Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Fight Or Plead? | Main | Do You Want The Truth? »

October 23, 2005

Comments

Syl

I just posted my screedy reaction to Keller's memo.

Syl

AAARrrghh

kim

Even dumping Keller and Pinch can't save them. They must repudiate Wilson.

And really, just how can they?
===========================================

kim

The Daily Wreaker.

That Grey Lady, The Daily Toil and Troubler.

All the News That Fits Our Fumes.
=================

kim

Out, out, damn Joe.
====================

kim

The Wrench Wench has went from $35 to $27 in less than two months, with big disinterest just past mid October.

Hmmm.
===================================================

kim

That tool pinched me. Call OSHA.
===================================

kim

Who pinched a share, there?
============================

TexasToast

ISTM that Kaus has it right on the second two points -2. Miller should have been fired as she (and the NYT) was used as a tool by Chalabi and others to sell the WMD meme to the govt and the public and 3. The natives on staff are restless - very restless.

kim

Have the Rivers of Babble On reached flood stage yet?
================================================

Syl

TT

So it's not Bush's fault anymore?

TM

Thanks for the link!!

kim

Selected gates in the dikes are crashing from the overwhelming crest.

Little Art Pinchy gave up an inchy,
He stuck in his thumb, and pulled out some dumb.
Oh, what a poor boy is Pinchy.
==================================

TexasToast

Syl

Just because Becky Sharp gave these knuckleheads ammo doesn't mean its not still their fault.

Kim

The Rivers of Babble On? :)
As long as you keep posting, that flood is gonna keep rising!

kim

Doesn't the title give license to babbling, but how can babble be incoherent? The internal dynamics of a babbling brook, the flow so to speak, though complicated, make sense.

Just listen to me tell the tale of Joe; is it a tale of woe for Val?
=========================================

clarice

Pardon me, but I read Keller's nonsense as anger that Miller didn't nail Libby and "redeem" herself for reporting about WMDs in a way consistent with world intel assessments rather than the Dem storyline "Bush Lied".

In any event, how does Keller think he'll pull off saying her reports on WMDs in the MYT were mistakes, but the Administration's were deliberate lies.

The good news from my point of view is that be discrediting their own colleague as a liar, the NYT has made it immeasurably more difficult to prosecute Libby for any onconsistency which might have occurred (and which I haven't seen) between his testimony and hers.

TexasToast

Clarice

I really doubt that Keller and the NYT folks care more about "nailing" Libby then they do about the palpable damage to the paper and its credibility. They apparently bought Miller's WMD BS hook, line and sinker, and then were forced to limit their own reporting on it because they were hip deep in Kim's "Rivers of Babble On".

That has got to be humiliating.

BurkettHead

How long has it been since The MoonBat Times ("All The 'News' That Fits Our Views") had any credibility?

TexasToast

Uhhh, Burketthead, I don't think that you represent the audience the Times needs to be concerned about.

clarice

I'm with Lucianne who's now referring to it as The Paper of Dreckord..

TT, Judy's reporting on the threat of Saddam's WMD's was not only consistent with world intel assessments. invluding Western sources AND those of Egypt and Jordan (see Frank's book) but it is consistent with what Wilson was saying in February 2003 on NPR (just before Clarke and Beers left the WH and joined Kerry and Wilson changed his tune.)

TexasToast

Wilson is a bit player, Clarice, as was Linda Tripp. He didn't do anything but kick a few pebbles. His "agreement" with the intelligence assements is of little moment. They were all WRONG and they seem to have ignored any counterveiling evidence that tended to raise questions about the narrative they were presenting to the world and the american people. As a result, we are stuck in the Iraqi finger trap, we have good lawyers writing memos defending torture and we have good soldiers desecrating Islamic dead.

It gets worse and worse day by day.

windansea

It gets worse and worse day by day.

gee...I guess a 63% voter turnout for the Iraqi constitution is a horrible failure eh??

Cecil Turner

They were all WRONG and they seem to have ignored any counterveiling evidence . . .

Wrong on a minor point, right on substance. Here's Wilson's assessment in the same breath as the one that claimed the WH had "twisted" the intelligence:

Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions.
As a result, we are stuck in the Iraqi finger trap, we have good lawyers writing memos defending torture and we have good soldiers desecrating Islamic dead.

As a result, the Middle Eastern "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list has dwindled from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya (and de facto Afghanistan and Pakistan) to Iran and Syria . . . and both of them are feeling the heat. Even Kevin Drum is beginning to see the light:

Slowly and fitfully, to be sure, but let's count up the successes so far: Iraq and Afghanistan are better off than before, Libya has given up its nuke program, Lebanon's Cedar Revolution is a sign of progress, Egypt has held a more open election than any before it, and the Syrian regime is under considerable pressure.
On the latter points, those who do not abide by the Geneva Convention combatant rules are not entitled to POW status, and constant harping on Abu Ghraib or the "atrocity of the week" (whilst ignoring systematic war crimes by "freedom fighters") merely serves to illustrate the bankruptcy of the left's moral relativism.

clarice

The NYT is incoherent and the AP shows it is either still clueless or complicit in the Demedia spin machine.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/10/23/national/w094837D74.DTL

TexasToast

Nukes were what made the sale - they are still what makes the sale - bio and chem just don't have the same cachet. There weren't any nukes, there wasn't any yellow cake, there was no proof of any intent to actually acquire same - just the word of "British intelligence" apparently based solely on Chalabi's forged tainted bait.

And we bit down hard.

As a result, we have created Terrorism U in Iraq, we have created nearly universal hostility in the Islamic world, and we have damaged our relations with practically everyone else. I see that the right still thinks we can escape the trap by brute force - and is willing to rip our arm off before they admit that we blew it.

As to the "atrocity of the day", it is not moral reletivism to decry the unamerican acts this path has led to. I don't care what the "other side" is doing - I thought and think that we are better than that.

clarice

Trying to buy nukes was just a small part of the SOTU address no matter how hard Joe and his friends in the press spi this.

SteveMG

TexasToast:
But why isn't Keller (and I guess you and the other lefties upset with her too) upset with Miller's reporting re Iraqi WMD during the Clinton year?

Yes, yes I know, because the neocons took us to war over it and the Clintonistas didn't.

But who in the Clinton Administration was giving her (and dozens of other reporters; Miller's wasn't a lone cri de coeur) bogus information then? If we're concerned about "fixed" intelligence, why no interest about the 1990s?

And you can't say Chalabi.

SMG

SteveMG

TexasToast:
"I see that the right still thinks we can escape the trap by brute force"

First, as you damned well know, we're doing more than just applying brute force in Iraq. The force that is being used is employed against the terrorists who are deliberately slaughtering innocent men, women and children. Is that an unwise policy?

Second, there's a political process going on in Iraq. The Iraqi interim government has offered amnesy numerous times to the insurgents to lay their weapons down and join the peaceful process.

They've refused.

There is a democratic process going on in Iraq; we're not just using military power. There are individuals - Islamic terrorists and Baathist fascists - literally killing innocent people in order to stop that process.

The violence is caused by the Islamic fascists, dammit. The "brute force" you accuse us of engaging in is to stop butchers from getting power and slaughtering even more people.

Question: Why does al-Qaeda and the remnants of the Baathist regime oppose this process? They've been offered amnesty, at least the Iraqi element. They refuse why?

SMG

Cecil Turner

Nukes were what made the sale - they are still what makes the sale - bio and chem just don't have the same cachet.

No. Bio agents to terrorists are the biggest threat, for at least a couple of years yet (even if a terror sponsor developed a nuke tomorrow, they'd hardly give their only one to Al Qaeda). Besides, Iraq's forte was always its chem and BW programs.

As a result, we have created Terrorism U in Iraq . . .

Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war isn't evidence of collusion with Al Qaeda, but afterward is a new and dangerous security issue? Hardly. Further, Iraq is importing terrorists, not exporting them (and we'd rather fight them there than anyplace else).

I don't care what the "other side" is doing - I thought and think that we are better than that.

Puh-leeze. Put 100,000 young men and women in a stressful situation--armed to the teeth--and expect them to have zero incidents? Not gonna happen. The performance of US forces to date is remarkably disciplined, giving little ammunition to the "reminiscent of Genghis Khan" propaganda meme. The "body burning" incident, even if substantiated, is a relatively minor violation. (And under investigation.)

windansea

I agree...bio terror is a more believable and near term threat...it's much easier and cheaper than building and smuggling a nuclear device

one smallpox infested terrorist coughing and sneezing his way through any international airport would kill millions if not billions

TexasToast

SMG

As to your first point, there was a sanctions regime in place that was working - Saddam's WMD programs had deteriorated to practically nothing by the time we invaded. Becky Sharp ... er ... Judy Miller was part and parcel of making the case that Saddam was a "gathering threat" when the opposite was true. Containment was actually working - as Duelfer reports.

Moreover, the WMD's were the marketing pitch - these guys, by their own admission - wanted and want to reshape the entire Middle East and didn't plan past the first week of combat ops, Pathetic. Now, for Gods sake, they are threatening to expand the fiasco to Syria. Will wonders never cease.

As to the insurgency, I recognize that we cannot just precipitously withdraw - and I wouldn't support that. ISTM, though, we have to stop making the problem worse. Escaping a finger trap requires one to STOP STRUGGLING. The insurgents are not just "dead end " baathists or transplanted AQ and they have popular support in the Sunni areas or they couldn't survive. A constitution that has next to no Sunni support is not the answer.

SteveMG

TexasToast:
Ouch, I could not disagree with you more, from start to finish and every pixel in between. Not that this is place to fight this battle (sorry TM), but let me toss two responses back at you.

"The insurgents are not just "dead end" baathists or transplanted AQ".

Wait, I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous. That's exactly what they are. They have no positive agenda, no cause, no widespread support, no program, no policies.

How they fight - slaughtering innocents - reveals what they fight for. They, for all intents and purposes, wish to "Lebanonize" Iraq by creating mayhem and a civil war and then fill any vacuum of power just as Syria did (or tried to).

That's not the tactic of a movement with any widespread support. It's the tactic of a desperate group of people.

Now, let me preface this by admitting that I don't doubt that the majority of Iraqis say they wish for us to leave; they view us as outsiders, probably infidels and likely believe (incorrectly) that the violence may dissipate were we not there.

But saying they want us to leave is distinctly different from saying that they support the insurgents. C'mon, the insurgents are thugs and fanatics with no popular political cause or agenda. Zero. They've got no unified program other than one of trying to recapture power or, with the al-Qaeda fighers, somehow establish the beginnings of a larger caliphate. Who's their leader? Zarqawi? Al-Sadr? Can you name one? Can you name a policy they would emplace? This isn't Vietnam where the communists could appeal to nationalist sentiment and against Western imperialism. What's the ideology they're fighting for? The cause?

As they say at the Fletcher School of Diplomacy, they got squat.

Second, and more briefly (thankfully): the sanctions were a joke. They were leaking everywhere, the Russians, Chinese and French either through outright corruption (you'd like some food with that oil?) were not going to maintain the sanctions. The Kay Report definitely showed that Saddam was keeping the framework of his WMD programs alive so that they could be turned back on in a matter of 6-12 months. All that was needed was for the world to look away.

Cut it short here mercifully. I've got a family and life to live; although being married I really don't have one but I like to pretend I do.

Didn't I take the garbage out already??

SMG

Syl

TT

Finger trap, my foot.

Iraq right now is a jihadi roach motel.

clarice

CT--the Australian reporter who filmed the buring bodies says the reportage was exaggerated--he said it was 90 degrees, the US troops were on a rocky ridge and couldn't bury the bodies, that the bodies were bloated and the stench repulsive.

Perhaps we ought to put Amanpour in the same situaion and see what she'd have done.

TexasToast

Iraq right now is a jihadi roach motel.

I'll agree, but its a roach motel in a bachelor's kitchen - we are breeding far more than we are killing.

SMG

Later - Baseball calls. i grew up in Houston.

SteveMG

"Later - Baseball calls. i grew up in Houston"

Chisox in 6

SMG

Cecil Turner

the Australian reporter who filmed the buring bodies says the reportage was exaggerated . . .

The report I saw mentioned that the bodies were burned for sanitary reasons, which would not be a violation. However, the claim that they used the incident to taunt locals is persuasive, casts some doubt on the explanation, and arguably has the same effect that intentionally desecrating bodies would have. (It also rings true as exactly the sort of unthinking violation recently rotated troops tend to do.) I suspect there's something to it.

TexasToast

SMG

Their cause is Sunni/Iraqi nationalism - that is all they need.

What was the purpose of the sanctions? Interdiction of Iraqi WMD efforts. They were being interdicted successfully. End of story.

Go read what Scowcroft says in the New Yorker. DeLong posts a very long exerpt. Then lets talk again.

PS Damn Koneko.

jukeboxgrad

Cecil: "Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war isn't evidence of collusion with Al Qaeda, but afterward is a new and dangerous security issue?"

If you were terribly concerned about "Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war" (in a Kurdish enclave outside of Saddam's control), I wonder how you feel about Bush letting him get away (link).

Also, you seem to be suggesting that before the war, Iraq was a terrorist training center (as it surely is now). I wonder why Bush felt differently (3/13/02): "He [OBL] has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore" (link).

Cecil Turner

I wonder how you feel about Bush letting him get away (link)

Since you're asking for feelings, I take it we're back to playing the dozens. Or is this a weak attempt at discussing an issue?

jukeboxgrad

"is this a weak attempt at discussing an issue?"

Are you talking about your own words? Because they don't rise to the level of being "a weak attempt at discussing an issue." They're a weak attempt at avoiding an issue.

If you post another half-dozen or so non-answers to my simple question, then you have a shot at outdoing the extraordinary standard for evasiveness you set for yourself here.

TexasToast

BTW Cecil, you might want to read the context of Drum's remarks - not the Glenn Reynolds filtered version. Paints quite a dofferent picture.

I see that Glenn is all over that invasion of Syria. Wow.

Cecil Turner

If you post another half-dozen or so non-answers to my simple question . . .

Juke, I'm not answering any of your questions, and haven't for some time. I'm treating you like the blithering idiot you've proved yourself to be. If you can't figure out that simple point, you have a shot at outdoing the extraordinary standard for obtuseness you set for yourself here.

BTW Cecil, you might want to read the context of Drum's remarks -

I'm under no illusion Kevin might have suddenly embraced conservatism or this Administration. He has, however, noted that an operation he doesn't agree with might've had some positive strategic impact . . . which I consider a major concession.

jukeboxgrad

Cecil: "I'm not answering any of your questions"

That's fine with me. It's not my problem if you make it obvious that you simply lack answers. And just to be clear about the various questions you're dodging at the moment:

1) Why would you imply that Zarqawi was a guest of Saddam, when in fact he was hiding in a Kurdish enclave outside of Saddam's control? The fact of where he was hiding tends to show that he was afraid of Saddam, rather than in bed with Saddam.

2) Why would you gloss over the fact that Bush let Zarqawi get away, under circumstances that suggest Bush had political motivations?

3) Why would you imply that pre-war, Iraq was a training ground for al-Qaeda terrorists, when Bush himself indicated otherwise?

I notice you also said this: "Iraq is importing terrorists, not exporting them"

You're half right: "French police investigating plans by a group of Islamic extremists to attack targets in Paris discovered last month that the group was recruiting French citizens to train in the Middle East and return home to carry out terrorist attacks" (link).

I guess you have a problem grasping the "return home" part.

"we'd rather fight them there than anyplace else"

I realize you think it's fine that we decided to turn someone else's country into a battlefield. It seems Iraqis have their own opinion, as reflected in a poll commissioned by the UK Ministry of Defence: "Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified ... 82 per cent are 'strongly opposed' to the presence of coalition troops ... less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security" (link).

Fox reports today that "Iraq Insurgency Shows No Signs of Abating" (link). Maybe that has something to do with the fact that 82% of the local population is eager to see us go home.

Cecil Turner

That's fine with me. It's not my problem if you make it obvious that you simply lack answers.

Yeah, that must be the reason. Funny, then, that you're the only one I can't manage to find any answers for. Must be your penetrating wit and keen insight that makes your questions just so darn hard. Keep it up, you'll beat that previous record yet.

jukeboxgrad

"you're the only one I can't manage to find any answers for"

Why is it that you find it so hard to get through a sentence without some kind of exaggeration or distortion?

You're suggesting that you only ignore tough questions when they come from me. My my, I had to look all the way back to last week to find a thread with numerous examples proving the falsity of this assertion.

Obviously I'm not suggesting that you, or anyone else, is obligated to answer every single question that comes your way. But your weaselly pattern is to cherry-pick, and sidestep questions that
demonstrate the hollowness of whatever you happen to be arguing at the moment.

Cecil Turner

You're suggesting that you only ignore tough questions when they come from me.

I think I suggested that I ignored every question that comes from you. You're making what's called a "converse argument" (which is faulty, like most of your reasoning). Further, if you go through life on your present course, you'd better get good at independent research, because you're unlikely to get much help. (Speaking of which, have you figured out that intent thing yet?)

jukeboxgrad

Shorter Cecil: "you're the only one I can't manage to find any answers for" and "I ignore[d] every question that comes from you" are to be considered statements identical in meaning. Welcome to the world of elastic language.

"You're making what's called a 'converse argument'"

Uh, no, I'm not doing anything nearly as highfalutin as that. I'm simply paying attention to what you actually say. You, on the other hand, are doing what's known as "backpedaling."

Speaking of elastic language, this belongs on your list of classics, such as "we found 53 of them [weapons of mass destruction] ... they have used at least a couple WMDs in IEDs" (link).

Then there's another personal favorite of mine: "every one of the 'facts' you find 'persuasive' just happens to come from lefty sites" (link).

As I've said, you have a hard time opening your mouth without emitting some kind of distortion or exaggeration. The list gets longer all the time.

Bostonian

TT: "Their cause is Sunni/Iraqi nationalism - that is all they need."

Yet oddly, whenever their messages are intercepted and whenever they post on the intranet, the message is always about the necessity of defeating democracy and secularism.

The goal is not to free Iraq from the invaders. It is to establish a worldwide caliphate.

These guys could hardly be clearer, yet you tune 'em out.

kim

You're so deafening you make Fitz seem dumb.
==============================================

Cecil Turner

Shorter Juke: the opposite of "you're the only one I can't manage to find any answers for" is "I found someone else you didn't answer." Um, no, it's not. As usual, you proved nothing.

As I've said, you have a hard time opening your mouth without emitting some kind of distortion or exaggeration.

Is that anything like an exaggeration? Leaving aside the obvious ("opening mouth"?), isn't that the same sin you're accusing me of? IOKIYAD?

Here's more bad news for you. When you say "no WMD" (as you're wont to do), you're lying. There's no possible definition that allows that categorical statement when describing Duelfer's: "a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered . . ." You can claim they weren't important, and not indicative of anything, and we could probably disagree in a civil manner. Or you can claim they didn't exist, and pretend that anyone who points them out to you is lying because they aren't perfectly precise--a standard that would be far more profitably applied in an effort to clean up your own prose.

Moreover, it's utterly hilarious to watch your pretence to some sort of credibility, as you "discredit" people with your "logic," most of which is nothing but a recap of inherently dishonest logical fallacies. Do you really think chasing folks around yelling "liar liar" (or "distort or exaggerate" if you prefer) is honest? Do you understand the term "ironic"? Do you think the rest of us are too stupid to figure it out?

Finally, what do you get out of this? Taking a short look at the pattern of your postings, it appears you believe you have a mission to discredit conservative commentary. Do you really think you're accomplishing that? Or anything other than to make yourself look like an utterly contemptible fool? Are you capable of learning anything from the responses you get from others?

jukeboxgrad

Cecil, of all your unreliable statements (and the list is dauntingly long), I think the ones I find most amusing are the perennial "threats" to ignore me (as if I give a damn what you do). There's a nice collection here, and also of course your recent statement "I'm not answering any of your questions."

It's sort of like someone who's so good at quitting smoking that they do it over and over again. Whatever it is you've got, I'm sure there's some kind of a 12-step program for it.

I realize now we'll probably be treated to a pedantic pseudo-explanation of how you're not really "answering" me, you're only responding, or speaking, or whatever. I'm sure you'll think of something.

"When you say 'no WMD' (as you're wont to do)"

Really? Have I actually ever said that? Have I said it more than once or twice? Since you're suggesting I habitually use that phrase, presumably you're prepared to show a long list of examples. Then again, maybe this is just your latest exaggeration.

Aside from that, "no WMD" is a perfectly reasonable assertion, since one part in 1,000, or 10,000, is sufficiently close to zero that it takes a perverse puncitiliousness to make a fuss about.

Those numbers, by the way, are explained here, where I point out that Duelfer found exactly one measly old shell that actually had effectiveness as a chemical weapon. That one pathetic shell is the only solid basis for questioning the claim that "no WMD" were found.

And since you've seemingly forgotten the context, I had pointed out Bush's claim "we found the weapons of mass destruction." You responded "we found 53 of them." As I've said before, never mind that 52 of the 53 were so degraded as to be virtually useless (as WMD, at least). A willingness to describe these 52 degraded, useless items as "weapons of mass destruction" tells me a lot about Cecil.

A further distortion in your answer is that Bush's statement ("we found the weapons of mass destruction") was part of a statement about BW, not CW. To explain his statement by making reference to CW is utterly disingenuous, especially since you said nothing about this important distinction.

A further distortion in your answer is that Bush's statement ("we found the weapons of mass destruction") was made on 5/29/03, exactly a year before Duelfer found the chemical shells you're talking about. So what you presented as a putative answer ("we found 53 of them") could not possibly have been what Bush was talking about when he said "we found the weapons of mass destruction."

By the way, since you seem to have a short memory about this sort of thing, here's a reminder of what we supposedly expected to find: "500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax."

(By the way, all the claims listed above, including all the numbers cited, came out of either Bush's mouth or Powell's mouth, or possibly both. Very detailed further analysis is here and here.)

Compare the list above to what we actually found: 52 chemical shells that were so degraded that they had virtually no usefulness as CW. And one measly shell that actually was a usable CW (if it were fired from artillery, which is the way it was designed to be activated).

Given what we were looking for, as compared to what we found, I think it's fair to say "no WMD" were found.

"a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered . . ."

That's true, but with the exception of exactly one shell, they were so degraded as to be useless (at least useless as far as WMD effectiveness is concerned, which is what we're talking about, after all). To refer to the 52 useless shells as WMD is highly dishonest.

As I explained once before: let's say I happen to forget that I put my Peter Frampton CD in my glove compartment about 10 years ago, even though I like to leave my car out in the hot sun a lot. One day my wife says "I found your missing Frampton CD." Not exactly. What she found is a useless plastic pancake that once upon a time was a Peter Frampton CD.

Duelfer found 52 artifacts that once upon a time were WMDs. They were no longer WMDs at the moment he found them. The fact that you are willing to call them WMDs (without a hint of explanation, and with a long trail of evasion when I asked for explanation regarding a closely related question) is a classic example of your style of propaganda.

"pretend that anyone who points them out to you is lying"

It's not the case that anyone who points them out to me is lying. It is the case that someone who points them out to me in a dishonest manner is being dishonest. That's what you did.

"most of which is nothing but a recap of inherently dishonest logical fallacies"

I'm impressed by the number of examples you've provided: zero.

"You can claim they weren't important, and not indicative of anything"

I claim that they are exactly what they are, no more and no less. You, on the other hand, tried to get away with claiming they are something they are not. They are not WMD. They were WMD, once upon a time. (Of course what you're doing is very much the kind of rhetorical time travel which is needed to make sense of another of Bush's famous lies: "he wouldn't let them in.") Welcome to Cecil's world of fairy tales.

Cecil Turner

Really? Have I actually ever said that?

[snort]. You mean other than the several times you did it in that little foam-flecked response? Okay, I'll humor you, let's see . . .

Boy, that took a long time. (Just checking the first link you gave about my "distortions" gives this little bit of "context":

Nice job putting words in my mouth. Clinton achieved containment. The result was Saddam, finally, had no WMD.
As usual, you're full of crap. (And maybe I'll start responding to your questions again . . . cuz that was kinda fun.)

jukeboxgrad

"You mean other than the several times you did it in that little foam-flecked response?"

Uh, yes. I'm assuming that a claim you made at 3:14 am was not based on a comment I wrote about 7 hours later. Somehow I think you could have figured this out on your own.

"Let's see ..."

Wow, you actually found (thanks to my help) exactly one example of me using that phrase, more than four months ago. In your book this justifies you asserting "as you're wont to do." In other words, you can't tell the difference between doing something once as compared with doing it habitually. Just like you can't tell the difference between a WMD and something that ceased to be a WMD a long time ago.

Speaking of habits, thanks for providing another excellent example of how you are "wont" to exaggerate and distort.

"maybe I'll start responding to your questions again"

Maybe you'll even start answering the harder ones, like these, which you sidestepped. I'm not holding my breath.

Cecil Turner

Wow, you actually found (thanks to my help) exactly one example of me using that phrase, more than four months ago.

Juke, you are an idiot. You said it in the first thread I checked (using the link you provided). And twice more whilst denying you say it. You say it constantly (<-- note to Juke, figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally). And do you think your three-month posting hiatus might help explain that "four months," brainwave? Okay, let's check a couple others around that one . . . how about this:

In other words, even though the UN was being allowed to see for itself that Iraq had no WMD, Iraq was also being asked to show better proof that it had destroyed all old WMD.
Oooh, a twofer:
Anyone taking a close look at this report by Blix can see that a thorough and serious effort was underway to make sure Iraq had no WMD. [okay, that one is marginal, but implied]
Quickly followed by:
And we now know that the sanctions and "diplomatic and economic pressure" had worked: Saddam had no WMD.
Maybe you'll even start answering the harder ones . . .

Ooooh, back to the "hard question" theory. You know, you could test that theory some day by trying to discuss issues like an adult, instead of chasing around comment threads with your transparent, dishonest BS, and calling everyone you disagree with (<--note to the obtuse, another figure of speech) a liar. Alternatively, you could try to discuss these issues with a friend. Do you have any? If not, why don't you tie a pork chop around your neck and see if you can find a dog to play with you?

jukeboxgrad

Cecil: "And twice more whilst denying you say it"

Uh, I wasn't denying I say it. I was denying that I said it _habitually_ (which is what "wont" means) prior to the time you brought it up in this thread. I realize keeping past/present/future straight is a big challenge for you.

Bottom line: you've shown that I used the phrase in one thread, 2 or perhaps 3 times (which I essentially acknowledged right off the bat, when I said "have I said it more than once or twice?"). And this is what you call "wont." As I said, you exaggerate.

The fact that you're making such a big deal about this is a pretty good indication that you have very little to work with. And of course you have nothing to say about the underlying issue: aside from one measly CW shell, Saddam had no WMD.

"your transparent, dishonest BS"

I'm impressed by the number of examples you cite: zero.

"calling everyone you disagree with (<--note to the obtuse, another figure of speech) a liar"

I'm pretty sure you're the only person I've addressed that way ("liar"), around these parts. If I said it to anyone else, I'm sure I proved it. So I think you're making shit up. What else is new.

Cecil Turner

Bottom line: you've shown that I used the phrase in one thread, 2 or perhaps 3 times

I found 4 times in 2 threads (they're bolded above, even you ought to be able to count them), before your denial idiocy . . . and I only checked a few.

(which I essentially acknowledged right off the bat, when I said "have I said it more than once or twice?").

Well, that's nice and flexible. What did you mean by "Have I actually ever said that?" Was that "essentially acknowledg[ing]" you said it?

If I said it to anyone else, I'm sure I proved it.

Is that the same as "essentially acknowledg[ing]" it's one of your favorite ploys? And you wonder why people treat you like an idiot.

jukeboxgrad

"I found 4 times in 2 threads"

Wow, you caught me making a grievous error. I said it was perhaps 3 times in one thread. You're right. It was actually 4 times (provided you include the example you agree is "marginal") in two threads, within a grand total of exactly two comments (this one and this one). I guess that changes everything. Mea culpa.

I guess your point is that since I did it 3 or 4 times, within a grand total of two comments (within hundreds that I've posted here), that justifies your claim that I did it habitually. As I've said, you're using a highly elastic dictionary.

More importantly, as I've said, the bottom line is that the discovery of one chemical shell is not material enough to invalidate the claim "no WMD" were found. I notice you have nothing to say about this, even though this underlying issue is far more important than whether you or I are better at doing an audit of what phrases I used four months ago.

"What did you mean by 'Have I actually ever said that?' "

It's what's known as asking a question. I guess maybe I could have headed off this pointless tantrum of yours if instead I had said "have I ever said that on more than perhaps one or two occasions."

"Is that the same as ... "

No.

By the way, you suggested that I often call people "liar."

I'm aware of exactly one occasion when I did that. If there was another occasion, it would helpful if you could refresh my memory.

On the other hand, maybe you'd like to let this stand as yet another example of exaggeration on your part.

Cecil Turner

Wow, you caught me making a grievous error. I said it was perhaps 3 times in one thread.

Was that less grievous than my use of "wont"? Don't think so, little English usage police boy.

I guess your point is that since I did it 3 or 4 times, within a grand total of two comments (within hundreds that I've posted here) . . .

I'm having a hard time seeing how you could honestly miscount them, especially in such a convenient fashion. And again, I only checked a few. Why don't you check through your notes, and tell me how many times you used it?

is not material enough to invalidate the claim "no WMD" were found.

How about a little consistency? You argue you don't say it, or maybe you do, but only a few times (unless I found more), but that's okay, because it's true anyway? If you're going to microparse others and hold them to a ridiculously strict standard, you should perhaps hold yourself to the same standard.

Your argument here is also dishonest, since your statements above are the much broader claim that Iraq had "no WMD." (Which would be unprovable . . . except for the inconvenient fact that it's been disproven.)

On the other hand, maybe you'd like to let this stand as yet another example of exaggeration on your part.

Oh, please. As if "Bush lied" isn't your central theme. (Oh, you mean only those people with whom you're currently conversing, usage boy?) And "distort and exaggerate" (and "misdirection," "dishonest," "fairy tales," "wishful thinking," yada, yada) don't count, of course? Oh, you're right then, "but only in a dishonest, narrow, technical, absurd, useless sense . . ." (Heh.)

jukeboxgrad

"Was that less grievous than my use of 'wont' ?"

Yes, by a long shot.

"little English usage police boy."

Since you know nothing about my size or gender (as if it mattered), you're making shit up again.

"I'm having a hard time seeing how you could honestly miscount them"

I invite you to reflect on the fact that in the two relevant threads, the string "no wmd" appears a total of ten times. This includes, for example, you quoting me. So yes, in my earlier comment, I miscounted by exactly one. The fact that you're making a big deal about this is hysterically funny.

"Why don't you check through your notes, and tell me how many times you used it?"

I've made a reasonable effort to do so, and I've told you the results I've found.

By the way, you're the one who made the claim that I used a particular phrase habitually. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate your claim is true. No surprise that this assertion, like many other assertions of yours, is not rooted in fact.

"How about a little consistency?"

There's no inconsistency in pointing out that your claim was not just false but also pointless. Those are two different things. Surely you can grasp something so simple.

"it's been disproven"

To extent that one shell has been found, yes, a perversely puncitilious person could claim "it's been disproven." Anyway, nice job proving that the concept of materiality is over your head.

Also, nice job dodging the central issue, that you think it's fair to claim that a useless degraded shell is "WMD." And that you suggested Bush was talking about something that wasn't found until a year after he made his statement.

"distort and exaggerate"

In my opinion, there's a difference between accusing someone of exaggerating and calling them a liar. If the distinction doesn't matter to you, that's your problem.

Cecil Turner

Since you know nothing about my size or gender (as if it mattered), you're making shit up again.

Actually, I kinda suspected you were female. Thanks for the confirmation.

I invite you to reflect on the fact that in the two relevant threads, the string "no wmd" appears a total of ten times.

You seem to be able to count fairly well when it doesn't matter. But looking up this thread at the bolded entries is beyond your capabilities? Dubious.

I've made a reasonable effort to do so, and I've told you the results I've found.

How many? Too hard a question?

There's no inconsistency in pointing out that your claim was not just false but also pointless.

False? How many times is needed for "wont"? (Hint: I think you've exceeded it.) Pointless?

To extent that one shell has been found, yes, a perversely puncitilious person could claim "it's been disproven."

"Perversely punctilious"? Look in the mirror, sweetie.

In my opinion, there's a difference between accusing someone of exaggerating and calling them a liar.

I note you left out "dishonest," "fairy tales," etc., in yet another dishonest argument. (And yes, I consider that calling you a liar.) Back to the real question: what are you getting out of this? You appear to be quite prolific at making abusive arguments to "discredit" those on a variety of (right leaning) blogs. Are you under the impression that people respect your opinion? Or that such boorish behavior actually wins friends and influences people? Think that might have something to do with the fact your allies can't win an election (Kos's perfect record comes to mind)? Are you capable of learning?

jukeboxgrad

Cecil: "I kinda suspected you were female. Thanks for the confirmation."

Did I really say something to give it away? What could it be? Pray tell.

"How many? Too hard a question?"

No, just a question I already answered. What about scrolling up don't you understand?

"How many times is needed for 'wont' ?"

Since the phrase appeared in roughly 1-2% of the comments I've posted here, I think it's fair to say that "habitually" is another one of your habitual exaggerations. If you can't see that, that's your problem.

"Pointless?"

No WMD were found. That's why your original complaint was pointless. And I notice that yet again you're dodging the central issue, that you think it's fair to claim that a useless degraded shell is "WMD." And that you suggested Bush was talking about something that wasn't found until a year after he made his statement.

Cecil Turner

Did I really say something to give it away? What could it be? Pray tell.

Yep. Shouldn't have responded to "boy." (A man almost certainly wouldn't have.)

Since the phrase appeared in roughly 1-2% of the comments I've posted here . . .

Oh, I found every one of them with my cursory search? (I suspect I didn't.) This is very similar to the logic that Saddam had "no WMD" since we only found a few. And just as flawed.

kim

What do you think, JBG, of the manner in which the MSM seems to be modifying their writing about Joe?

BTW, you two have created a controversy even more opaque than the Plame business.
===================================================

jukeboxgrad

Cecil: "I found every one of them with my cursory search?"

I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is yes, because your results are highly congruent with the results of my search, which was not cursory.

"I suspect I didn't."

Nice job revealing that you don't know the difference between a fact as compared with speculation or suspicion. You made what was purportedly a factual statement ("as you're wont to do"). Now we realize that all there is behind this statement is something you "suspect."

"This is very similar to the logic that Saddam had 'no WMD' since we only found a few"

Nice job revealing the way your mind works, such as it is. "Very similar" is true only if you contend that ISG's efforts to find WMD amounted to nothing more than "a cursory search." I wonder if you're really making that ludicrous assertion. It sure sounds like it.

kim: "you two have created a controversy even more opaque than the Plame business."

True, and well-said.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame