by Scott Creighton
I feel the need to post this topic, not in order to draw attention to a certain comment left here by a visitor or to point out just how silly one looks when they repeat claims that have no basis in reality, but because we need to be ever vigilant about keeping our bearings on Truth. The power of disinformation is that if used correctly, it can change history. And this is why we must always be vigilant in pointing it out, whenever we can, wherever we see it, so that we never forget; and we never allow the atrocities of our past to be repeated.
And besides, no one is EVER going to come on this site, my site, and deliberately spread propaganda to my readers. I didn’t spend a year and a half building this site so that Fox News lemmings could swing by here and spout propagandist “factoids” (or Obama-trolls either, for that matter). So, without further adieu, let’s get started, shall we?
dcbarton and I have been having a little chat on another thread. He posted a response to my comment last night that is a prime example of how some people will regurgitate any piece of disinformation they hear, just so long as they hear it from a “respected” news source, no matter how inaccurate or self contradictory it is.
Almost every single statement he makes, though supported within his republican base closed environment, is in stark contradiction to known, existing facts. And it’s not dcbarton’s fault. He was just never taught how to question authority and why it is important sometimes to do so.
Point 1: The Sermon on the Mount
Aside from the obvious, ridiculous assertion that Mr. Barton makes (that doesn’t even deserve comment) the Sermon is widely regarded by many to be the definition of the change of Old Testament and New Testament Christianity.
I covered this last Christmas in a piece called “The Beastly Beattitudes of George W. B” that I wrote for my mother.
In short, the argument I was making in the comment earlier to Mr. Barton was simply that, as he used the word “liberal” as some kind of slur, I take pride in the fact that my “liberal” leanings are in fact quite in keeping with the tenets of the modern Christian faith, as described by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (if you are into that sort of thing); and that his use of that word as an insult, isn’t really in keeping with that belief system, in general.
His response is silly and non-sensible (and in days gone by would have been considered heresy, if I am not mistaken.) but it sums up perfectly how the ultra-right wing really are just convenience-store Christians; they only adhere to the teachings of Christ that they feel benefit them at that moment, and they ridicule and lambaste the rest when it suits them.
They fail to understand that the point of that religion, or “faith” is that one must always adhere to the tenants, especially when it is hard, and especially when one doesn’t wish to. But I am not going to get into religion.
Suffice to say, Mr. Barton, that the reference to the Sermon on the Mount was specific to one passage, and you seem to have missed the point, again;
“”judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Point 2: He is missing Point 2
Point 3: Targeting Civilians
The link provided is to Iraq Body Count, which, as far as I know, is the most comprehensive collection of statistical information about Iraqi, and Coalition Forces casualties in Iraq. You will notice that on the page that I show you, the first 50 or so entries detail a very high number of civilian casualties (starting of course from Mar. 20th-April 2003).
As far as the first 50 bombing missions were concerned, the Council on Foreign Relations published the following:
“According to the Pentagon, air strikes against 50 leadership targets in Iraq in March 2003 failed to get a single leader, but they probably inflicted more than 30 civilian casualties each. “Shock and awe” harmed thousands of Iraqi civilians for little good.” CFR
That is from a source that could hardly be described as “left wing” by any stretch of the imagination.
Now here is the big one (this is where you have to put on your thinking cap, Mr. Barton): if, as you say, the casualties are “regrettable” (not criminal?) because Saddam hid his military targets in civilian areas… yet, by the Pentagon’s own admission, they “missed their targets” in those areas… that means… (wait for it)… that Saddam DIDN’T PUT HIS MILITARY TARGETS IN CIVILIAN AREAS! Because, they weren’t there… stands to reason, doesn’t it?
“Shock and Awe” -
“Although Ullmanand Wadeclaim that the need to “Minimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage” is a “political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front”, their doctrine of Rapid Dominance requires the capability to disrupt “means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure”and in practice, “the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause … the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary’s society…”
Now, if you take into consideration that the bigwigs knew there were no WMDs (I’ll deal withyour silly claim to the contrary latter) and al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq at that point, you have to ask yourself WHY did they go in the first place? Within the facts of our initial attack, lies the answer to that question. Because they WANTED to create chaos. That’s why the disbanded the Iraq army that could have helped stabilize the country from the start. That’s why they destroyed the infrastructure and then only guarded the Oil Ministry (not even the conventional weapons stock-piles).
Because in that chaos, they could completely rebuild Iraq in the manner they wanted. They could profit from the rebuilding, and they could restructure the nation so that it better suits our interests. That’s WHY they did it, Mr. Barton. And the facts bear that out.
Point 4: See above
Point 5: Saddam Links with terrorists
I would LOVE for you to provide links to proof of these claims of yours, please.
“He was also encouraging terrorism by paying the families of suicide bombers, he was shooting at our planes in the UN mandated “no-fly zone,” sending assassin squads after our former Presidents and military officers, and providing medical care and a hiding place for Al-Qaeda leadership after we went into Afghanistan.” dcbarton
Actually, from what I read, he didn’t shoot at planes in the no-fly zone, but rather President Bush suggested that we paint a plane in UN colors and fly it over the zone in order to get it shot down and then use THAT as an excuse to attack Iraq.
“In Lawless World, Sands recounts a discussion between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair in which Bush proposed painting a plane with the identifying marks of the United Nations and prompting, hoping, that Saddam Hussein would shoot it down.” Washington Note
Now that of course, was after the Downing Street Memo, in which Bush told Blair they had to shape the facts to support the conclusion for war with Iraq. Strange how one piece of factual information becomes so twisted and turned as to end up as the “factoid” you supply earlier, isn’t it Mr. Barton?
Point 6: Japan and the Firebombing before we dropped atomic bombs.
Mr. Barton said this:
“Japan trying to surrender? Now you are inventing “facts.” Japan had no intention of surrendering and made no attempt to do so.”
Robert McNamera (former Sec. Of Defense and attached to Curtis LeMay at the time of the fire-bombing of Japan) said this:
“I was on the island of Guam in his [General Curtis LeMays'] command in March 1945. In that single night, we burned to death one hundred thousand Japanese civilians in Tokyo. Men, women and children…. LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he’s right. He… and I’d say I… were behaving as war criminals…. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side has lost.
But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?” R. McNamera, the Fog of War
“Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to fire-bomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama…99% of Toyama… 40% of Nagoya… 35.1% of Osaka… this was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb. Which was dropped by LeMay’s command. Proportionalityshould be a guide-line of war. Killing 50 to 90 percent of the people in 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs, is not proportional in the minds of some people.”
“According to William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Truman- “The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” here.
Now, I know it is important to some, to believe the propaganda used at the time to justify dropping atomic weapons on two cities in Japan; “it saved 100,000 U.S. soldiers lives”.
But in fact, it just is not true. We sent a message to Russia and any other nation that ever thought about attacking the U.S. that day. Nothing more, nothing less. Given the opportunity, Japan was already defeated, they were broken at that point. We are the only nation to ever use atomic weapons against an enemy’s civilian population, and nothing about the end of that war justifies their use. Nothing.
As far as your comments about the Palestinians are concerned; I can’t even begin to explain the shear ignorance of your claim that every person in Gaza who is suffering now, should be punished for “rocket attacks” on Israel. The numbers of the dead speak for themselves. Look up casualties from that conflict since the 2nd Intifada started, and get yourself an education, please, before repeating your baseless lies about that conflict. I won’t even dignify your baseless claims with a response.
Point 7: American Soldier casualties of War
I have certainly not “ignored” our losses. I think I make mention of them in my original statement. But that aside, who really cares more for the soldiers? The man who demands they return or the chicken-hawk who wants someone else to stay in a foreign nation, fighting for “questionable reasons” at best? And those soldiers of ours were not “murdered” by the Iraqis; they were killed by an insurgency. You should look those words up.
Point 8: Exxon Profits
You should simply look up the profit margin reports for those companies before you open your mouth, Mr. Barton.
“NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) – Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices.
Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, said fourth-quarter net income rose 14% to $11.66 billion, or $2.13 per share. The company earned $10.25 billion, or $1.76 per share, in the year-ago period.
The profit topped Exxon’s previous quarterly record of $10.7 billion, set in the fourth quarter of 2005, which also was an all-time high for a U.S. corporation.” CNN Money
Point 9: Scott Ritter
Of course there were times years ago when Ritter and others said Iraq had WMDs… it was his JOB to see to their removalal, which he did! For several years under the Clinton administration.
It is disingenuous to claim this means he “changed his story about WMDs” before the war. He was reporting WHAT IRAQ HAD AT THAT TIME AFTER THEY SPENT 10 YEARS DISARMING SADDAM. The reason to go to war wasn’t that Iraq USED TO POSE A THREAT… it was that Iraq STILL posed a threat to us… which was false and Mr. Ritter, to his credit, tried his best to tell us. And NOW WE SEE HE WAS CORRECT.
Andas for what your son found… any farmer in this country has diesel fuel and fertiliser, Mr. Barton… that doesn’t mean they are about to build a bomb with it, does it? Is that the best disinformation you and the neocon think-tanks can come up with? Materials for a bomb?
Come on now, even you can see through that, Mr. Barton.
Oh yeah, the 500 shells of serin nerve gas… those were old unusable shells from before 1991 (some of the ones Donald Rumsfeld sold Saddam, by the way). You know that by now.
So, to sum this whole thing up, Mr. Barton. Do you see what I did there? I provided links and quotes in order to support my arguments with FACTS. Do you see how that works? You see, most people (used to anyway, before Fox News came around) try to base their perception of the world around them on a collection of relevant facts and then they do their best to determine their point of view relative to those facts (or as many of them as they can collect).
You sir, are the antithesis of that process. You prefer to be spoon-fed talking-points, andrather than searching out the truth or accuracy of what you have been told, you just like to accept what you are given as gospel, because, quite frankly, it’s 1. easier and2. a more comfortable fit with your overly simplistic world view.
Now, next time (and I hope there will be a next time, I rather like these chats) you feel like leaving a little info on this site, please, be my guest and leave some links and some information (as in quotes, statistics, ect.) rather than just regurgitated talking-point factoids of disinformation. As you can probably tell, that kind of irks me a little.
Okey-dokey? Thanks for playing.
Filed under: Uncategorized