The neo-fascists at the copycat MoveAmericaForward group (headed by Melanie Morgan and failed senate candidate Howard Kaloogian) are doing an ad buy to bolster Bush’s low ratings… by claiming that there were WMDs in Iraq.
Somebody didn’t get the talking points.
No word yet on whether their next campaign will be to find Nicole Simpson’s real killer.
I have been peppering Glenn Reynolds with emails asking why he is
ignoring the good news coming out of Iraq since the archetypal
December elections which presage the 1000 year reign of Christ.
He just doesn’t get it. The war was not about democracy in Iraq.
It wasn’t about deposing an Al-Queda sympathizing dictator.
It was about WMD’s.
And once again my comment is detained by the dreaded Moderation Monster. I said before that if I were the paranoid type, I’d wonder if this was aimed at me personally. But I included no links, no profanities, no terms that should have triggered any sort of moderation system. Perhaps it’s the length of the comment that’s doing it, but that’s a really stupid standard. I’m left with two possibilities:
1) I am being singled out for this kind of treatment.
2) Any comment that exceeds the original posting in both length and substance, and contradicts the author, is automatically choked.
Every now and then I wonder why I waste my time over here. Apparently that is a shared sentiment.
J.
Let’s see… several artillery shells containing sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard gas — some used in IEDs. Over a ton of enriched uranium. A missile under development with a range of about 600 miles — four times the range allowed under the 1991 surrender terms.
And let’s overlook the discrepancies between the totals Saddam admitted he possessed and ones we documented as destroyed. He’s such a decent and honorable and honest sort, I’m sure he did destroy them as promised, but just forgot to write it down or have someone else check his work.
The model that applied with Saddam is not the accused criminal, but on the convicted felon. The burden wass not on us to prove him guilty, but on him to prove his innocence. A parolee is presumed to be using drugs, for example, and has to prove he is not by submitting to drug tests on demand. It’s a condition of his parole. Likewise, Saddam accepted the burden of proving his compliance with the terms of his surrender in 1991, then repeatedly violated that agreement.
Saddam admitted he had X amounts of WMDs — which, as a quick refresher, means NBC — Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. We documented him destroying less than X amounts, and he said “trust me, I got rid of the rest.” Sorry. Not. Good. Enough.
And let’s not forget that sarin has a limited shelf-life, and it is highly unlikely that the sarin-bearing artillery shell that was used in an IED was, in all likelihood, made after 1991…
J.
Of course it is, JayTea. But doesn’t it feel good to annoy these schmoes? They are so convinced that everything they say comes directly from the Mountaintop, that when you question them with other facts or opinions, they become outraged.
Take Oliver’s latest post for example: Could there be a lesser known, less effectual outfit than these guys? And yet, somehow, Bush has a “Wingnut Problem.”
Here’s the home page of that “Neo - Fascist” organization:
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/
It just oozes bigotry and prejudice, doesn’t it?
Oliver’s perspective is laughable: If you don’t hate Bush, you’re a fascist.
BTW, Oliver, I had never heard of them before. Now I have them bookmarked. Thanks.
semant,
The war resolution, which had strong bi-partisan support (and minor bipartisan opposition) listed multiple causes, including WMDS. We/you may think WMDs were the only reason, but that is not what the official record says. I really believe a large part of the war rational for the neocons was long term Mideast stability (maybe the ultimate ‘fix’ for terrorism) - starting with a modernized, democratized Iraq. But thats my opinion only.
Oliver, Come on. Neo-fascist? What would we think of someone who called you and this site communistic: that they were idiots. Well.
Dugger
Jay - I’ve been moderated before as well. It seems to happen at random.
Now, let s get this straight. Are you, and anyone else here claiming that Saddam did not possess chemical and biological weapons?
Oliver believes Super-Clinton destroyed all of them with his ordered air attacks back in 1998, even though Clinton himself said afterwards they didn’t know for sure how much they took out.
“…by claiming that there were WMDs in Iraq.”
Now, let’s get this straight. Are you, and anyone else here claiming that Saddam did not possess chemical and biological weapons? Folks, the evidence is overwhelming that he in fact did, and its overwhelming to the point where its a premise we should all accept. Another that we should all accept is that the UN inspectors were not present to “find” anything, they were there to witness and confirm the destruction of known stockpiles, something they were never allowed to do. I’ve seen folks here claim that Operation Desert Fox destroyed what was left of Saddam’s WMD capabilities, something that may very well be true. If the inspectors had been allowed to do their job in that case we would not be having this discussion.
There is room for discussion with regards to the nessecity of the invasion, but the fact that we have found no large stockpiles does not prove they never existed in the first place. To make such a claim is to attempt to rewrite years and years of history.
There were a LOT of reasons for going into Iraq. Saddam’s failure to verifiably destroy his acknowledged stockpiles was one, one that a lot of people latched on to. But the idea that it was the only justification put forth by the administration is a myth, a fraud perpetrated by the opponents of the war.
And several have turned up. Sarin, in an artillery shell. Cyclosarin, in another. LOTS of enriched uranium.
Saddam had them, used them, admitted he had them, then didn’t destroy them as he agreed to. He HAD no presumption of innocence. He broke the terms of the 1991 surrender, so resumption of hostilities was justified.
J.
Dugger;
I agree with you. However the emphasis was clearly on the issue
of WMD because it rallied support from the public. The american
people would not have supported the war without the
immediate threat.
When WMD were not found, the new emphasis was on; removing
a tyrant and bringing democracy to the middle east.
My point was (admittedly, poorly expressed) that we’ve have
come full circle back to wmd’s because it looks like democracry in
Iraq may not turn out so well as the experts portended. Now we
need another diversion to smokescreen additional mistakes and
general incompetence.
“But the idea that it was the only justification put forth by the administration is a myth, a fraud perpetrated by the opponents of the war.”
As is the idea that the American voting public can only handle one of those justifications at a time, and the administration is moving back and forth, changing their tune to fit the politics of the time. You know, throwing up “smokescreens” as Semanticleo stated.
Put up or shut up, Leo. Cite a single piece on Wizbang, here, or anywhere where I said anything even remotely resembling the words you’re trying to put in my mouth. Or admit you were wrong — if you have enough character to do so.
Your side has had great successes in rewriting the past to suit your own agenda. WMDs were NEVER put forth as the sole reason for deposing Saddam. Bush NEVER said Saddam posed an imminent threat. And WMDs have been found in Iraq. But when you try to put your lies in my mouth, I have to take a stand.
For the record: I’ve called each of the Iraqi elections and Afghan elections as good signs of progress and good steps towards reshaping the Middle East, which is in dire need of a good shaking-up. But never — NEVER — have I said anything about a “miracle” or a single event making everything all sunshine and roses.
Bush said the war on terror would most likely take at least a decade, and we’re not even halfway there. I happen to think it’ll take longer — the reformation of Europe, starting with World War I and ending with the collapse of the Soviet Union — took over 70 years. Our revolution from England formally started in 1776, but really wasn’t settled until 1914.
But that’s far more thought than you can probably handle, Leo, and I’m sure I’m baiting the Moderation Monster yet again.
J.
Four weeks ago you guys could talk of nothing but the pending miracle
which would end 4000 years of tribal hatred in the Middle East.
Why don’t you all tell of the good news arising out of the December
elections which the Liberal Media refuses to cover? Or would you
rather talk about WMD’s?
Hate to have to point out to John S. that his quote “much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong” also shows that some of the intelligence turned out to be right.
And what do any of the justifications for war in Iraq have to do with 9/11? That’s what I thought.
All you righties have been smoke-and-mirrored into blubbering submission.
“Yes, Massa George. Yousa gonna keep us safe from dem heathens.”
Don’t flatter yourself. WordPress throws any comment into moderation when the IP doesn’t match the typical IP for the user. So, if you’re on a broadband connection with a dynamic IP, it will happen from time to time. It isn’t some sinister plot to quell your stupidity.
Well, somebody has to bring together the fat chick with the ugly guy (metaphorically speaking). Oliver does a great job of running the political equivalent of the Lowered Expectations dating service.
Anyway, carry on with the rest of your faith-based theories about the magic WMD as preached by the temple of Move America Forward Backwards. And by all means, don’t let the words of your hero and savior stop you:
Four weeks ago you guys could talk of nothing but the pending miracle
which would end 4000 years of tribal hatred in the Middle East.
The miracle occurred when the election took place.
First, let me ask you a question: How many people in the US, do you suppose, are unsatisfied with the results of the 2000 National election? 2004?
Considering how few Sunnis are truly upset with the outcome of the recent election, I’d say theu are doing better than we have done for the last 5 years.
Second) Where did you get this “4000 years of tribal hatred”?
Did you know that the Kurds are tribal, but the Sunnis are a religious sect?
Did you know that the Sunnis could not have existed before 632 AD, and actually crystallized in 680 AD? So much for “4000 years of tribal hatred”.
Renting the “Lawrence of Arabia” video doesn’t make you an Arabist, Cleo
And since when does disarming a country stop zealots from hijacking airplanes?
Jay;
When you see quotes that means the words referred to are verbatim
attribution. When someone says “You” it could mean in the editorial
sense. I was not attributing the words to you, but, rather to those of
your confused brethren who, as you have thus far, continue to remain
silent about the the post-election news coming out of Iraq. These are
the same people who, desperate for some sign they are not the fools
some claim them to be, spoke of little else leading up to 12/15/05.
And yes, you are correct, WMD was not the only issue the Admin
promulgated in the lead up to war. But it was the lynchpin of their
strategy for gaining public support, and it was emphasized more than
any of the other “reasons” for military action.
As for your typical lame connection between Iraq and the war on
terror, Bush did say it would take a long time to win the war on
terror, but that is very different from spending 10 years in Iraq.
The paper-thin evidence the pro-war-hypers have been able
to refer to, indicates Iraq was not formerly a petrie dish of terrorist
bacterium, prior to our appearance on the radar.
Frankie and Salle; As always, you gulp down the camel, but strain
out the gnat.
There it is.
JD,
“Hate to have to point out to John S. that his quote much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong also shows that some of the intelligence turned out to be right. ”
Good point. And actually this may sound like a quibble but it isn’t if you have ever dealt with intelligence. Most intelligence, upon acquisition, is seldom judged as accurate or inaccurate. It is merely reported as a finding - with some analysis. So if Val Schmoe says she saw Saddam’s WMDs- its reported and used as such. Lots of verification would be required before saying it was accurate. Often, decison makers have to guess which intel is right and wrong. And a lot of times, one never is able to verify one way or the other. Val may have seen WMDs and they may have been destroyed or she may have seen oxygen bottles.
Right now we know very little about the actual inaccuracy of the various bits on Iraq intelligence. We certainly cannot confrm the existence of stockpiles of WMDs but we also cannot confirm they never were there. Thats the way real intelligence often works.
Dugger
Bush didn’t lie, he exaggerated.
” The drumbeat of White House warnings before the war made Iraq’s terror activities sound more ambitious than subsequent evidence has proven. Based on what we know today, the argument that Hussein was able to foment global terror against this country and its interests was exaggerated.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512280311dec28,1,3243.story?page=3&coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
Take your own advice, Zambo. I have spoken to many bloggers about how WordPress functions, and IP incongruity is the primary culprit for why posts go into moderation. Just because you post one thing after another DOESN’T mean your dynamic IP hasn’t rotated.
Now it is possible that Oliver has configured his WordPress differently, and he certainly retains the ability to delete posts that he doesn’t like, but that has little to do with someone wrongly insinuating that Oliver has flagged them for moderation because their posts are a threat to sanctity of this blog.
Which parts, pray tell? The parts that were redacted out indicating that he didn’t have what the Bush administration was telling the public? Oh right…it’s classified. “We can neither confirm nor deny…” and all that government speak that you types eagerly lap up.
I guess when the President makes a joke about not finding WMD under the sofa in the oval office, the people laughing (i.e you, dugger, et al.) are the ones who don’t really get the joke.
The joke was on you then, and the longer you persist in this fantasy that Saddam had the capability to heap destruction on America, the longer the joke will continue to be on you.
What a coincidence…there’s that embracement of what I refered to earlier. Meanwhile, do you people really think that after we’ve been running around Iraq for the last 3 years, if there were significant stockpiles of WMD that existed or were moved that we would have found SOME trace of them by now? You don’t think Bush would be proudly trumpeting such evidence right now if he could?
And the audience keeps on laughing…
exaggeration
From Wiktionary
Jump to: navigation, search
[edit]
English
[edit]
Noun
exaggeration
1. The act of heaping or piling up.
2. The act of exaggerating; the act of doing or representing in an excessive manner; a going beyond the bounds of truth reason, or justice; a hyperbolical representation; hyperbole; overstatement.
3. A representation of things beyond natural life, in expression, beauty, power, vigor.
Jay;
You’re no slouch at the game of end-run yourself. The Trib op-ed piece
is derivative of Bush Apologism, but what should we expect from the
lib-loving MSM.
The key word is ‘exaggerate’ and was ‘cherry-picked’ because it is
nearly synonomous with ‘lie’. Or are you one of the ‘legalists’
who find no wrong (either moral or ethical) when the law is, technically,
unbroken? And you have not addressed the other point. Are you
denying that, although the cafeteria list of reasons to invade Iraq
was issued in print, what the HUE AND CRY on the run up to war
emphasized, was WMD. Or do you think the american public would
have supported the invasion(BEFORE we went) had Bush merely
emphasized the removal of Saddam and infant democracy in Middle
East?
John S. - You offered a quote, “much of the intelligence has proven to be wrong”. I simply pointed out that despite your desire to take from this that much of the intelligence was wrong, there also had to have been intelligence that was right. You seem willing to ignore that. Had there been no intelligence right, the quote would have likely been that all of the intelligence has proven to be wrong, but that is not the case.
* not also the people profitting from the oil
Brokaw: “You found evidence of programs that were in place but no weapons.”
David Kay: “There were a lot of small activities. Now, in the missile field it s quite different. There were actually large, purposeful programs going on in that area. But in chemical, biological and nuke, it was rudimentary.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/
-Hmm.. not exactly the mushroom cloud scenario some dreamed up…
C&EN: You resigned as head of ISG this January after only six months. Why?
KAY: I came to the conclusion that there were no WMD.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8231/8231kay.html
Buh-Bye Jay, Buh-Bye…
Quaker: Not a revelation. I’ve said it several times before. Why don’t you admit that you’d rather insult me than debate me? Then we’d both be honest.
Leo, very nice cherry-picking. In that article, they investigated NINE different allegations of Bush lying. Their conclusion:
“After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of “the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq.” We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year.”
Also, Leo, great evasion on my demand. “You” is, indeed, both singular and plural, so you COULD have meant it in a collective sense. But at the point you said it, you were engaging in direct conversation with other commenters who disagreed with you. “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is,” anyone?
My own reasons for not saying more about the elections? There isn’t anything new to say. No actual results are in. But the mere fact that some Iraqis are learning and adapting to democracy is encouraging — some of them are already whining like Democrats did in 2000 and 2004. Not exactly the smartest role model to choose, but certainly preferable to shooting each other or blowing each other up or feeding each other into industrial shredders.
I think it might be time to dig out my “magic wand” piece and actualy write it…
J.
Lets go through the reasons for the iraq war.
First, the Al Qaeda connection. There wasn’t one. Not only was there not an Al Qaeda connection, but we needed more troops to root out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which got diverted, and we ignored the primary countries from which Al Qaeda members were coming: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Iran. Funny how we managed to overlook those, because the countries were our “allies”. We aren’t fighting a country, but the chickenhawks needed a flag and a government that they could take down, so they picked Iraq. Why? because they were weak, and because they had oil.
Second, we were told over and over about Iraq’s UN violations and about their WMDs. Of course, the intelligence was cooked, we never found any WMDs, but even that is beside the point. Because if we’re so goddamn worried about WMDs and the will to use them, then we need to worry about North Korea, Pakistan, India, and possibly several other countries (China, anyone?), but we didn’t worry about them, we didn’t go after them. Why? Because they weren’t as easy as Iraq, and they didn’t have oil. Oh shit! I forgot Iran! They’ve got fucking nuclear reactors in Iran, so they can make their own bloody yellowcake.
Finally, we are now told that it was ridding the world of an evil dictator and saving lives and spawning democracy.
First off, if you care about getting rid of evil and saving lives, why don’t you take a look at Africa, at Haiti, at Southeast asia, and all the other places on the globe that hundreds of thousands of people are being killed by war, by disease. WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR CONCERN FOR THEM?
And secondly, no one ever keeps a democracy that they didn’t fight for of their own accord. And before anyone starts talking about germany and japan, those countries were completely used up. They had no real will to fight anymore, because everyone who wanted to fight had done so and most of them had died. 1 in 8 germans was dead at the end of world war 2, and I guarantee that that used up the vast majority of their fighting aged men.
It doesn’t matter what we do in Iraq, or how long we stay. As soon as we leave, be it next year or in 10, the sunnis and the shiites aree going to fight each other, and there isn’t shit we can do about it. We might as well drop a bunch of weapons off with the kurds and get out of the way so they can get the killing out of their systems. Then, the UN (not the US) might be able to go in and do some good, but not as long as the people who invaded are also the people profiting from the oil.
If we had reaally been interested in helping people, we would have omitted any American (and French, those bastards) companies from the bidding to reopen the Iraqi oil lines. Then we might’ve been able to say we had good intentions. Unfortunately, as much as our military and those executing this war do have good intentions, those giving the orders do not.
Mitterpidge
“It was the WMDs that Bush had to base his case for immediate invasion”
There was no immediate inavsion. Perhaps you meant an invasion that happened sooner than you thought necessary - not the same as ‘immediate’.
qhslvr
There was an Al Qaeda connection. One can debate how strong a connection and one can certainly say there is no demonstrable evidence of a 9-11 connection, but there was an Al Qaeda connection (see Cheney ‘link’ argument).
Dugger
It was the WMDs that Bush had to base his case for immediate invasion. Otherwise, there was no reason for the invasion to have taken place when it did, inspectors were on the ground, etc. etc. Including countries with serious human rights problems in the coalition of the willing really undercuts the Hussein is a bad guy thread. No actual anti-American terrorist ties were found and conventional wisdom at the time put Saddam and Osama bin Laden at odds, thus destroying that thread. What you have left is the WMD stockpiles that have not been found and the existence of same is seriously doubtful as pointed out by the Kay report. If Bush’s hand picked lap dog couldn’t paint that picture, you guys certainly won’t make it.
“And before anyone starts talking about germany and japan, those countries were completely used up. They had no real will to fight anymore, because everyone who wanted to fight had done so and most of them had died.”
I think the same could be said for the Shiite and Kurdish majorities pre-Saddam, wouldn’t you? Or are those stories of mass graves fakes too. And besides, they are the ones now involved in the fight for their own Democracy, fighting the Baathist holdovers and foriegn scumbag jihadists. So I guess according to your calculation, there is reason to hope.
“Then, the UN (not the US) might be able to go in and do some good, but not as long as the people who invaded are also the people profiting from the oil.”
It was the UN, pre-invasion, that was profiting from Iraq’s oil. And specifically, it was the French, Russian, and Chinese firms that ran oil for food. So how does this make any sense? What damn good is the UN in this matter?
Two points:
The leftists would have no argument if we had not invaded Iraq….we would not have had the accurate intel that we have now, we would still be groping in the dark. Every civilized country on the planet that had an active intelligence service thought the same thing we did, even countries like Germany, France and Russia who were literally being paid by Saddam via the corrupt “oil for food program”.
Second, the administration never said there was a 9/11 connection, what they said was Iraq was a serious threat to perpetrate or support the NEXT terrorist attack. The real argument should be regarding whether or not “pre-emptive” war is appropriate. Whether you think it is or not, history has certainly proven it to be EFFECTIVE hasn’t it?
How hollow does one’s argument sound when they trot out the “war for oil” card in the first paragraph ?
Now, many people have rightfully argued that Iraq had no ties to 9/11. But your assertion that there were no ties to Al-Quaeda ring hollow. Care to explain how Zarqawi and Ansar Al Islam were allowed to roam free in Iraq? Abu Nidal?
quicksilver worf falls into that tired form of argument that if you are going to address Problem A - why not also address Problems B,C,D,E, etc … and if you do not, it means you do not care. False choice. BS form of argument.
Pedro -
Tell that to London.
Hate to start an “O.J.” argument, but I find it interesting that nowhere in yoiur comment do you suggest that OJ didn’t commit the crime.
Oliver,
Re your final sentence. OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder because a compelling enough case was not proven, along with acts of evidence tampering and poor procedure following by the LAPD that were proven. Just because you think he did it does not make him guilty enough. And you support capital punishment. For shame
“Or admit you were wrong if you have enough character to do so.”
Oh, Jay, I never tire of your self-delusion. Thanks always for the laughs.
We didn’t have an immediate invason of iraq? You mean we could have waited for UN inspections to finish, diplomatic measures to end, and we might have taken the time to find more international troop and financial support.
I would have to agree with you that WMDs were not a real concern of the administration. After all, UN inspectors said all of the US provided leads were garbage, we didn’t send enough troops to seize suspected WMD sites (or weapons and ammo caches, historical sites, UN-sealed radioactive materials or anything other than the oil infrastructure). Furthermore, as invasion date drew closer Saddam agreed to all conditions and inspections, forcing Bush to change his demands to Saddam going into exile. That leaves Saddam is a bad man (unlikely) and Bush wanted to nation build an oil-rich middle eastern country. And that worked out good. What do we have now? A pro-Iranian Islamic republic? Nice.
There are several thousands of dead Kurds, who if they could talk, would disagree with you about whether Saddam at one time had biological and/or chemical weapons.
Dugger - First, you don’t address any of the real concerns I raised (i.e, that there were other places/groups/countries with much more tangible Al Qaeda connections, so you’re not answering my argument at all, and second, I have yet to see any credible evidence from anyone that there was a any Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Cheney saying so is about as credible as “heckuva job, brownie”.
JD - No one is claiming iraq was a law and order country, so I imagine that zarqarwi wandered about then about as he does now
And as for also addressing other problems, why not address the problem you’re claiming to address rather than your small penis problem. The iraq war is a classic case of little man syndrome.
drpedro - you seem to be forgetting that is was the US, under the bush administration, that allowed all that oil-for-food buggery to happen.
Oh, and by the way, how exactly do you figure Iraq was a good target for supporting terrorism? They had no real money, their citizens can’t go anywhere, and they were eating themselves from the inside. As opposed to say, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia or Jordan, where, go figure, most of the terrorists are coming from.
And when, exactly, has preemptive war been effective? I mean, it worked so well for the japanese during world war II, I know, but I’m having trouble of thinking of any examples, myself. Could you list a few?
nawoods - You’rer missing the point. It is precisely because of those mass graves that we cannot expect them to be ready for a democracy. There are far too many old hatreds and greivances and the people there don’t want to work together. They are going to fight, but its not going to be against baathists and foreigners. Its going to be shiites vs kurds vs sunnis, and the jihadists are simply going to take advantage of the chaos, just as they did in afghanistan. We’ve made it much, much worse.
See my reference to pedro on that oil-for-food thing. And I’ve yet to see any of you who worried so much about oil-for-food worry about the bush family’s history of dealings in the middle east, or about halliburtons infidelities with their no-bid contract, or any of the other scandals that matter to this country and this administration.
And lets not even talk about two wrongs not making a right. Even if everything you think is true about the oil-for-food scandal is true, does that somehow make it right for us to ensure profit from our invasion of another country? What are we, the British empire? If you want to take the moral high-ground, you can’t do it half-assed. If we’re there to promote democracy, then we should do that, rather than promote a .
If he is doing something illegal, then you should be screaming from the mountaintops to have him impeached.
The Oil for Food Scandal is now President Bush’s fault too ?!?!
You seem to be fixated on the size of somebody else’s penis. Not sure how it is relevant. I suppose you think the other leftists will find you to be humorous.
Please, enlighten us about the no-bid contracts, about the Bush family infidelities, blah, blah, blah … Is it President Bush’s fault that the Cubs continue to be the most miserable team in baseball too ?
Mitter,
Do you understand what “immediate” means? That may be the whole problem.
Do you realize in the same post you said “Furthermore, as invasion date drew closer”.
Stick with me on this. How can something be immediate and have a date that ‘draws closer’?
Try not to make it so easy for me, OK?
Dugger
‘pidge,
Dugger is splitting semantic hairs. It’s just something he does.
No, Dugger, the invasion wasn’t “immediate” in the sense that it began the moment the order to do so left George Bush’s lips. I think it’s safe to assume that we all accept the concept of temporal sequence.
“How can something be immediate and have a date that draws closer ?”
One might just as well ask the opposite of the Bush administration. “We have to strike before the threat emerges,” we were told. But how could a threat require immediate action if it had not yet emerged? Now we know that when the administration said “We have to strike before a threat emerges” it really meant “We have to strike before it can be proven that there’s no threat at all.”
Your comments are moderated either through some sort of profanity or links or whatever that wordpress thinks you’re making. I’m not like Bush, illegally monitoring what you say.
“Hussein had no connection to AlQaeda or BinLaden”
You may want to look up the phrase “Boogie to Baghdad” in the 9/11 report. Page 134.
U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer Jr. - “I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence satisfactory to the court that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.”
There is much more if you care to look.
The words appeared in close proximity to each other … ooh. Scary.
It only takes parsing to read your quote the way you describe it. On its face, it indicates that A, Iraq, is a subset of B, the war on terror, which began on 9/11/01. If you choose to make further assumptions, or just cannot get your mind around the spatial orientation of the words, that is an issue you will have to deal with.
Mystery solved.
And I asked what the administration got right with their ‘intelligence’ estimations. You seem very eager to ignore that.
Now that is some funny shit. Perhaps one would be hard pressed to find a quote by the administration where they say “Saddam was responsible for 9/11″, but in every goddamn speech Bush ever gave in the runup to war, the words “9/11″ and “Saddam” always appeared within very close proximity to each other, which acheived the same effect. Like this gem:
You can parse that all you want, but the message is clear: In attacking Iraq, we are fighting the enemy that struck us on 9/11. But Bush never made a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Hardy har har.
Dead Kurds: plenty of them in Oppressive muslim state Turkey, also ethnic Georgians and of course the Armenians, but we (UK and US) love them and supply them with all sorts of stuff to continue oppression. I assert that, because of this, nobody really gave a toss about the dead Kurds, Marsh Arabs or shi’ites until the WMDs couldn’t be found.
OJ Simpson. Frank, I don’t really know if he did it or not. The fact is that the prosecution, hampered by ham-fisted ‘help’ (i.e. the alleged planting of blood stolen from a sample given by OJS) from the LAPD, could not come up with a good enough case. Since the time he was found not guilty, everyone seems to think he did it, but that doesn’t really mean a thing. I wonder what would have happened if the defence hadn’t been so combative, perhaps not spotting the blood thing I mentioned. As one jurist put it: ‘He probably did it, but they didn’t prove it in there’.
Bullshit. There is a reason why in August 2003 something like 70% of Americans thought there was a DIRECT connection between Iraq and 9/11, and it isn’t because they were all parsing the administration’s words, you jackass.
Which on its face is complete bullshit. Iraq pre-invasion was a subset of the War on Terror that began on 9/11 HOW exactly? Because they were connected to al-Quaeda? Because they funded the terrorists that flew the planes into the WTC? Because they were involved with bin Laden? Iraq was in column A and the WoT that began on 9/11 was in column B. It was only after the Bush administration juxtaposed the two columns by pretending they were one in the same did it become so.
If you choose to make further specious claims, or just cannot get your mind around reality, that is an issue you will have to deal with. Don’t waste anyone else’s time with your nonsense.
I’ve seen people invoke the principle of caveat emptor for discussions of commercial transactions. Can’t we raise the bar a tad higher for discussions between the President and the American people?
The funniest thing about this is the way the morons are latching onto it. Maybe they just can’t handle the fact that they were dumb enough to fall for it in the first place and need to latch onto it.
It’s both hillarious and pathetic at the same time. PT Barnum would cream his shorts if he had access to the current Republican rubes.
Since this is about Bush’s wingnut problem, I thought this little op-ed
by left-wing former congressman Bob Barr on how Bush has already
started his defense tactics to counter impeachment proceedings. It’s
another kind of wingnut problem.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1205/28edbarr.html
drpedro said:
Every civilized country in the world thought that Iraq might have WMDs - nobody was sure. Nearly every civilized country in the world (save England a couple of smaller nations) wanted inspections to continue, and was against the invasion, so there goes your “appeal to authority” argument.
FOXNews.com, January 29, 2003: U.S. to Disclose Iraq-Al Qaeda Links — Powell will disclose previously classified material designed to indict Iraq as a deceitful holder of illicit weapons and as having links to the plotters of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
FOXNews.com, October 14, 2003: Bush Promotes Iraq on Local Broadcast Stations - On Friday, Vice President Dick Cheney found a friendly audience in the conservative Heritage Foundation. There, Cheney cast the war in Iraq as a direct result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and of Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda, which critics say the administration has overstated.
That’s from just one quick Google search for “iraq ties to al qaeda”, I’m sure there are plenty more, but I’m not going to spend any more time on it. drpedro, please have a seat and let the grownups talk, hmm? Thanks.
How could I have been so wrong ?! If only I had known that I was a jackass, I would have been able to see this more clearly. As you know, the juvenile tactic of calling names has to be the greatest way to convey a point in the history of rhetoric.
It is unfortunate that you have a fundamental unwillingness to view any of the factors involved in this outside of your own little dogmatic prism. Sad, that.
However, but calling juvenile names, and stating your opinion as fact, does not change the facts.
The fact is you are a jackass.
Only such a person would make some of the ludicrous claims you have and then hide behind something as trivial as what you perceive as ‘juvenile behavior’.
There is nothing rhetorical about the substance of my posts - it is rooted in fact. The fact that you have chosen to rail about me calling you a name rather than address any of the points I have raised only further indicates what a jackass you are.
It is unfortunate that you have a fundamental unwillingness to substantively address people who shatter your microscopic worldview in lieu of crying about how they hurt your feelings. Sad, that.
However, whining about me calling you a jackass for braying and being stubbornly obtuse doesn’t make me wrong.
Ryland, just because two words are in the same sentence doesn’t mean they are related.
You throw out two paraphrased quotes , neither of which connects Iraq with 9/11.
Second, there was no legal need for “inspections”. Under the twelve separate UN resolutions, the Iraqi’s were responsible for PROVING they had destroyed their KNOWN stockpiles of WMD’s. The silly scavenger hunt we were on was completely useless.
Of course they wanted inspections to continue, they were making billions of dollars from the corrupt UN “Oil for food” program!
You aren’t really that bright are you? Let me guess, you took the LITTLE yellow bus to school?
Another jackass. So, I guess 3/4 of America rode the short bus to school? Because that is precisely what you are saying by implying that only an idiot would think there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 “just because two words are in the same sentence”.
Actually, I take back calling you a jackass - that would be an insult to all donkeykind. You are a disingenuous asshole who apparently thinks that the American public was stupid for trusting their President.
See John S., you don’t understand what Pedro is saying.
Let’s use your post as an example.
Just because you say Pedro and jackass in the same sentence, doesn’t mean you are calling Pedro a jackass. See, 75% of people would make that link, even when you call him a jackass again and again, but you are REALLY saying could be something much different.
In two years, if Pedro is found NOT to be a jackass, you can say you never called him a jackass and call whoever is insinuating that you did call him a jackass unpatriotic.
Of course, if you still use jackass and Pedro in the same sentence two years from now, while in other posts claiming that you never meant that Pedro is a jackass, then you can apply for a job in the Bush Ministry of Information.
there was no legal need for inspections .
There you ‘plausible denialists’ go again. You people think as long
as the legal minimum has been attained, all is right with the world.
The issue of inspections was to establish the existence of wmd,
which was the MAIN EMPHASIS of this admin.,
and the lynchpin for preemptive war.
If analysts had been worth their salt, they would have
psychoanalyized Saddam and speculated the reason he doesn’t provide evidence WMD had been destroyed
was a simple one. He didn’t want his enemies to know
he was vulnerable to attack. I am assuming the
smart people who should have known, did know this. But that
wasn’t the point, was it? We had to work quickly because either;
A.) We felt the urgency because of the danger of WMD’s, or,
B.) We needed to invade before the american public disbelieved
they were a danger.
Which one do ya think?
“Second, there was no legal need for inspections . Under the twelve separate UN resolutions, the Iraqi s were responsible for PROVING they had destroyed their KNOWN stockpiles of WMD s. The silly scavenger hunt we were on was completely useless.”
Except they were right, weren’t they? Don’t you think 2,150 (and counting) soldiers would have appreciated that we wait until the inspectors reported on what they found (or didn’t)?
Iraq was providing unfettered access in the weeks before the war. The neocons wanted to have their war, and they didn’t KNOW that the weapons were present, and they couldn’t let the UN inspectors find out that there were no WMD. So they kicked the inspectors out and started illegal war.
The war that replaced the “scavenger hunt” has been so much more productive.
factcheck-
Brilliant! You are 100% correct. I’m just waiting for the next few years to unfold to figure out my position on Pedro’s jackassiness.
BTW, how did you know my life’s ambition was to work in the Bush Ministry of Information?
=P
And see John S., if someone were to claim that Pedro is NOT a jackass, you could simply accuse them of being on the wrong side of history, because, don’t you know, in 40 years it will be written in history books that Pedro is a jackass, and it really isn’t your problem that they aren’t willing to wait that long.
You forgot rape rooms, pedro, RAPE ROOMS!!!!
Other good things happening in Iraq:
10. Most schools rebuilt and repainted at least two times now.
9. Many Iraqis alive and uninjured
8. Power on in Baghdad up to 6 hours daily.
7. Many US soldiers still alive and unmaimed.
6. Insurgent supply of ammo being reduced daily.
5. No US soldiers injured by flying flowers and candy.
4. Lots of room for new exhibits in the Iraqi Museum of Antiquities
3. Market for scrap auto parts literally booming.
2. Funeral industry growing exponentially.
1. Pro-Iranian Mullahs can walk free from persecution
It was Quaker, now there is no question of Saddams ability to use WMD’s ever again.
There are no more prisons built specifically to torture children.
Nobody is being fed into industrial shredders, at least in Iraq.
Daughters aren’t being snatched off the street by Saddam’s spawn
The Iraqi’s have just had a third set of demcratic elections.
Libya has given up all of its terrorist intentions.
Iraq can no longer threaten it’s neighbors.
The UN “Oil for Food” debacle is no longer being perpetrated.
Did I miss any of the biggies?
Don’t forget the current good news the right isn’t talking about
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13495329.htm
Nice job with those goalposts, peedro.
You were claiming that the inspections “scavenger hunt” was useless because it couldn’t verify that we were safe from a threat of Saddam’s WMD. Our subsitute for that scavenger hunt was an invasion which also has not turned up any WMD. (Oh, allright. I’ll grant JayTea’s antique artillary shells.)
All that other stuff you mention is good news, isn’t it? If you want to open up a new topic, do go ahead. However, let’s not pretend that these things are relevant to our earlier comments.