Powered by TypePad

« At The Risk Of Over-Generalizing... | Main | Waas On Plame And Libby »

August 06, 2005

Comments

kim

So you think Saddam should still be in power? Go read Claudia Rosett, Charles Duelfer and at least 3 Iraqi blogs. Big midterm next week, and you have a lot of catching up to do.
=================================================

Syl

I didn't say WAR was simple, I said the only way to know for SURE whether Saddam did or did not have WMD, which ones, and how much, was to invade. THAT is simple.

Some people have way too much faith in intelligence.

And I'm bored with your rhetoric.

Tommy V

"Making the decision to kill human beings can never be a simple decision, and one of the most evil legacies of this administration is making it seem like it can be."

What?

What kind of sentimental BS is that? Who exactly are you accusing of simplicity?

Yes, war is bad and someone might get hurt. But such simple truisms are a very poor way of judging world events. Serious people know this and avoid such childish rhetoric.

You are just one cliche after another. When you said you were new to politics you weren't kidding. Unfortunately, those of us who aren't new have heard all the up with the working class, down with the system, moral indignation crap before.

It didn't make much sense when I was spouting it at the age of 14 and doesn't make much sense now. Grow up.

Syl

"If we had let them finish their work, we would have known what we know now, and thousands upon thousands of people wouldn't have been killed."

And this is bs, Etienne. How do you think inspectors know where to look? From Saddam's declaration AND from intelligence. Neither of which is 100%.

And in case you missed it, WMD was not the only reason to take out Saddam. You can't presume that if we magically knew beforehand there were no stockpiles of WMD that we wouldn't have invaded anyway.

The difference between us on this issue is I don't care about stockpiles of WMD, I'm glad he didn't have them because he didn't use them on our troops, I cared about the OTHER reasons for regime change in Iraq.

And use your head for a minute. So what if Saddam didn't have an active nuclear program. Look at what Iran is doing. Hiding theirs in multiple places in bunkers deep underground and suspicions of having dealt with Khan's network to get a head start.

I believe it is far better for the entire planet that we didn't let Saddam reach that point...and he would have. Do you think he would sit idly by while Iran, his enemy, went nuclear?

Saddam's box was crumbling and we (because of lack of intelligence about the OIF problems and UN corruption) didn't even know about the many holes in it.

So, go ahead, complain about WMD, and throw everything else into some black hole of denial. It's your fantasy. Live with it.

Seven Machos

Edy -- When you go to war, people die.

jukeboxgrad

TOMMY: "Bush saying the full quote in 1989, and Bush saying the edited quote now are two entirely different things."

Folks on the right have an odd concept of time. Duelfer tells us that "ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 ... so far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down" (link). However, we're supposed to treat 1991 as if it were yesterday, or as Bush said in the SOTU, "recently."

On the other hand, if Bush said something in 1989, we're supposed to ignore it, even though it appears to be more true than ever.

Maybe the right has a special Theory of Relativity they use to explain this sort of thing.

jukeboxgrad

KIM: "Did debt soar under Democratic administrations, or not? You are the one who has introduced a modifier, then claimed I was wrong because I had not used your modifier."

Debt as an absolute number, in isolation, is pretty meaningless. Debt as a % of GDP is not meaningless.

By the way, if you insist on looking at debt as an absolute number, it's grown under all recent administrations (which means your original claim is misleading, no matter how you look at it). But under recent Democratic administrations, national output has grown even more.

"how about just the facts"

Good idea. How about breaking with your usual approach and actually showing us some. It's good to try something new every now and then.

jukeboxgrad

SYL: "A bi-partisan congress authorized Bush to act long before he made the WMD case to the public and the UN."

Are you referring to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? The law that said we should assist the internal resistance, but said nothing about conducting an invasion ourselves?

Is this what you're talking about when you claim "congress authorized Bush to act?" Because as far as I can recall, this is the only relevant law that was passed "long before he made the WMD case to the public and the UN."

"There is only one way to have learned that Saddam had no wmd stockpiles and that was to invade and take the risk he'd use them."

There is only one way to learn that Iran/N.Korea/Pakistan/China/Libya/Russia/Bulgaria/Luxembourg/ SanFrancisco/Cambridge/Berkeley/Austin have no wmd stockpiles and that is to invade and take the risk they'd use them. What are we waiting for? Don't you think it's better we err on the side of caution?

"the only way to know for SURE whether Saddam did or did not have WMD, which ones, and how much, was to invade."

Really? What about the people who claim the WMD are still there, and we just haven't found them yet? Therefore, "sure" is something relative, a matter of opinion. As you said recently, you have a right to your opinion, but that's all it is.

Speaking of being "SURE," are you "SURE" that WMD weren't simply hidden while we invaded, because our force was much too small to promptly secure the country, and especially arsenals such as al-Qaaqa? Are you "SURE" that in this regard we didn't actually just make matters worse?

"How do you think inspectors know where to look? From Saddam's declaration AND from intelligence. Neither of which is 100%."

Hmm, funny thing is I could have sworn I heard Rummy say "we know where they are." Did he mean "we know they're in Iraq?"

"WMD was not the only reason to take out Saddam"

Hmm, funny things is I could have sworn I heard Ari say "we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."

"I cared about the OTHER reasons for regime change in Iraq."

That's fine for you. Trouble is, the war wasn't sold based on those "OTHER reasons." It was sold based on WMD.

"I believe it is far better for the entire planet that we didn't let Saddam reach that point"

Presumably you're upset about all the help we gave him along the way, such as here and here.

"Look at what Iran is doing."

It's comforting to know that even though we made some mistakes by giving Saddam help he didn't deserve, we would never make the same mistakes regarding Iran.

kim

It appears you think Saddam should still be in charge in Iraq. I sentence you to Iraqi disdain.

You represent the death of liberalism in the Democratic Party. The Democrats should be thrilled that we are fostering independence and self-determination. Insteaad, they're running after that sick autocrat, Chavez.

In another post we were talking about debt. Now you tell me debt is meaningless and propose another figure. Do you not see that we were not talking about your construct, but about mine, debt? Go back and look it over. This is why someone has referred to your output as masturbatory. Why should I listen to you, when you don't listen to me. Actually, you converse like a rapist.
=============================================
==========================================

Etienne

Seven - When you go to war, people die.

No shit, Sherlock. That's why the Founding Fathers made it so difficult to go to war, trying to ensure that no one man could ever bring the nation to war of his own volition. They did not trust, as so many modern Repubs do, in the judgment of any one individual, knowing that power in the hands of the few was the ultimate danger to mankind as a whole.

This is what the bushies sought to undermine with their cooked intelligence following their desired "Pearl Harbor type event". This is what history will record as a most shameful chapter.

You can guffaw all you like at my broad statements of principle and call them juvenile. It gladdens me when I recall that this is exactly how Democrats felt before the unexpected 1992 sweep into Congress of the Repubs. The American people respond to broad principles, and are sickening right now of the brutal macho creed of "kick ass and ask questions later". Another poll out today, Bush's approval dropping 4 more points, support for the war sinking even faster. Wake up ,Sheeple!

kim

You should retract 'desired' or provide some proof.

Do you mean '94 sweep?

Ask a few Iraqis about the war. They will remember us favorably. They have had much more direct experience with Saddam and his like than you do. Your only experience was downtown.
=============================================

kim

I am speculating, now, but I believe that the Kurds will give credit for their eventual autonomy and self-determination, if not actual independence, to us and the no-fly zones. I believe ali-Sistani found it in his heart to forgive us our post Gulf 1 betrayal of his people because he could see that we, as well as his, were victimized by the carnate evil of Saddam. I believe the religious leaders of Sunni Iraq will reject nihilism. I believe Etienne and others will be safe while Neocon foreign policy prevails. You know the neo meant they'd converted from 'liberalism', didn't you?
==================================================

kim

Let me put Iraq in a little perspective for you, Etienne. Do you think the cosmopolitan multitude dwelling in the rich valleys is going to let cowboys from the West run the show for them?
==============================================

boris

You've been trying to use Inman to claim that Plame was not covert.

No I have not. That is a lie.

I wrote that if rules and regulations are to be widely applied in a strict sense then Harlow should be in more trouble than he seems to be. And ALSO THIS ...

former Deputy Director of the CIA:
... and there’s nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers.
It shows that just working for the CIA does not seem to be highly classified all by itself.

If CIA officials are not applying your regs and Syl's rule in a strict consistent fashion with themselves then I don't expect the men in black to jump ugly and open a big can of whupass all over Karl Rove anytime soon.

Stupid lies like yours make my case that truth is irrelevant to the left.

Good work!

kim

I do love the irony of the whole shebang revealing more of the CIA than some would like. What say you of that, Joe? Don't ya' just luv 'im, Val?
==============================================

kim

Hoist by their own retard.
==========================

kim

While I'm at it let me coin 'Neoconvert', to describe the polloi portion grudgingly coming to respect Rice's vision of the globe over any other.
==============================================

kim

'A Brave New Union of Nations' in Condivision.
================================================

Etienne

Kim, do you get high before you post on this site? I can't make heads or tails of a single thing you say.

boris

Sure, like your stuff isn't painfully delusional.

kim

Out of my head, Etienne, and over yours.
================================================

kim

Maybe I should have said "and over your pretty little head."
=================================================

Seven Machos

Edy -- It's not difficult for the country to go to war. We have been at war our entire existence, and probably will remain that way.

Also, real cool suggesting that the Bush administration "desired" September 11. You are a kook.

kim

She pretended not to understand when I brought up her use of 'desired'.
==========================================

kim

Look, I don't understand how those three buildings collapsed so neatly(maybe no place else to go) but I sure don't think Bush and Co had anything to do with it.
=============================================

kim

Besides, even a tyro political observer should know that Reichstag fires are not Bush modi.
===================================================

Seven Machos

How are buildings supposed to collapse? Do they normally topple over? Also, I don't remember the fallout being very neat. All of Manhattan was white.

Further, kooks say that the buildings fell down as if there were explosives inside. How does a building fall down with explosives inside? Isn't it heat and explosions that cause the collapse? It's got to be similar to ramming a building with a jet full of fuel, thus setting it on fire.

kim

The earth sucks. Those buidings collapsed downwards from the inside. Except at the bottom there wasn't a whole lot of outward force.
It's odd, but it makes sense, without the need for a sinister explanation.
==============================================

Seven Machos

Force of what? Everything inside was melted.

kim

Pretty softened up anyway. The sheer volume of 100 floors amounted to more than could be crammed into the earth so some flew laterally at the bottom.
=============================================

jukeboxgrad

BORIS:

I said "You've been trying to use Inman to claim that Plame was not covert."

You said: "No I have not. That is a lie."

Here, in it's entirety, is a post of yours: "former Deputy Director of the CIA: '... but she was working in an analytical organization, and there’s nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers.'"

I don't see anything in that post to explan what the quote means to you. Do you? You've cited that quote many times (roughly 10). My interpretation of that quote is that Inman is saying Plame was not covert. My interpretation of your citing that quote is that you're trying to use Inman to claim that Plame was not covert. If this isn't what you're trying to do, that doesn't mean I'm a liar. It only means I misunderstood you. If I misunderstood you, it's only because you're a poor communicator and have never provided a clear explanation of why you think that quote is important. In particular, you've ignored direct and simple questions I've repeatedly asked you about your interpretation of this quote.

It's quite churlish of you to accuse me of being a liar simply for misunderstanding you, especially since you ignored the questions I asked in order to understand you.

By the way, let us know the crucial difference between the way I described your position ("You've been trying to use Inman to claim that Plame was not covert") and the way you described your own position ("working for the CIA does not seem to be highly classified all by itself"). Just because you might think this is a highly crucial and material distinction doesn't mean you're right, or that anyone who disagrees with you (and thinks you're mostly just splitting hairs) is a liar.

In other words, let's imagine that instead of saying "you've been trying to use Inman to claim that Plame was not covert" I had said "you've been trying to use Inman to claim that Plame's identity as someone working for the CIA does not seem to be highly classified all by itself." If I had said the latter instead of the former, would you still call me a liar?

You obviously have a problem understanding the proper usage of a simple word such as "liar," so here's some help. A liar is someone who knowingly makes a false statement. For example, let's just hypothetically imagine if you said something like this: "Bolton makes his statement in March 2003 and 'forgets' to mention that he will be interviewed in July 2003. First State Dept. statement was : 'Bolton Truthful' which is not too big a stretch. In March he hadn't been interviewed yet."

And let's just hypothetically imagine that someone pointed out, patiently and carefully, that your statement was based on a very obvious misunderstanding of the facts. In fact, why not hypothetically imagine that a number of posts were written (such as here, here, here and here), reminding you that your statement was simply full of it. And why not imagine, just hypothetically of course, that you ignored the facts and simply kept restating your original false assertion (here, here, here and here).

Of course none of this is hypothetical. It's real. So that's what you are, a real liar. And in the very characteristic style of your crowd, which is to not even make a pretense of addressing the facts that have been presented, but rather to completely ignore them. As someone else said, you have a job waiting for you at the RNC. Or maybe you're already doing that job.

jukeboxgrad

SEVEN: "real cool suggesting that the Bush administration 'desired' September 11"

You were responding to this comment by Etienne: "This is what the bushies sought to undermine with their cooked intelligence following their desired 'Pearl Harbor type event'."

Maybe you're not aware of the history on this. The plan to invade Iraq goes back many years. In January 1998 a group of neocons (including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Bolton) urged Clinton to invade Iraq (see PNAC letter here). They didn't use the word "invade," but they insisted on the importance of "removing Saddam's regime from power," and they called for "a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing." It's interesting to note that this letter says nothing whatsover about spreading freedom or democracy. If focuses completely on Saddam's ostensible WMD as a security threat.

In September 2000 PNAC issued a report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (pdf). The report contains themes similar to the earlier letter. This report states "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." About a year later PNAC had its "new Pearl Harbor," and these folks wasted no time exploiting the opportunity to achieve goals that had already been set long before. Bush's push for war needs to be seen in the context of this long-term intention to invade Iraq.

I wouldn't say these folks "desired" 9/11, but I think their own words show that they had an interest in taking advantage of such an event.

kim

I'm glad you say 'these folks' didn't desire 9/11.

Do you think it is normal for people to take advantage of events, or not?
==================================================

jukeboxgrad

"Do you think it is normal for people to take advantage of events, or not?"

I'll be counting on you to chime in with that perspective the next time Dems are accused of trying to "take advantage" of our misfortunes in the war.

"I'm glad you say 'these folks' didn't desire 9/11."

That's not what I said. I just said I wouldn't claim the opposite. That doesn't mean I'm convinced the opposite is false. I realize that simple logical distinctions like this are beyond your grasp. Nevertheless, please refrain from misquoting me.

kim

You are degenerating to silly comments. People take advantage of unplanned events.

Simple logical distinctions must be beyond your grasp because you certainly don't recognize when you are wrong.

And I do apologize for putting words in your mouth; as you have corrected me you've pointed out the bizarre nature of your claim re Bush's desires.
==================================================

gay spank

This is one of the most interesting sites I have ever seen http://spankzilla.spazioblog.it/

BoyMedExams

I like your design! Wery good! http://gaydoctor.yeublog.com/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame