For those with selective memories

Instapundit collects a few “freedom” quotes from before the invasion of Iraq. Handy for those “when they couldn’t find WMDs they suddenly claimed it was to free the Iraqi people” folks who are either misinformed, memory-challenged, or simply lying outright.


  1. um …stopu! sorta, please read the whole Oct 8th 2002 UN ‘Don’t wait for the Mushroom Cloud’ speech. therein I noticed only about 26 sentence-wide mentions of the plight of the Iraqi People…and I am being generous. While I noted about 46 mentions of various weapons of mass destruction and the means ( missiles and terrorists etc) to deliver them. (not counting some of the more vague security references) Last I checked, 46 is much more than 26. If one is to be fair about the message that the Bush administration was trying to deliver about Iraq freedom, WMDs, and terrorism, one must examine all of their public statements…not just cherry pick. Or simply guess what the administration is thinking like O’Reilly or Moore do.

  2. So since ’46 is much more than 26′, pointing out such freedom references in the face of non-stop ‘it was all about WMDs’ talk isn’t fair? You are correct that I didn’t cherry pick any WMD talk. That’s been plastered all over the place for two years, and a lot of folks like to pretend that the freedom talk only started AFTER the invasion. If someone ran a front-page story saying that only 36% of the invasion was for freedom (using the numbers you gave), and the rest was for WMD, that would be a fair assessment of that speech. What we get is ‘it was 100% about WMDs before the invasion, and is now 100% about freedom since they didn’t find any WMDs…therefore the whole thing is a lie’.

  3. Ya…argh…sorry if I am being too contentious. Am tired (work nights @ kinkos [plotting world neo-fuedel domination no doubt]), sick (with a bug that won’t go away), and cranky (tax season here at Kinkos). The Bush admin’s arguments were obviously (to the sane) never about any one thing. peace out.

  4. For those who don’t realize… From my limited understanding of the language, there’s only one Japanese syllable which ends in a consonant (I believe it’s an r). Therefore the Japanese have a hard time pronouncing English words without adding a vowel to the end. It’s kind of cute. Their use of English words, or dubbing their cartoons, leads to that sort of ‘Engrish’. (You know: All your base are belong to us, etc.) You can observe the same sort of thing on Iron Chef occasionally.

  5. Murdoc, I happen to have a video clip that I would be more than happy to e-mail you, and it is an excerpt from an interview with Rumsfeld on CNN. The clip starts with Donald saying: ‘You and a few other critics are the only ones who have used the phrase imminent threat…..I never used it, and the President never used it….’ This is followed by a hilarious qouting of two incidents where Rumsfeld used EXACTLY the phrase ‘imminent threat’ in relation to Iraq. Rumsfeld’s stuttering reaction is priceless. I guess this was the kind of thing when you were talking about people with selective memories, or people who were outright lying. This is a perfect example, brought to you by the Secretary of State himself, of the Administration lying about the emphasis it itself placed on the ‘imminent threat’ to World Security that Iraq posed. That this kind of stuff has no effect on your types is a sad reality that makes me realise why it is that the Administration was re-elected.

  6. jason: I’ve seen it and you’re right that Rummy was caught. He was playing the ‘never’ game, and got busted. You. Are. Missing. The. Point. The point is that playing the ‘never’ game isn’t smart unless it’s the truth. And time and time again we hear about how the war was all about WMD and never about freedom before the invasion, and all about freedom and never about WMD after the invasion. That is not the truth, and that is exactly what this post is about. Rumsfeld was ‘caught’ saying ‘imminent threat’ twice by CNN. The President said in the State of the Union speech that we can’t wait until it is imminent. And how about all the quotes from Democrats opposed to the war who previously said the threat was imminent? Isn’t this fun? Or, just maybe, the war *was* about more than just WMDs. I’ve never said it wasn’t about WMDs. And very few other pro-invasion types have either, as far as I know. WMD was a part of the justification. Certainly the headline-grabber, but that’s not really within the administration’s control. There was a lot more to it than WMDs and it was said many many times. And no matter how many times anti-war and anti-Bush types click their heels, it’s a fact. That’s the point. Proving that we thought there were WMDs proves nothing.

  7. Proving that we thought there were WMDs proves nothing’ wasn’t meant as a dismissal of the WMD debate, which is indeed an important discussion. It means that pointing out that WMDs were, in fact, part of the justification does nothing to disprove the ‘revisionist history’ that many are trying pull off. Yes, the administration is also trying to revise things. But they aren’t pretending that they never said anything about WMDs. Anti-Bushies are trying to pretend that Bush never said anything *but* WMDs.