Re:Have You Taken Your Anti-Takiyya Dose Today?

Submitted by Bader S (Saudi Arabia), Mar 25, 2006 at 03:38

For the right price you can get anyone to say anything you like, and US governments have a solid history in paying for favorable news and opinions.

Here is an example, "Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201454.html)

Now orange yonason wrote,
"Remember the United States' "failure" in Iraq? It's not." Then please answer these questions for me:
why after 3 years there has not been any major US military withdrawal from Iraq if everything is going well? Why after 3 years the amount of insurgent and terrorist attacks have not decreased substantially? Why after 3 years people are queuing to fill their cars with gas? Why after 3 years is the electricity and water supply not better then they were during Saddam's time?

orange yonason wrote
"Remember how President Bush "lied" to get us to go to war? He didn't" -- did you actually read the Chicago tribune article? here are a few quotes
"In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed." Using the "least verifiable case" would seem to be rather devious.

"Four intel studies from 1997-2000 concurred that "If Iraq acquired a significant quantity of fissile material through foreign assistance, it could have a crude nuclear weapon within a year." Claims that Iraq sought uranium and special tubes for processing nuclear material appear discredited." -- the uranium incidence is well known by now and that incidence resulted in the outing of a CIA operative. The claims appear "discredited". What does that tell you? The whole intel argument in the studies from 1997 - 2000 seems to be based on an IF. Anybody can make an argument based on ifs.

"Had Hussein not been deposed, would he have reconstituted deadly weaponry or shared it with terror groups? Of the White House's nine arguments for war, the implications of this warning about Iraq's intentions are treacherous to imagine--yet also the least possible to declare true or false." -- "Least possible to declare true or false" , so much for certainty by the US government. Bush and his neo-cons paints a fairy tale full of WMD and terrorism and the gullible US population buys it having been scared witless by all the lies the administration was feeding it. And here is a second opinion

"The drumbeat of White House warnings before the war made Iraq's terror activities sound more ambitious than subsequent evidence has proven. Based on what we know today, the argument that Hussein was able to foment global terror against this country and its interests was exaggerated." Yes, if Bush and his neo-cons knew how to do anything it was to "EXAGGERATE" stuff.

The above was just some of the verdicts made by the Chiccago tribune orange yonason was kind enough to direct us to. Here ois the actual link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512280311dec28,0,7879020.story?page=3&coll=chi-newsopinion-hed)

orange yonason wrote, "Remember those WMD that Saddam didn't have?He did." -- Now let me quote the important part from that article:
"If Sada's story is true". That is a big IF. At least now they are using the word "if" whereas before it was a "slam dunk" that the WMD would be found. Well at least Kaye thought so. Scott Ritter didnt think so but who would listen to Scott Ritter?

It saddens me to continue to see that there are people who still do not want to see the truth when it is shown to them. These people clutch to claims that cant be verified, arguments that rely on ifs, and cases that have been proven to be misleading exaggerations.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".