
October 19th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Gregg, the intelligence agencies are actively participating in the “conspiracy theory” game. Certain 9/11 theories (i.e. no planes hit the WTC) have popped up on the internet that are clearly ridiculous and can be easily disproven. This is a well-established intelligence tactic known as “poisoning the well”. All “conspiracy theories” are tainted when bogus “conspiracy theories” are presented and then proven false. Moreover, the entire internet is delegitimized by such tactics, and a crackdown on the internet like Chertoff called for the other day becomes more palatable. The internet, as you know, is the last bastion of truly free expression and thought and is thus a threat to those who seek total control.
With that said, I am acutely aware and sympathetic to the psychologically devastating toll that this revelation, among many others, will have on the people of this country and world.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
John, you never acknowledged my response as to why it was reasonable for Bush to broach the topic of conspiracy theories post 9-11. I will assume from your non-response you concur with my assessment.
Further you never asked my very direct question. So I will ask again:
You probably believe that the debunked conspiracy theory that 4,000 Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on September 11 is true don??t you John?
October 19th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
JC, as to your claim of being a Republican for 20 years. Does that mean you registered when you were 4 since you are 24years old? Also, I was on your site if you want to call it that and the list of communists you support is quite impresssive. Next time be honest about who you are and what your political affiliations are. The fact you lied makes all your other claims irrelevant. You can\’t be trusted. it\’s prety easy to check these things out with technology being what it is these days.
If you had read my book which you claim you have, you would have read the words of other Democrats who all said Sadam possessed chemical and bilogical weapons. Here is a little refresher for you now that you are going to join the Democrat Party to which you alrady belong.
President Clinton addressed the nation on Dec. 16, 1998 after ordering a strike on military and security targets in Iraq said: ??The mission is to attack Iraq??s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. The purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of the people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.?
Vice President Gore, on that very same day said the following: ??If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with these weapons? He??s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. The man has no compunction about killing lots of people. So the U.S. bombing is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world.?
Senator Tom Daschle said in 1998 that a use of force resolution would ?? send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law.? He then went on to further defend Clinton??s decision to use force saying that: ??We have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraquis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That??s what they??re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don??t have another option. We have to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.?
Senator John Kerry on Feb 23, 1998 said: ??If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and Unscom cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press the case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights?Saddam Hussein has already used weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is the threat to the stability of the Middle East.?
Richard Butler who headed the team investigating Iraq??s weapons programs said: ??The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.? And that in his book the ??Greatest Threat? he wrote: ??It would be foolish in the extreme not to assume that (Saddam) is developing long-range missiles capabilities, at work again on building nuclear weapons, and adding to the chemical and biological warfare weapons he concealed during the UNSCOM inspection period.? 9
? Saddam??s son in law Hussein Kamel who was in charge of Iraq??s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs- defected to Jordan. He provided information to Unscom, IAEA, and foreign intelligence agencies about Iraq??s chemical, biological, and nuclear programs. Iraqi officials later admitted that they had hidden more than 100,000 gallons of botulinum toxin, more than 22,000 gallons of anthrax, more than 500 gallons of aflatoxin, four metric tons of VX nerve gas, and 2.7 gallons of ricin.
Almost every nation??s intelligence agencies, American, British, and Russian intelligence, U.N. intelligence, and even prominent Democrats shared the Bush administration??s view that Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to America??s security, that sanctions and resolutions were not working, and that force was necessary to disarm and remove Saddam from power.
Gregg
October 19th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Sorry, Gregg, I don’t concur with your assessment. President Bush mentioned intolerance of “conspiracy theories” in an attempt to nip in the bud what we are seeing today - growing distrust of the official explanation of that day. Let’s not forget that this president adamantly refused to testify before the 9/11 commission (the sham that it was) unless accompanied by Dick Cheney. Why?
Do I believe the “conspiracy theory” about the evacuation of Jewish individuals? I don’t know. It’s not a smoking gun issue related to that day. Do I believe there was Mossad involvement in the attacks? Absolutely. Even FOX News reported on the Israeli spy ring (Mossad posing as art students) that operated in this country before 9/11. Gregg, you have been very silent on this story on several occasions, and I understand you may be nervous about learning more about 9/11 than you were told about it by the mainstream media (which is complicit in the silencing and cover up of that day).
October 20th, 2006 at 7:14 am
John,
This is a binary question (yes or no)It can easily be disproven. I will give you one more opportunity to answer the question directly. You have spoken about this issue before I believe. If you cannot say unequivically “no” I will assume the answer is yes.
“You probably believe that the debunked conspiracy theory that 4,000 Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on September 11 is true don??t you John?”
Do you believe this story to be true John? Yes or no?
Gregg
October 20th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Gregg, it’s a straw man argument. I’m truthfully telling you I don’t know if I believe it because I’ve never researched it. I would lean heavily towards not believing it however. I’ve never espoused this particular “theory” in the past, and in the string of inconsistencies on that day it ranks very low because of its speculative nature.
I’m aware of the Israeli communciations firm, Odigo, that apparently warned its employees before the attacks. I’m also aware of the undercover Mossad agents that were caught in NJ celebrating the controlled demolition of the towers, only to be quietly released back to Israel. Finally, I’m aware that Netanyahu publicly said that 9/11 was good for Israel.
October 21st, 2006 at 9:43 am
The answer John is unequivocally “no.” If you can’t commit to saying so I can understand. And don’t tell me you have not thought about it or “researched” it. You are a conspiracy threorist through and trough and this particular theory is false and has been well publicized. Here are the facts. So now I think you will concur that this conspiracy theory is false.
I would love for you to provide “Netanyahu’s public statement that 9/11 was good for Israel.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
4,000 Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on September 11
This unsubstantiated and widely debunked claim made by Al-Manar, the television station of Hezbollah, a sworn enemy of Israel, has been repeated by a wide variety of other sources, such as Amiri Baraka. The original Al-Manar claim, posted September 17, 2001 on the English language version of the website of Al-Manar website, was:
“With the announcement of the attacks at the World Trade Center in New York, the international media, particularly the Israeli one, hurried to take advantage of the incident and started mourning 4,000 Israelis who work at the two towers. Then suddenly, no one ever mentioned anything about those Israelis and later it became clear that they remarkably did not show up in their jobs the day the incident took place. No one talked about any Israeli being killed or wounded in the attacks.”[138]
Al-Manar further claimed that “Arab diplomatic sources revealed to the Jordanian al-Watan newspaper that those Israelis remained absent that day based on hints from the Israeli General Security apparatus, the Shabak”.[138] It is unclear whether al-Watan (a minor Jordanian newspaper with no website) made these claims or who (if anyone) the alleged “Arab diplomatic sources” were. No independent confirmation has been produced for this claim.
In some versions of the story circulated on the Internet, the title was changed to “4,000 Jewish Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack” from its original “4000 Israeli Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack”, spawning a further rumor that not only Israeli but all Jewish employees stayed away. On September 12 an American Web site called “Information Times” published an article with the headline “4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11,” which it credited to “AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report.” According to Slate.com, “The ‘4,000 Jews’ page is easily forwarded as e-mail, and this may explain the message’s rapid dissemination.”[139] The rumor was also published; according to the United States Department of State “Syria’s government-owned Al Thawra newspaper may have been the first newspaper to make the “4,000 Jews” claim… its September 15th edition falsely claimed ‘four thousand Jews were absent from their work on the day of the explosions.’”[140]
The figure “4,000″ was probably taken by Al-Manar from a Jerusalem Post article of September 12 (p. 3) which said “The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack.” This number was obviously not (as Al-Manar claimed) restricted to employees; in fact, Tsviya Shimon, minister of administrative affairs for the Israeli consulate and mission in New York, said on September 14 “that there might have been up to 100 Israeli citizens working in the World Trade Center”.[141]
Gregg
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:41 am
Dear Mr. Jackson:
I am not sure who you think I am, but I can assure you that I am certainly not 24 years old. Furthermore, I am not aware of any “site” I maintain or any “list of communists” I support. Therefore, please let me know what you are referring to because it certainly sounds exciting!
I also find it interesting that you suddenly dismiss as “irrelvant” the facts and questions I presented simply because of how honest you think I am and what political party you think I affiliate myself with. I do not understand how my honesty and political affiliations have anything to do with the truth of the news articles I cited and the logic of my arguments.
Despite your most recent personal comments about me, however, I still think the question you posed to “bumper sticker” Democrats during your discussion on C-SPAN 2 was a good one: “What did Bush lie about?”
In your view, “bumper sticker” Democrats cannot rely on President Bush’s words during his 2003 State of the Union Address in order to support their claim that President Bush lied about Iraq possessing nuclear weapons. As you pointed out, President Bush simply said that British intelligence revealed that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, which you maintain was the truth: British intelligence did reveal just that. Therefore, “bumper sticker” Democrats are wrong when they claim President Bush said Iraq possessed nuclear weapons.
I agree with you: there is a significant difference between stating what British intelligence revealed and stating what Iraq actually possessed.
If we recognize that distinction, however, then we also must recognize the significant distinction between the following:
a) “Intelligence reveals Iraq is seeking to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction program” (what no one really disputed before our invasion); and
b) “Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction”
(what President Bush said in his speech in Cincinnati in 2002 -http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)
It follows, then, that if Iraq did not actually possess weapons of mass destruction when President Bush claimed it did, his words were, at the very least, less than completely truthful.
Of course, you presented me with news articles which you claim demonstrate that Iraq did in fact possess biological and chemical weapons at the time of our invasion.
I responded by pointing out that, contrary to your claims, the articles you cited actually state that no investigation has found the weapons of mass destruction that President Bush claimed Iraq possessed.
In response, you now cite comments made by President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Sen. Tom Dachle, and Sen. John Kerry in 1998, which do not address whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction five years later, when we invaded. You also provide an undated quote from Richard Butler, in which Mr. Butler expresses his opinion as to whether Iraq posed an imminent threat but not whether Iraq actually possessed weapons of mass destruction at the time of our invasion.
Putting aside your personal comments about me, that’s where we stand.
So what’s next?
Thank you again for your time.