Saddam Lied About His Big Weapons, Tried Hard To Be Hip and Cool
I wasted a few precious moments of my life reading this article produced by Mr. Goldberg. Now, Townhall.com, where this article appears, is run by a certain right-wing D.C. think tank (produced on the Third Floor, if I remember correctly). What does this have to do with the content of the article? Absolutely nothing. What does the content of the article have to do with reality? Again, absolutely nothing.
My question is simple: what the hell is Goldberg talking about? I think his argument can be briefly summarized and exposed as follows:
A little kid on the playground (Saddam) boasts about owning a slingshot and a few pebbles. As a result, the playground bully (the U.S.) takes some "pre-emptive" action. He punches and knocks down a few of the little kid's friends (The Sunni Triangle, the Ba'ath Party, etc). After, the bully claims he can't find the rest of the friends, the little kid, the slingshot, or even the pebbles (at least the ones not produced by the bully himself)!
Wow, the bully sure does look like a colossal idiot! As the bully stands around in a daze, scratching his head, wondering where to look next, begging others to "help in the rebuilding effort," the other little kids begin sneaking up and kicking him in the shins. The bully responds, "Stop kicking me, he is the one that said he had pebbles for the slingshot! I had to do it!"
You can substitute "cop" for "bully" if you want, the story is the same. But, why is Mr. Goldberg making such an effort to defend Bush from the "Bush lied" theorists? Well, since the U.S. can't find the little kid or his pebbles, we need to blame someone! Should the blame fall on the President, the "intelligence community" or the Democrats? According to Goldberg, the little kid running around somewhere in the Iraqi desert is to blame! He even says the WMD may have been moved at the "last minute"! What did Saddam do, call FedEx and overnight them to Syria?
Regardless of his choice of shipping companies ( I prefer UPS), that naughty little man we know as Saddam must have been hiding something! Dude, it's so totally, frickin' obvious, man. Don't even trip on that, yo. As Jonah explains, "No serious person thinks Saddam behaved like a leader with nothing to hide. By Saddam's refusing to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions, sanctions remained intact. Those sanctions cost the lives of Iraqis and - far more painful to Saddam - they cost him perhaps $100 billion in oil revenue. Why do that if you have nothing to hide?" (Don't you love that when advancing a weak argument one must preface it with, "No serious person would argue against the garbage I'm about to write . . ."?)
Gee, did the thought ever cross Goldberg's mind that the sanctions against Iraq may have actually prolonged the Saddam regime? Does he really think an evil tyrant comes to power and then maintains power by creating a free-market, maximizing his oil profits and ensuring the freedom and prosperity of the people? Hmmm . . . provide an external enemy for Saddam to point to and create fear, destroy the standard of living of a society, ensure that only those monopolizing deadly force in Iraq will have access to resources . . . sounds like the recipe for propping up a corrupt regime!
The U.S. propped up the little kid then claimed he had some pebbles to loft our way. After rolling into Baghdad with guns blazing, the bully can't find the pebbles or the little kid. The bully's conclusion: the little kid only wanted to look cool on the playground so he lied about the pebbles! If this sounds childish, consider the source.
Did Saddam claim to have WMDs? No.
Would bluffing help Saddam stay in power? Certainly.
Does Saddam have WMDs? No.
Did the U.S. seek to "liberate" the Iraqi people? No.
Does Saddam just want to be accepted as a cool, dangerous thug by the international community and get his photo on as many magazine and newspaper covers as possible? Hell yes! Why do you think he kept his hair jet black? LLCT: Ladies Love Crazy Tyrants . . .
My question is simple: what the hell is Goldberg talking about? I think his argument can be briefly summarized and exposed as follows:
A little kid on the playground (Saddam) boasts about owning a slingshot and a few pebbles. As a result, the playground bully (the U.S.) takes some "pre-emptive" action. He punches and knocks down a few of the little kid's friends (The Sunni Triangle, the Ba'ath Party, etc). After, the bully claims he can't find the rest of the friends, the little kid, the slingshot, or even the pebbles (at least the ones not produced by the bully himself)!
Wow, the bully sure does look like a colossal idiot! As the bully stands around in a daze, scratching his head, wondering where to look next, begging others to "help in the rebuilding effort," the other little kids begin sneaking up and kicking him in the shins. The bully responds, "Stop kicking me, he is the one that said he had pebbles for the slingshot! I had to do it!"
You can substitute "cop" for "bully" if you want, the story is the same. But, why is Mr. Goldberg making such an effort to defend Bush from the "Bush lied" theorists? Well, since the U.S. can't find the little kid or his pebbles, we need to blame someone! Should the blame fall on the President, the "intelligence community" or the Democrats? According to Goldberg, the little kid running around somewhere in the Iraqi desert is to blame! He even says the WMD may have been moved at the "last minute"! What did Saddam do, call FedEx and overnight them to Syria?
Regardless of his choice of shipping companies ( I prefer UPS), that naughty little man we know as Saddam must have been hiding something! Dude, it's so totally, frickin' obvious, man. Don't even trip on that, yo. As Jonah explains, "No serious person thinks Saddam behaved like a leader with nothing to hide. By Saddam's refusing to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions, sanctions remained intact. Those sanctions cost the lives of Iraqis and - far more painful to Saddam - they cost him perhaps $100 billion in oil revenue. Why do that if you have nothing to hide?" (Don't you love that when advancing a weak argument one must preface it with, "No serious person would argue against the garbage I'm about to write . . ."?)
Gee, did the thought ever cross Goldberg's mind that the sanctions against Iraq may have actually prolonged the Saddam regime? Does he really think an evil tyrant comes to power and then maintains power by creating a free-market, maximizing his oil profits and ensuring the freedom and prosperity of the people? Hmmm . . . provide an external enemy for Saddam to point to and create fear, destroy the standard of living of a society, ensure that only those monopolizing deadly force in Iraq will have access to resources . . . sounds like the recipe for propping up a corrupt regime!
The U.S. propped up the little kid then claimed he had some pebbles to loft our way. After rolling into Baghdad with guns blazing, the bully can't find the pebbles or the little kid. The bully's conclusion: the little kid only wanted to look cool on the playground so he lied about the pebbles! If this sounds childish, consider the source.
Did Saddam claim to have WMDs? No.
Would bluffing help Saddam stay in power? Certainly.
Does Saddam have WMDs? No.
Did the U.S. seek to "liberate" the Iraqi people? No.
Does Saddam just want to be accepted as a cool, dangerous thug by the international community and get his photo on as many magazine and newspaper covers as possible? Hell yes! Why do you think he kept his hair jet black? LLCT: Ladies Love Crazy Tyrants . . .
Unknown @ 12:45 AM
Permalink
<< Home