They're Lying Through Their Teeth

By -
Occassionally, one hears a pro-war voice saying something like, "Well, no one ever said Iraq would be quick or easy!"

It's a lie, folks. It was supposed to be very quick and very easy, and pay for itself as the US robbed Iraqis of their oil:

"And then, with the resources from Iraq, the oil, for example, will cause it to be able to transition very quickly and actually cause a big change, I think, in the Middle East."

-- Gen. David Grange on CNN in 2003, quoted by Glenn Greenwald

Comments

  1. Anonymous9:12 AM

    Dick "Shotgun" Cheney said on TV that
    the war in Iraq would only take 3 months!
    I heard him. Didn't believe it of course.
    But here we are. Over 4000 fine Americans
    dead. Over 4000 families devastated.
    Let's not forget the tens of thousands
    of wounded, and their families. Let's not forget the billions spent. Let's not forget the hundreds of thousand of dead and wounded Iraqis. And their families.
    Let's not forget. In November.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy9:47 PM

    Good post Gene. Reminds me of, "Nobody ever said Saddam actually had WMD, they just said he had the capacity to develop them. You gotta watch out for those lying liberals."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more