<p>From the former under secretary of defense for policy in the [Wall</a> Street Journal](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504452359324921.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries]Wall”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504452359324921.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries): </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And [Lest</a> we forget](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059901110-post29.html]Lest”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059901110-post29.html):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering that Douglas Feith is personally responsible for the largest amount of disinformation, misinformation, half-truths and out-and-out falsehoods that were fed to the Bush Administration, Congress and the American People before the Iraq invasion - what would you expect from him? </p>
<p>He is the guy, more than anyone else, who is responsible for all those people believing that Saddam actually had WMD’s when it was not true. He is the one who set up the “Office of Special Plans” (and if that terminology doesn’t send a chill down your spine, you’re not paying attention) which generated “alternate intelligence” used to justify the war. Douglas Feith exemplifies the essence of what Americans today have justly determined is the worst American presidential administration in our lifetimes.</p>
<p>So of course he’s featured in the Wall Street Journal, as it continues to drag its once respected name through the mud. Sad. Just plain sad.</p>
<p>You’ve got to be kidding. Douglas Feith???</p>
<p>I’d be more likely to believe Bill Moyers’ take on why we went to war in Iraq:</p>
<p>[Bill</a> Moyers Journal: Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: It Was Oil, All Along](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2008/06/bill_moyers_michael_winship_it.html]Bill”>Bill Moyers Journal: Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: It Was Oil, All Along)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THere’s an objective source. Not.</p>
<p>Douglas Feith? You’ve GOT to be joking! There is no single individual who served in the Bush White House other than Colin Powell who has been more discredited than Douglas Feith.</p>
<p>I forget that there are people who still think the WSJ has any semblance of objectivity. It’s Fox News in print.</p>
<p>Fascinating how many people have no interest in receiving information from outside their comfort zone.</p>
<p>Read “Fair Game” by Valerie Plame Wilson. Fascinating.</p>
<p>Mr. Feith’s 5 point assessment is backed up by the [referenced](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060641670-post1.html]referenced[/url]:”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060641670-post1.html):</a>
[ul][li][Iraq</a> War Joint Resolution](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059878879-post18.html]Iraq”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059878879-post18.html) [/li] [li][Democrats</a>’ Own Words on Saddam Hussein/Iraq](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc]Democrats”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc)[/li][/ul]</p>
<p>Rupert Murdoch’s agenda is not just out of my comfort zone, but out of my ethical, moral, and intelligence zones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So I’m guessing you didn’t support his fundraising for Hillary?</p>
<p>What about the WSJ and Mr. Feith’s book? That’s ok. As long as you have yourself to tell you things, who needs any other information.</p>
<p>
The typical liberal response is that if you won’t like the message attack the messenger. What Feith says is correct. </p>
<p>No one in the Bush administration said anything about Saddam having WMD that wasn’t also said by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madelyn Albright, Defense Sec. Cohen, etc. Liberals have selective memory on Saddam and WMD.</p>
<p>“Mr. Feith’s 5 point assessment is backed up by the referenced:”</p>
<p>Both based on a series of what we now know to be outright lies and deceptions. It’s hardly “back-up” - just more proof of White House fraud and duplicity.</p>
<p>No liberal here. And indeed, it was the same George Tenet who sold the Dems the Big Lie of January/February 1998 to cover up the failure of the Clinton genocide (United Nations Resolution 260, Article 2, section c).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the biggest laugh. Heeding Doug Feith’s justification of the decision to fight the Iraq War would be akin to listening to Ken Lay (were he still alive) talk about why investing in Enron would still be a good idea.</p>
<p>And you have the gall to suggest it’s because people don’t have an open mind? I think loss of credibility justifies skepticism. You are saying have an open mind towards a notion – as long as it agrees with what I hope is the case – and forget the credibility and position of the person who is delivering it.</p>
<p>The fact that Feith is saying this actually recommend for our ignoring it altogether. I was never able to fathom why Georgetown hired Feith to teach there. This diminishes Georgetown, as far as I am concerned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mr. Feith was chastised by the Senate for his slanting of intelligence.</p>
<p>Tommy Franks, according to Plan of Attack, says of Feith: “I have to deal with the stupidest f***ing guy on the planet almost every day.”</p>
<p>The WSJ is part of Murdoch’s agenda now that he owns it. My opinion of Feith is that he has no credibility. With regard to Murdoch’s support of Hillary, it is a prime example of how he puts his business needs and agenda above all else - even his own ideology.</p>
<p>It seems to me that Republicans trying to justify the war is as much of a losing proposition as Democrats saying that getting shot down in Vietnam is not a qualification for being president.</p>
<p>If you want listen to stupid people, check out the youtube cited by the OP. Now there are some scary people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said, as long as have yourself to listen to, you’re in good shape.</p>
<p>Don’t look now, but he has also endorsed Obama. The sound you hear is not that of 4th of July fireworks - it’s the sounds of liberals’ heads exploding all around the country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah. See. You are reading something that wasn’t there. I said READ not HEED. Receiving information and personally evaluating it is an important thing. Which is not the same thing as accepting it.</p>