Federal Appeals Judge Compares People Who Say Bush Lied To Rise Of Nazis

[KingOrfeo]

No, seriously.

Laurence H. Silberman, a federal appellate judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the idea the Bush administration "lied us into Iraq" has gone from "antiwar slogan to journalistic fact."

"t is one thing to assert, then or now, that the Iraq war was ill-advised," he wrote. "It is quite another to make the horrendous charge that President Bush lied to or deceived the American people about the threat from Saddam."

After re-litigating the case for invading Iraq, Silberman wrote that the charge could have "potentially dire consequences."

"I am reminded of a similarly baseless accusation that helped the Nazis come to power in Germany: that the German army had not really lost World War I, that the soldiers instead had been 'stabbed in the back' by politicians," he wrote.

I have indeed sometimes encountered instances on the Intertubes of an Iraq-War Dolchstoßlegende, but in all such instances the Dems are the Jews. (Right, vette?)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No, seriously.



I have indeed sometimes encountered instances on the Intertubes of an Iraq-War Dolchstoßlegende, but in all such instances the Dems are the Jews. (Right, vette?)

Are there GOP Jews? I've never met any.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Silberman is right, a lie spoken often enough becomes the truth. It was the fundamental precept of Nazi and Communist propagandists. i have posted the same for years. The word "lie" goes to motivation. The combined assessments of western intelligence agencies even if wrong, does not constitute a lie. The President acting on that intel and communicating the essence of it to Congress for consideration, is not a "lie." The Democrat left lied about the "lie" in order to cover their own culpability in sending the President into war with the passage of AUMF's in Afghanistan and Iraq..

What you say is true. Repeated Bullshit is the entire science of advertising.

 

[rosco rathbone]

In this case, it's the Republicans who are (literally) the Jew(s).

 

[KingOrfeo]

The combined assessments of western intelligence agencies even if wrong, does not constitute a lie.

Of course it does, if "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

 

[RobDownSouth]

Silberman is right, a lie spoken often enough becomes the truth.

^^^^The Vietnam-era Marine's creed.

From the shores of Montezuma, to the halls of perfidy...
We proudly besmirch our honor as United States Marines...

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

In this case there was no lie. This is the left covering it's ass.

Actually, it's the "right's" ass being exposed. The covering was insufficient it seems.

 

[someoneyouknow]

In this case there was no lie. This is the left covering it's ass.

Are you drunk or just plain stupid? It was a lie from the beginning and the evidence shows it.

The first question Bush asked after the attack was whether Iraq was behind the attack. Of all the possible questions one could ask, why would that be the first one?

However, before that happened, we know Bush had already been planning to attack Iraq because his own people told us this:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm

Once the decision was made to invade Iraq, some excuse was needed. The first, and most obvious, Iraq was either directly behind the attacks or somehow linked to them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

If you prefer a more elegant rebuttal of the lies of linkage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/africa/13iht-qaeda.1.6641919.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Following from that, the lies were piled on, such as Iraq restarting its nuclear program and being near to acquiring nuclear weapons as well as the infamous WMD lies:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-the-bush-administration-sold-the-iraq-war

But to really sell the lie, a catchy name for the invasion was needed. Something that would tug at the heart strings of Americans still in shock over how a Republican President could have so utterly failed to protect this country. Thus was born, Operation Iraqi Freedom:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101771.pdf

In selling this lie, Bush, and Cheney, repeatedly made the assertion that the invasion would be over quickly, that the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms and, more importantly, it would barely cost the American taxpayer any money because money from Iraq oil revenue would be used.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm

Once everything was in place, the Bush administration had one last trick up its sleeve to really drive home the lie. Then Secretary of State Colin Powell was put before the UN and delivered what was supposed to be clear evidence of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 and his supposed refusal to abide by destroying his WMD programs despite several UN Survey teams finding no evidence of such programs, even when the U.S. repeatedly said it knew Iraq had the WMDs and knew where they were, going so far as to give information to the teams who inexplicably came up empty every single time:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-03/colin-powell-says-iraq-blot-teaches-need-for-skepticism

And thus, the stream of lies to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq was complete.

So, for this judge to claim people saying Bush lied is somehow comparable to what the Nazis did is so far from reality, one has to question the mental competence of someone who wields such power over the plebes. The facts, as the legal profession reminds us, cannot be denied when the evidence presented is so overwhelming that no rational person can deny their worth.

 

[Wrong Element]

I'm certainly glad that a federal judge has nothing better to do than inject himself into partisan politics. Typical of the last few decades of GOP appointments to the bench.

Silberman's analogy is about 180 degrees incorrect. The "stabbed in the back" charge re Iraq is being made by the exact same people who made it after Vietnam. Hint: not liberals.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm certainly glad that a federal judge has nothing better to do than inject himself into partisan politics. Typical of the last few decades of GOP appointments to the bench.

Silberman's analogy is about 180 degrees incorrect. The "stabbed in the back" charge re Iraq is being made by the exact same people who made it after Vietnam. Hint: not liberals.

I hope you are aware it was JFK who first sent American forces into South Vietnam and LBJ who escalated the war. They were both Dems.

 

[badbabysitter]

I hope you are aware it was JFK who first sent American forces into South Vietnam and LBJ who escalated the war. They were both Dems.

If by JFK.. you meant Eisenhower.. then you're right

 

[BotanyBoy]

I hope you are aware it was JFK who first sent American forces into South Vietnam

LOL history revisionist fail....anything to point at (D) and go "It's THEIR FAULT!!" even if it means lying out your ass. Nah you aren't partisan at ALL.

 

[badbabysitter]

LOL history fail....

to be fair , the troops Eisenhower sent were considered " advisors"...thousands of advisors

 

[BotanyBoy]

to be fair , the troops Eisenhower sent were considered " advisors"...thousands of advisors

He didn't specify combat troops or I would have been busting your tits for slipping up.

He said American forces... all uniforms are American forces....not all American forces are combat troops.

First ones were sent by Eisenhower....first combat troops by Johnson....he missed the ball entirely with trying to get shit on big (D)'s vee-it-nam shoes via JFK.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

All we have to remember is Obamacare.

Just don't spend all those ObamaCare savings before you get the check. Obama says to expect at least 2500 bux.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Silberman is right, a lie spoken often enough becomes the truth. It was the fundamental precept of Nazi and Communist propagandists. i have posted the same for years. The word "lie" goes to motivation. The combined assessments of western intelligence agencies even if wrong, does not constitute a lie. The President acting on that intel and communicating the essence of it to Congress for consideration, is not a "lie." The Democrat left lied about the "lie" in order to cover their own culpability in sending the President into war with the passage of AUMF's in Afghanistan and Iraq..

Plus, Saddam did have stockpiles of chemical weapons, and possibly other WMD's.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...up_evidence_of_defunct_sarin_mustard_gas.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/17/sarin-mustard-gas-discovered-separately-in-iraq/

 

[Boxlicker101]

to be fair , the troops Eisenhower sent were considered " advisors"...thousands of advisors

There were actually fewer than a thousand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#The_Kennedy_years.2C_1961.E2.80.9363

Kennedy advisors Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the "danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did."[155] By November 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.[156]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

There were actually fewer than a thousand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#The_Kennedy_years.2C_1961.E2.80.9363

Kennedy advisors Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the "danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did."[155] By November 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.[156]

Pssst, you're not helping VetteBigot's argument there.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Plus, Saddam did have stockpiles of chemical weapons, and possibly other WMD's.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...up_evidence_of_defunct_sarin_mustard_gas.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/17/sarin-mustard-gas-discovered-separately-in-iraq/

Wrong, what was found were defunct weapons factories and 40+ year old artillery shells lost to the desert since the Iran/Iraq War. Care to wager which side we backed then? You know, when Saddam was actively using chemical weapons against Iran?

The Saddam was accused of having an active WMD program. No evidence of this was found.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In this case there was no lie. This is the left covering it's ass.

The lie was that Hussein had WMDs.

 

[KingOrfeo]

to be fair , the troops Eisenhower sent were considered " advisors"...thousands of advisors

*bang*

"I strongly advise you to die at this point."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wrong, what was found were defunct weapons factories and 40+ year old artillery shells lost to the desert since the Iran/Iraq War. Care to wager which side we backed then? You know, when Saddam was actively using chemical weapons against Iran?

The Saddam was accused of having an active WMD program. No evidence of this was found.

Aren't you sort of splitting hairs? Saddam denied having either stockpiles of WMD's or the means to make any, and that has been proven to be a lie. I don't know how functional the facilities were 12 years ago, but they had been used earlier and there were materials for making weapons, contrary to what Saddam said.