I love this found in the last paragraph from Mr. Zakaria:

"Whether he wins or loses in November, George W. Bush's legacy is now clear: the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of anti-Americanism around the globe."

Yeah, right. Before George W. Bush was elected President, everyone one on the face of the earth loved America. It was President Bush who "created" anti-American sentiment. Sure it was.

Mr. Zakaria, that one statement alone proves you are an idiot.

I love this found in the last paragraph from Mr. Zakaria:

"Whether he wins or loses in November, George W. Bush's legacy is now clear: the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of anti-Americanism around the globe."

Yeah, right. Before George W. Bush was elected President, everyone on the face of the earth loved America. It was President Bush who "created" anti-American sentiment. Sure it was.

Mr. Zakaria, that one statement alone proves you are an idiot.

Trudger,

That's a silly point. No one, including Zakaria, argues that Pres. Bush is responsible for 100% of anti-US feelings abroad. His point is that Pres. Bush may have exacerbated such opinions; this point is substantiated by numerous polls that show anti-US feelings growing over the last two years.

You can disagree with his broad conclusions, but your argument on this specific point is crap.

Matt,

What argument? I quoted the man. He did not say exacerbate, he said "creation".

Clear thinking people without an agenda know the situation is currently exacerbated, and we would state it that way.

We would not blame Bush for "the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of anti-Americanism around the globe."

Those are Mr. Zakaria's words in quotes. Argue with him, not me.

Back to democratic underground you go matt..

Nice work, Mitch. I meant to get to the Zakaria piece this afternoon, but no need now.

trudger,

If you didn't know that anti-American attitudes increased noticeably during the Bush years, you really should have a look at the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

If you can provide actual facts to counter their methods or their conclusions, let's have it.

As for the heading of this post: Mitch, do you believe that this very administration (who'm I'm guessing you support or admire) does not engage in Big Lies?

Proper fisking Mitch, thanks.

;jackson

lucern,

If you read my reply to Matt, you will see in regards to anti-Americanism I state, "the situation is currently exacerbated." To be exacerbated means that it had to have previously existed.

Again, my comments are addressing Mr. Zakaria's errant comment that President Bush CREATED anti-Americanism.

Did you read the article we are commenting on here? Mitch did a top notch job pointing out several misstatements. I was pointing out an additional one.

Where in any comment that I have posted here did I say that there has not been an increase in anti-American sentiment? Oh, that's right I never did.

Lucern,

Does the Administration - ANY Administration - try to lie to people? Sure. Duh - I'm the conservative, I DON'T inherently trust government.

So - what are the Big Lies of this war, at least w/r/t the Administration?

The WMDs? No, they existed, and it seems likely they're turning up in Sudan and Jordan now. No, indeed, the only Big Lie in relation to WMDs is the opposition's statement that they never existed.

The Al Quaeda/Hussein link? Terrorists aren't union members - they cross boundaries freely, so literal ties are irrelevant - and if Laurie Mylroi is right, the Iraqis were involved in the OKC bombing anyway. Indeed the only Big Lies there are that Al Quaeda and Hussein were mortal enemies (a dangerously simplistic trope) and that because no connection manfested itself in technicolor, none ever will. Childish.

More? Hey, bring them on.

The things is that Zakaria *isn't* an idiot. He should know better.

Zakaria (reluctantly) supported the war - which means that he's contridicting himself very seriously. The price of US popularity would have been 25 million Iraqis in chains, Saddam Hussein in power, and Iraq still posing a potential threat to the US and to the region.

Yes, the Abu Ghraib pictures are horrible - but blaming Bush for that is rediculous. He wasn't in charge of the prison, and those who were are going to be punished very severely.

I have a feeling that Zakaria wasn't thinking straight when he wrote this one...

"So - what are the Big Lies of this war, at least w/r/t the Administration?

The WMDs? No, they existed, and it seems likely they're turning up in Sudan and Jordan now. No, indeed, the only Big Lie in relation to WMDs is the opposition's statement that they never existed."

And here you have one of those Big Lies: "We know that WMD existed because Saddam used them in the late 80's. Therefore they exist now (at the time we went to war) and Saddam is hiding them or has moved them." (completely ignoring the shelf-life of some of those weapons, as well as the disarmament that occurred in the fifteen years after those WMD were last used)

And you appear to fall for it hook, line and sinker. The Bush administration must be proud.

Jay,

"Yes, the Abu Ghraib pictures are horrible - but blaming Bush for that is rediculous. He wasn't in charge of the prison, and those who were are going to be punished very severely."

Two points about that:

1. if this was a matter of policy (and there is evidence emerging that this is so), then yes, Bush is partly to blame.

2. Bush is certainly to blame simply because his administation (including him personally) were briefed several times about this last year, and he failed to do anything about it. Bremer even repeatedly pointed out that it would be a political disaster if it wasn't stopped and ever saw the light of day.

Bush did not order it to be stopped immediately, which was in his power as Commander in Chief.

Blaming him is ridiculous? What was that about personal responsibility again?

lucern: What disarmament?! Even Hans Blix repeatedly said that the Iraqis had provided absolutely no evidence that they had disarmed. Plus, Hussein had an active weapons program before and after the Gulf War. Not to mention that while Sarin, VX, and Tabun tend to hydrolyze rather quickly, (and the Iraqis probably didn't stockpile them anyway) mustard gas and Lewisite lasts for decades. Also, biological agents like anthrax or botulinum toxin don't degrade at all and can be stored for years.

So, who has swallowed what line again?

Jay,

Not having provided evidence that he has disarmed is not the same as not having disarmed. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference, especially in hindsight.

There is some evidence to suggest that Saddam did get rid of the stockpiles (including testimony from his son-in-law who was in charge of the WMD programs, then fled the country and was interrogated by the CIA, and later killed by Saddam) and kept open the possibility of starting up a WMD program at some future date (hence the administrations slow crawl back from stockpiles to weapons of mass destruction program related activities).

UNSCOM also disarmed a great deal of Saddam's WMD capabilities and stockpiles.

If it seems likely that the WMD that Saddam had will turn up in Jordan and Sudan now, then what did the Bush administration do to stop this from happening? If it happened during the invasion, which had as a prime goal the prevention of WMD spreading to third parties, then closing off borders should have been a top priority. Failure to contain the WMD in such a venture is a huge blunder.

Then again, we're talking about the same Commander in Chief and SecDef that didn't see the need to secure nuclear power plants for a month after toppling Saddam.

"the only Big Lie in relation to WMDs is the opposition's statement that they never existed."

That in itself is a Big Lie of the right. The opposition never stated that the WMD >never< existed. Obviously they existed in the late 80's and early to mid-90's. That is not the same as claiming they exist right now and therefore we must invade urgently.

The right has often attempted to blur this line, as it seems you are doing right now.

Lucern,

It's been my contention - mostly tongue-in-cheek - that liberals should be required to take a test before commenting on foreign policy and defense. For their *own* good. We see evidence of this need in your comment:

"Not having provided evidence that he has disarmed is not the same as not having disarmed. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference, especially in hindsight."

Where to start with this? That's probably academically accurate - but when dealing with a nation that has already killed thousands with poison gas, and was known to have been working on nuclear weapons before the Israelis destroyed their reactor, there really need be no difference.

And there was no hindsight in March of 2003.

UNSCOM also disarmed a great deal of Saddam's WMD capabilities and stockpiles."

Let's be accurate: UNSCOM, backed by the presence of a large US/UK force-in-being (without which UNSCOM would have been the usual UN farce), was able to get Hussein to take the prudent measure of reducing his WMD force from a force-in-being to a force held in deep reserve - held as knowledge, raw materials, and (probably) more weapons hidden far from view (like, in other countries).

"If it seems likely that the WMD that Saddam had will turn up in Jordan and Sudan now, then what did the Bush administration do to stop this from happening?"

Er...liberated Iraq?

" If it happened during the invasion, which had as a prime goal the prevention of WMD spreading to third parties, then closing off borders should have been a top priority."

Two points: That's a very big "if". And you act as if "closing the borders" is a simple matter in a nation that size. It's not - we can't even close our own.

"Then again, we're talking about the same Commander in Chief and SecDef that didn't see the need to secure nuclear power plants for a month after toppling Saddam."

What "nuclear power plants?"

Iraq has had one "nuclear power plant", Osirak, built with the full connivance of Jacques Chirac in the '70s. It was "Secured" by two Israeli 1000 pound bombs in 1981.

I would just like to comment on:

1. if this was a matter of policy (and there is evidence emerging that this is so), then yes, Bush is partly to blame.

2. Bush is certainly to blame simply because his administation (including him personally) were briefed several times about this last year, and he failed to do anything about it. Bremer even repeatedly pointed out that it would be a political disaster if it wasn't stopped and ever saw the light of day.

A. The "policy" of this and past administrations is to follow the Law of Armed Conflict which clearly states PW abuse is forbidden and shall (not should) be reported--you see, our military is merely a slice of our society and, yes, we get some really dumb (sometimes dangerously so) people too!

B. Action was taken! In fact, it would be inappropriate for the Commander-in-Chief to auger his way down into the weeds (like the former POTUS did with target selection in Kosovo--ala LBJ's Tuesday tea parties during Vietnam). As CINC, President Bush is responsible for strategic level policy, decisions and actions. Standing policy was violated, it was reported, an investigation was on-going, the perpetrators will eventually be punished. No CINC involvement required. Well at least not until....election year politics and agendas came in to play.

fingers,

"Action was taken!"

CACI, one of the contracting companies involved, claimed only a few weeks ago not to have received any orders to change their methods.

Steven Stefanowicz, whose termination was recommended in the Taguba report in Janurary, was still on the job about a month ago.

Some action was taken, sure. But have they changed the policy? Not according to CACI.

Lucern,

You really think anyone's making Iraqis stand around playing games of nude Johnny-on-a-pony?