------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 25, 2009 - Goanet's 15th Anniversary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gilbert Lawrence <[email protected]>
Below is a further extract for the article on this topic from Newsweek.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213625?from=rss
Excerpt:
"We refer to this as 'inferred justification,'" says Hoffman. Inferred
justification is a sort of backward chain of reasoning. You start with
something you believe strongly (the invasion of Iraq was the right move) and
work backward to find support for it (Saddam was behind 9/11). "For these
voters," says Hoffman, "the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a
post-hoc search for a justification for that war."
Mario observes:
This is an excellent example of how huge national falsehoods are created by
news magazines like NEWSWEEK and faux-experts like Hoffman.
There was more "pre-hoc" justification for the regime change in Iraq than the
post-hoc nonsense this Hoffman talks about because he feels he has to justify
his expertise to NEWSWEEK.
Anyone who follows current affairs knows that there was a lot of history behind
the liberation of Iraq starting in 1991 after Saddam Hussein was kicked out of
Kuwait. This was TEN years before 9/11.
There were 17 UN resolutions demanding an accounting of Iraq's WMDs that were
never complied with by the Saddam regime. There was the Iraq Liberation Act
signed by Bill Clinton in 1998 where he laid out in great detail the rationale
for the regime change in Iraq. There was the 17th UN resolution No. 1441 which
gave Saddam an ultimatum to comply with explaining what he had done with his
WMDs or suffer "serious consequences".
The entire UN was involved, not just George Bush or any Americans. Bush wasn't
even Governor of Texas in 1991.
What the media twisted out of all proportion was the Bush administration's
belief that there were growing ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda based
on evidence that was partly circumstantial and partly factual like the Ansar al
Islam training camps in Iraq and the medical treatment and safe harbor for Abu
Musab al Zarkawi after he was injured in Afghanistan.
The concern was that Iraq's WMDs WHICH THE ENTIRE WORLD BELIEVED HE HAD FROM
THE EVIDENCE OF THE 17 UN RESOLUTIONS, would get into Al Qaeda's hands for an
even more horrendous attack than the one on 9/11.
Here is a BBC report of 18 September 2003 on what George Bush actually said
about Saddam being involved in 9/11.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
Excerpt:
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was
involved in the 11 September attacks.
The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a
recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi
leader was personally involved in the attacks.
[end of excerpts]
Here is another example of how the media can twist the truth and convert it
into a lie which the public begins to believe. This is an article that
appeared in the Christian Science Monitor. Read the excerpt carefully to see
what George Bush is reported to have said, and what the biased writer with her
own agenda twisted this into by concocting an "overall effect":
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost
solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to
Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept.
11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still,
the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of
the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the
attacks.
[end of excerpt]
Mario previously wrote:
> Contributing evidence comes to us from the horror stories from
> Canada and Britain several of which have been published on Goanet.
> Americans will not put up with being told they cannot see a primary
> care physician [Canada],
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:48:46 -0400
From: "Bosco D'Mello" <[email protected]>
More distortions!!
Mario responds:
Are we supposed to believe Bosco, who still doesn't seem to know that Canadians
are placed on waiting lists for serious tests or treatments even though he
lives in Toronto, or are we to believe the previous President of the Canadian
Medical Association?
If Bosco thinks this was a distortion he needs to complain to Dr. Bryan Day,
the previous President of the Canadian Medical Association who said just last
in a TV interview that 5 million Canadians out of 34 million did not have a
primary care physician because they just did not have enough doctors. He said
1 million are on waiting lists for surgery and another 1 million on waiting
lists to see a surgeon BEFORE going on a waiting list for surgery.
Many of these Canadians are coming to the US for treatment.
What will these poor Canadians do if Barack Obama makes the US system like
Canada's?
The poor bug...., ...er, Canadians are told for years that they are getting
"free" health care. They tell us on Goanet they are getting excellent and free
health care. Then they suddenly find out when they get really sick that they
are not going to get any health care at all unless they are willing to go to
Detroit or Seattle or New York or Buffalo or Toledo, to a system that Gilbert
says Americans should be ashamed of.
http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/
Excerpt:
Hospitals in border cities, including Detroit, are forging lucrative
arrangements with Canadian health agencies to provide care not widely available
across the border.
Agreements between Detroit hospitals and the Ontario Ministry of Health and
Long-Term Care for heart, imaging tests, bariatric and other services provide
access to some services not immediately available in the province, said
ministry spokesman David Jensen.
The agreements show how a country with a national care system -- a proposal not
part of the health care changes under discussion in Congress -- copes with
demand for care with U.S. partnerships, rather than building new facilities.
[end of excerpt]
