Thursday, February 09, 2006
In a land of lies, truth is hard to find
One of the hardest things to deal with when talking about the "Palestinians" and a solution to the "Palestinian Problem" is that everybody involved lies through their teeth. And I don't mean small lies either. I mean, big whoppers of the sort that would have had my daddy giving me an ass whuppin' back when I was a kid.
For example, there's the whopper that "the Arabs want to exterminate the Jews". It's clear that they want Israel to go away. But there is no history of genocide against Jews in the Arab world.
Indeed, probably 1/3rd of the population of Israel consists of Sephardim who co-existed in relative peace with Muslims for 1500 years. While Muslims have never been particularly fond of Jews (feeling that they are deluded in their refusal to accept Jesus and Mohammed as prophets), there's a long way to go from "dislike" to "want to exterminate". It's Christians, not Muslims, who have a history of genocide against Jews, whether we're talking about the Conquest of Jerusalem by the 1st Crusade when the streets of Jerusalem ran with the blood of Jews who'd co-existed with Muslims for over 500 years, or the extermination of over 10 million European Jews in the period 1934-1945.
Then there's the Israeli claim that the Arabs expelled via ethnic cleansing from the territory that would become Israel left voluntarily. But contemporary news accounts show nothing of the sort -- they show a lot of frightened civilians fleeing paramilitaries and conflict, then not allowed to return to their homes once the fighting was over. Similarly, the Arabs claim that they didn't expell the Jews from Iraq and etc., that the Jews left voluntarily because Israel promised them free housing and land and more rights than in Arab states, while the Israelis claim that the Arabs expelled the Jews. Unfortunately, since the Arab states did not (and still don't) have a free press (unlike Palestine, where in 1947 the British press was operating quite freely), it's impossible to independently corroborate either story about the migration of the Sephardim to Israel.
Similarly, the Palestinians (Arabs expelled from the British Mandate during the waves of ethnic cleansing that surrounded the founding of modern Israel) claim that they are owed compensation for the lands and homes that the Jews took over after they didn't allow the Arabs to come back to their homes. The Israelis, on the other hand, say that the Palestinians are owed nothing until the Arabs compensate the Jews who were expelled to Israel. The Arabs, on the other hand, say that the Jews voluntarily left and sold their property in an orderly manner for fair-market-value before leaving, so no compensation is necessary on their part, or alternately say that the Jews expelled the Arabs first so the Jews should compensate the Arabs first.
Then there's the whole issue of right-of-return. Here, the Israelis quite blatantly say sorry, even those who owned homes and land in the British Mandate cannot return unless they are Jews. And from the Western states you hear this about this blatant religious discrimination -- [crickets]. The Western states are so consumed by guilt for exterminating millions of Jews that they're afraid to say anything at all, for or against, for fear of being called either "anti-Semitic" or "pro-ethnic cleansing", or, worse yet, being called upon to compensate those ethnically cleansed from Palestine due to their implicit complicity in the expulsion.
My personal solution to the "Palestinian Question" would be to tell the Palestinians, "Israel exists, and that's that. Here's money to compensate each of you for your losses when you were expelled from the British Mandate, now go find a place to live and quit bothering everybody." But nobody has ever proposed actually compensating the victims of ethnic cleansing in the Middle East. All they do is make excuses as to why they shouldn't, or, in the case of the Western nations, run and hide and pretend they didn't hear anything whenever someone brings up the issue of, "If Israel exists because you, the Western nations, exterminated Jews or allowed Jews to be exterminated, shouldn't you be the ones responsible for paying off the Arabs expelled in order to make room for Israel?".
So in the meantime all these lies just swirl and fester, and nothing happens. That's why it pisses me off when politicians lie. Lies are toxic to the body politic, whether it is lies about the Arabs voluntarily leaving Israel in the aftermath of the founding of the State of Israel, or lies about fictional weapons of mass destruction. You can't even begin to figure out the proper course of action unless you have the truth. And when it comes to the situation in the Middle East, nobody tells the truth --nobody. Not the Israelis, not the Arabs, and certainly not the Western nations, who run and hide from their own complicity in creating the mess there like a toddler running screaming from a scary clown. But without truth, how the hell are we supposed to clean up this mess?!
-- Badtux the "A pox on all lies and the lying liars who tell them" Penguin
Posted by: BadTux / 2/09/2006 01:22:00 PM
On another site you called Bush a liar about WMD's: Was Clinton a liar when he said in 1998:
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
I believe you mentioned truth...
# posted by jazzycat : 10/2/06 5:12 AM
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
What color is your sky? You might try taking off the er, rose colored glasses first. There is more news out there other than CNN and Dan Rather
# posted by jazzycat : 10/2/06 5:19 AM
Jazzycat - the plain truth, that you cannot get away with by trying to spread it all over your boogyman Clinton, the plain truth is that there were no WMDs, Bushco knew very well there were no WMDs, and he purposfully lied over and over to make us believe that there was a reason to go into IRAQ like a bull in a china shop and break things up. Powell even invoked the Pottery Barn rule.
Yep, I'm with you, Badtux. I hate liars, especially ones who get innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people killed, maimed and ruined.
It's time for the little people of the world to unite and tell the leaders, those bloodthirsty bastards who tiptoe thru the carnage, and loot and despoil in a vain attempt to grab as much money and power as they can for themselves at any cost to the peace and prosperity of the world - time to tell them that it's over.
Time for everyone to go home and put their feet up by the fire and take a deep breath.
Course, that won't happen, because there are hate-mongers on both sides, vampires drunk on the blood and despair of the common people as they watch their houses bulldozed and bombed out from under them, watch a wedding turn into a crater in a moment of smoke, flames, and agony.
And you, Jazzycat, you parse quotes and defend a self involved monster, while real people are dying in agony, watching their neighbors be blown into tiny droplets of flesh and bone, watching their neighborhoods be turned into smoking craters and their young men being turned into the sword of vengence.
In the name of ignorance and greed, we all reap what you sow.
# posted by SB Gypsy : 10/2/06 6:49 AM
I get it Clinton also lied and following quote exposes another liar. Please note the date...
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these 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 a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
# posted by jazzycat : 10/2/06 7:49 AM
1998 is not 2002. In 1998 there were WMDs in Iraq. In 2002 there were not. That's because Clinton's bombing raids destroyed them, four years earlier
I do not understand why the concept of linear time is so difficult to grasp.
# posted by TheGreenKnight : 10/2/06 8:11 AM
Or, there's one other possible explanation: that there weren't actually any WMDs in 1998 either. In which case, both Clinton and Bush got it wrong.
So, either Clinton got it right and Bush got it wrong or Clinton got it wrong and Bush got it wrong. But in either case Bush got it wrong, because the one thing that subsequent events have shown to be irrefutably true is that there were no WMDs in 2002.
# posted by TheGreenKnight : 10/2/06 8:36 AM
Two words, Mr. Jazzycat: Hans Blix. Hans fuckin' Blix. I know you want to write Hans out of memory. But he crawled all over the sandpit that was Iraq for four months going anywhere he wanted looking for anything that looked like a WMD program, and found nothing, nada, except a few left-over relics from before the Gulf War and a handful of missiles that had a range 10 miles longer than Saddam was allowed, both of which were immediately destroyed by Saddam upon Blix ordering them destroyed.
It's amazing how Bushbots seem to have dumped Hans Blix down the Memory Hole. By the time I read Blix's final report (the one that came out shortly before the bombing began), it was clear that, at best, Saddam had a few plans to make WMD at some time in the future, but no actual physical weapons, because what the report showed was a country in ruins without the economic capacity to do much besides feed and house itself. Reports I was reading from STRATFOR and other such strategic planning resources confirmed what I read in the Blix report -- Iraq's infrastructure was in ruins, and there was no "there" there. While Saddam might have wanted WMD, you can't pull WMD out of your asshole. It takes a working industrial infrastructure, which Saddam didn't have.
I already talked about this in a previous post. But still, the lies continue.
As for what Clinton thought or didn't think, why do you think I have any different opinion of Clinton than I have of any other politician? Hint: "I did not have sex with that woman." C'mon, you're holding fuckin' BILL CLINTON up as your standard of truthfulness? What kinda wacky weed are you smokin', anyhow?!
- Badtux the "Irritated by Lies" Penguin
# posted by BadTux : 10/2/06 8:56 AM
Since Jizzycat can't (in this reality-based world) refute the fact that Bushco lied about Iraq's wmd, he's using the "They all do it" argument. So tell me, please, how many people died, & how many billions were drained from the treasury because Clinton lied about a blowjob? Trying to compare elephants & amoebas aren't 'cha?
# posted by : 10/2/06 9:48 AM
No, Jizzmcat was saying that because Bill Clinton said it, it was true. I was simply pointing out that Bill Clinton is hardly the gold standard for truthfulness. Funny, the Bushbots seem to think that anybody who dislikes Bush believes that Clinton was a saint and could do no wrong. Guess the notion of disliking all liars, regardless of party, just blows their pitiful little minds.
- Badtux the Snarky penguin
# posted by BadTux : 10/2/06 10:55 AM
It also suggests that to some people, "Somebody said it" is more important than whether or not it's actually true.
# posted by TheGreenKnight : 10/2/06 11:02 AM
Bushbots aren't interested in truth. They're only interested in scoring points in some obscene game that they're playing. That is why Bushbots resolutely avoid reality in favor of talking points handed down by their Party commissars on Hate Radio and Faux News.
- Badtux the Reality-based Penguin
# posted by BadTux : 10/2/06 11:55 AM
To Green Knight...
Your were saying what about 2002?
Try these on for truth...
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."
# posted by jazzycat : 10/2/06 12:20 PM
Uhm, lemme get this straight. You're saying that a couple of lying politicians making statements in order to score political points were telling the truth? And that Hans Blix was lying when he reported that Saddam had neither WMD nor sufficient industrial capacity to make them?
Like I said, Bushbots don't care about truth. They only care about scoring political points. But the truth is that by the time the U.S. invaded Iraq, Blix had already shown that Saddam had no WMD and was only looking for any fragments of a WMD program that might have been rebuilt in the years since the inspectors had last been in Iraq, and all the quoting of lying politicians isn't going to change that truth.
Hans Blix. Take that and shove it up your dunghole, Bushbot. Reality is, no matter how much you want to ignore it in favor of scoring political points in some obscene game you're playing with your fellow circle-jerkers.
- Badtux the Reality-based Penguin
# posted by BadTux : 10/2/06 12:41 PM
Jazzycat, do I hear...
"But MOM, ALL the kids are doing it!"
(hear the whine???)
Didn't work when my kids were teenagers, don't cut it now.
# posted by SB Gypsy : 10/2/06 12:50 PM
If Saddam was a clean as a whistle, why did he not comply with U.N. sanctions and why was he shooting at our planes in the no fly zone? If he was clean, he sure made a heck of a mistake eh. Also, how long would it have taken for him to crank up his WMD programs again if they had been shut down? He was told comply or face serious consequences. After 9-11 we can not afford to play games with proven enemies.
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[I]f 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 such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."
Wake up people!
# posted by jazzycat : 10/2/06 1:26 PM
Yawn, still quoting lying politicians, Jizzmcat? If you keep repeating yourself, I'll start whacking your comments as crapflooding comment spam. Please try to come up with something new other than the tired old, "lying politician X in 5BC said that Saddam had WMD, so everybody thought Saddam had WMD in 2003!".
-- Badtux the "Getting tired of crapflooders" Penguin
# posted by BadTux : 10/2/06 2:18 PM
Some people say that UFOs are real.
Some people say that Bigfoot is real.
Some people say that the Loch Ness Monster is real.
Some people said, in 2002, that Saddam had WMDs.
There's a term for statements of this kind: we call them WRONG.
# posted by TheGreenKnight : 10/2/06 2:27 PM
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
George W. Bush and his administration lied about WMDs in order to drum up support for their invasion. They weren't mislead by faulty intelligence; they weren't fooled by Saddam's bluster. They lied, plain and simple.
The fact that Democrats X, Y, and Z also lied is immaterial to the question of Bush's guilt. Democrats X, Y, and Z are not the Commander in Chief. That some members of the "opposition party" are just as dishonest as Bush himself in no way, shape or form exonerates him or washes the blood of 2,265 American soldiers and 30,000+ Iraqis from his hands.
That Jazzycat seems to think that it does exonerate Bush merely proves how debased political debate in this country has become...which was BadTux's main point all along.
# posted by Aaron : 10/2/06 2:36 PM
Progress.... We now have agreement that the democrats are a bunch of liars! Either in 1998-2002 or now. Thanks for your agreement on this point.
# posted by jazzycat : 11/2/06 7:02 AM
For the record, a liar is a liar, real is real, and political parties are a deliberate fiction invented to divide us. C'mon. Can you touch a political party? Can you feel a political party? Can you take a political party home with you for dinner? No. It is a fiction. It isn't real. The notion of a political party is, at its very core, a lie, a lie intended to get us to behave in a certain way for the benefit of other people. Political parties are irrelevant. What is relevant are the people who run under the banner of said parties, some of whom (very few, alas) are honest, some of whom are good people who tell just a few lies from time to time, and some of whom are just plain evil liars.
That said, I don't think the Democrats in 2002 were lying. I think they were misinformed (by the Bush Administration), but not lying. Now, when they continued to spout nonsense like that after Hans Blix's February 2003 report showed that Saddam did not have WMD or a viable WMD program and, at best, had a few materials stashed in out-of-the-way places that, at some point in the future, once his infrastructure was repaired, could be used to make WMD (i.e., no near-term OR mid-term threat, and only a remote possibility of a long-term threat requiring only a few months more of inspections to eliminate), *then* they were liars. As was George W. Bush. But being the victim of a liar doesn't make yourself a liar. It makes you a victim.
- Badtux the Sociologist Penguin
# posted by BadTux : 11/2/06 9:12 AM
Jazzycat, if you've read this blog for any length of time at all you'd know that nobody here is a fan of the Democrats. They're a bunch of spineless pussies who, despite being given repeated opportunities to do so, fail to call out Bush for the lying, warmongering weasel that he is. They are an "opposition party" in name only.
That said, however, the Democrats are not the ones responsible for the debacle in Iraq. They simply don't have that kind of power. The Republicans control all three branches of government, lock, stock and barrel. They're the ones who got us into this mess, and they're the ones who must be held accountable.
You can blather on all you want about what Gore or Clinton or (ugh) Kerry would have or might have done in Bush's place, but it's all speculation. Would Gore have finished the job in Afghanistan of rounding up the people who actually attacked us, and kept the troop presence sufficient to get the country rebuilt so that the Taliban wouldn't have returned almost as soon as our backs were turned? Or would he have dropped Afghanistan like a hot potato in order to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Hell, I don't know if he would have, and neither do you. But we all know damn well what Bush did and didn't do. It's his call, it's his quagmire, and it's his fault. You can quote assinine statements by Democrats all you want, and it will never change that fact.
# posted by Aaron : 12/2/06 10:16 AM
- Name: BadTux
- Location: Some iceberg, South Pacific, Antarctica
I am a black and white and yellow multicolored penguin making his way as best he can in a world of monochromic monkeys.
View my complete profile
April 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 /
Bill Richardson: Because what America needs is a competent fat man with bad hair as President (haven't we had enough incompetent pretty faces?)
Cost of the War in Iraq