Sigh. You too?

Bush specifically said that it was NOT an imminent threat, but that if we waited until it was imminent, it would be too late. Pretty much those exact words.

Well, sure. It's difficult to know how people got confused on that point.

• "But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."
  
  Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).
  
  "All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."
  
  Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
  
  "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
  
  Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
  
  "On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."
  
  Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).
  
  "The first time we may be completely certain he has a --nuclear weapon is when, God forbids, he uses one."
  
  Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).

Now. Any citizen receiving these messages? Who listened to vivid imagery of Iraqi planes spreading chemicals over Kansas, or detonating a nuclear bomb within American cities, and chooses to operate from sissified impulse and emotion and equate THAT with an "imminent" threat, when CLEARLY the man said that it's not really imminent, but we can't wait for it to become so, and that therefore, calm, sober and unemotional reflection tells us that we should move now -- well, that citizen is either dumb as a post, so gullible he probably buys anything the devious MSM tells him, or he just can't fuckin' read.

UAVs are way cool.

Dead horses on both sides.

We are now fully deployed in Iraq. The important questoin is not how we got there, but whether we continue or get out. It appears to me that the American people want out, and that the mid-term elections will be all about who will find a responsible way out. So far, I, at least, see the Administration focusing on the dead horses when these questions come up rather than focusing on the strategy for responsible disengagement or on the need for any disengagement that occurs to be done in a responsible manner. They do seem to have learned not to say that we'll be there however long it takes, which was the language being used a couple of years ago. But Bush's, "We did not lie" and "we do do not torture" start sounding like Nixon's "I am not a crook" after a while. These statements avoid the difficult question.

As President, he needs to lead and channel this discussion instead of avoiding it. If he does, I think the Republicans will do well.

All your responses are more political than analytical. As I said, this "you lied, no you lied" stuff is just pure partisanship. Your post makes that very clear.

More Ancient History
 

Cleveland is one of our more unappreciated Presidents.

Imagine Clinton or Kennedy or one of the other "horndog" Presidents actually marrying a 21 year old while in office.

Ah! Franny Folsom! Perhaps that is why Bilmore gets that far-away look in his eyes.

Please. That is the GOP equivalent to Clinton's "legally accurate, but misleading" defense to the answer he gave about having sexual relations with Monica during the Paula Jones deposition.

eta: And I'd be happy to rely on factcheck.org, but I don't think that you really want to do that on some of the other items I mentioned.

Bottom line with respect to WMD: I think that the administration pushed for what they honestly thought was the case (that Iraq had WMD), and exaggerated the stuff supporting that belief ("we found the mobile chemical labs") while ignoring or minimizing contrary information, and used this to persuade the country to support an invasion.

So it was imminent?

And if you don't see the difference between lying in this circumstance and lying to convince your country to go to war, you are willfully blind or an idiot.

I agree with you about not being able to sue a sitting president. It's easy to bring a lawsuit. I'm a little surprised no one has sued W for anything, although I do not wish for this to happen. He seems to have a tough enough time doing his job without the distraction.

Interesting
 

Wrong:
U.S. Congressional Republicans Advance Budget, Tax-Cut Plans


Wrong again:
"House leaders dropped from a transportation measure the designation of $442 million for projects in Alaska, including one dubbed a ``bridge to nowhere,'' in an effort to gain support for the budget-cutting plan. "

Interesting
 

You seem to have a misunderstanding. Let me see if I can explain it to you.

There's this thing called time. Not all event happen at once, at least within the normal human perception. First one event will happen, and then another will happen. Sometimes, a subsequent event will change the result of a prior event. For example, at time A, I could set down a cup of coffee on my desk. At time B (after time A), I could say to someone in my office "My cup of coffee is on my desk." At time C I could pick my cup of coffee up off the desk and put it in the kitchen. The fact that at time D an observer would note that my coffee cup is not, in fact, on my desk, does not make my statement at time B any less true.

However, even with the passage of time, Jim Mattox still isn't a Republican.

I've read this twice, and, granting that I'm sort of distracted and busy today, and so maybe not at my most prescient, I'm not totally clear about what you said, except I think you just called Ted Kennedy "dumb as a post." So, I'll buy in here.

Interesting
 

Um, I think if you go back and read it, you'll find that the quislings in the House merely removed the name of the bridge to nowhere from the bill, so that they could claim some nobility, but (sneakily enough!) left the money in, and told Alaska "spend it as you see fit."

Effing snakes. All PR, no substance.

Interesting
 

I know she's blowing you (at least I hope so), but that doesn't make her right. So let's take that concept called time that you referenced. One measure of time is the 24-hour period called a day. Your lover stated that that Republicans wouldn't pass a budget with any cuts in one specific 24-day period . In fact, the House Republicans passed just such a bill. As much as you might like to defend her reputation (although what's left is open to debate; all we know is that she isn't into fisting or watersports (can you confirm this?)), her statement of "not today" was incorrect. Moreover, her guess that the bridge to nowhere would still be funded was also incorrect.
Now, while your attempt to support your girlfriend was ultimately unsuccessful, take solace that it might lead to further good luvin'. And really, isn't that what your response was about anyway.

Interesting
 

That's correct but Alaska's governor has stated that the State is unlikely to pony up the additional ~$100 million needed to construct the bridge. So the likelihood of the bridge being built is essentially nil.

Interesting
 

The measure passed early this morning.

Congratulations. Your party poured over the budget and cut funding for poor and poor sick people. I'm sure it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.

Interesting
 

Great. So the money's being spent on nothing instead of feeding hungry kids.

Why do you think that's a good thing?

And why does the fact that RT is my girlfriend have anything to do with your inability to comprehend the flow of time and/or that days end and begin at midnight?

I've stepped into other conversations where others have been attacked on the side of the attacked. Shape Shifter and Gatti come to mind, and I'm pretty sure at least once, Hank - believe me, none of them are blowing me.

Interesting
 

Originally posted by baltassoc
Where did I say I supported this? I think all the pork should be cut. That said, a less than 2% budget cut in Medicaid discretionary spending is hardly the end of the world. Or do you believe that there is no fat that can be trimmed from that budget.

If your relationship with her had nothing to do with your response, then why did you reference a prior conversation between her and I?

Literally, maybe, maybe not, although Shifter is probably up for it. Methaphorically, absolutely.

Interesting
 

Such a relief to know there's still a mindless, wholely irrational conservative on the boards. I though my sine qua non was disappeared!

We can always say this for RT: she has never denied having sex with that muppet! And, she never lied to convince us to deploy against Infirmation.

No, can you tell me where the planes were?

Interesting
 

I think that medicaid runs a pretty tight ship, actually.

You implied that it was okay that they left the money in the bill to go to Alaska because the bridge is not actually going to be built. Thank you for clarifying that you are against pork.

How many other people have you had arguments with?

I was just pointing out that your first appearance on this board revealed you to be either: a) a shill for Republican talking points, b) dumb or c) both.

Probably right.

Hank: get back on my methaphorical dick, motherfucker.

Interesting
 

This defense of the House GOP as a bunch of budget cutters will be much more convincing if they don't pass the upcoming bill to further reduce the capital gains tax. We shall see.

In my view, they aren't trying to balance the budget or engage in any serious deficit reduction. This is a fig leaf.

In any event, even if it were otherwise, it is utterly unacceptable to me to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and the children of our nation -- which is what the "fiscal hawks" of the GOP Congress consistently try to do (when they cut at all).

The stated justification for this is, usually, the philosophical attraction of a limited federal government. The cold, hard truth of the matter is that those with less political clout, who make fewer campaign contributions and hire fewer lobbyists tend to get screwed the hardest.

S_A_M

P.S. What brought you here? I'd swear no one said your name three times.

Interesting
 

Do you find that your habit of finding "implications" where none exist has ever effected your non-internet-based life?


SAM and Ty, to name two.

I'm glad my postings were memorable to you, although you referenced my second appearance. (Of course, one could argue that my first appearance demonstrated the same points.) I am, however, extremely saddened that you think I might be dumb. Perhaps if I continue to engage in these informative conversations with you I can raise my intelligence enough that I can get a job in Baltimore.

Interesting
 

Far be it for me to defend this Congress or administration as being fiscally conservative; they are most certainly not. However, one must be a fool to believe the Democrats would be more responsible. I won't say I'm surprised by your dislike of the capital gains tax cut but is it your position that they are not effective at improving the market? I'll note that NASDAQ and the S&P 500 hit 4 1/2 year highs yesterday. Also, the budget deficit is decreasing.

Unfortunately, until both sides of Congress get serious about addressing the ever-rising non-discretionary entitltement spending, Congress has only a few places to realistically cut the budget. Transportation would be an excellent place to start but until voters place more emphasis on deficit reduction than on bringing home the pork, this area will not improve. Defense is another possibility but most citizens recognize the need for a strong military. Nonetheless, the defense budget should also not be a place for additional pork projects and should be subject to more scrutiny then it is now. The primary area where I think your argument about stronger political clout is accurate is in terms of farm subsidies and tariffs. I would agree that budget reductions should be made here before they are made to many of the services provided to the poor.
Finally, I challenge your contention that the elderly do not have political clout. I'm sure you've heard of AARP.

Interesting
 

My suggestion is to get rid of the stupid, bloated, poorly constructed Medicare Part D. The elderly haven't received that particular entitlement yet, so the bitching isn't going to be as loud as it will be in two years when Congress realizes what exactly it got itself into with that monstrosity.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

I'll believe this if Scooter and Turd Blossom pack up their rolodexes before the indictments come down.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

If a sitting Republican president had a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him and he had a deposition where he lied under oath about sex in the oval office he would be gone.

The Democrats would scream bloody hell because they would assume the sexual harassment claim was true (like they did with Clarence Thomas) and would claim that he had taken advantage of a young intern. It would drive the womens movement into a frenzy.

The Republicans would never defend a man who cheated on his wife and got a blow job in the oval office (look at Livingston, Gingrish and Tower).

No Republican president would have ever survived what Clinton did.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

But outing CIA agents is okay. Got it.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

Who did that? didn't they have an investigation and struck out?

The Final Word from the Economist
 

BUSH DID NOT LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WMD

So who is getting the best of the argument? Mr Bush starts with one big advantage: the charge that he knew all along that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction seems to be a farrago of nonsense. Nobody has yet produced any solid evidence for this. Sure, Mr Bush made mistakes, but they seem to have been honest ones made for defensible reasons. He genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD—as did most of the world's security services. And he was not alone in thinking that, after September 11th, America should never again err on the side of complacency. More than 100 Democrats in Congress voted to authorise the war.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

No, no, no. The line, Hank, is "no, that pussy Russert told me first!"

America treats Arabs better than France
 

France v America (contd)

Hyphenating beats segregating
Nov 17th 2005 | DEARBORN, MICHIGAN
From The Economist print edition

Why Arab immigrants assimilate better in the United States


HE WOULD rather talk about the new Arab-American museum in Dearborn, the first of its kind in the country. But Ismael Ahmed patiently indulges questions on another topic—whether America does a better job than France of integrating Arab immigrants—even though he thinks the answers are obvious.

Mr Ahmed, the executive director of ACCESS, a social-services agency for Arab immigrants, reckons there are clear reasons why the sorts of immigrant-driven riots that have recently shocked and shamed France seem hard to imagine in Dearborn, or in other ethnic Arab communities across America. In contrast to the situation in France and in many other European countries, he points out, the children and grandchildren of Arab immigrants to America, both Muslim and Christian, climb the same ladder of education, income and advancement that other immigrant groups have scaled successfully, from Asians to the Irish.


That does not mean that most Arab-Americans, even in well-integrated third- or fourth-generation families, feel at ease these days. The new museum in Dearborn highlights many of their worries and frustrations. Its main exhibits—which look at how Arab immigrants come to America, and how they and their descendants have contributed to American life—make strenuous efforts to dispel stereotypes and point out discrimination, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 2001. One exhibit contains a letter that was sent out to thousands of Arab immigrants after the attacks, urging them to show up for a friendly chat with the FBI.

Yet in the wake of those attacks, Dearborn's Arab-American leaders were also able to fall back on countless ties—social, educational, commercial, political—with the wider community, to defuse tensions and put nervous Arab-Americans at ease. Many of those ties had developed naturally as people in Dearborn and other Detroit suburbs went to school and did business together. Arab-American workers and businessmen are woven into the wider economy: making car parts, running petrol stations, and trying, like the rest of the rustbelt, to branch out into new white-collar professions. In September 2001, both the chief executive of Ford, Jacques Nasser, and the president of the United Auto Workers, Stephen Yokich, were of Arab descent.

Assimilating does not always mean dispersing. As with other immigrant groups, Arab-Americans tend to live in clusters. Indeed, the 300,000 living in the Detroit metropolitan area comprise the largest concentrated Arab community outside North Africa and the Middle East. But given America's economic opportunities, such neighbourhoods—in Dearborn, Flint, Chicago, New York and elsewhere—have little in common with the French banlieues that have erupted in recent weeks.

Immigrants from Lebanon or Iraq may head for Dearborn or the Arab section of Chicago because they have relatives there; or, when they arrive in a big city, they may gravitate towards an area with familiar foods and festivities. But that sort of clustering reflects immigrants' choices. Ahmed Rehab, a spokesman for the Chicago branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, contrasts this with France, where North African immigrants gravitate to the grim high-rises of the banlieues because there is nowhere else for them to go. Perhaps grumpy Americans should be careful what they wish for: while they whinge about the jobs that immigrants are “stealing”, France is feeling the wrath of immigrants who cannot find jobs.

The Final Word from the Economist
 

2. You're like the marines and I'm the Iraqui police. If it's up to me to fight these liberals, I lose a lot. But if you're here, our side always wins.

The Final Word from the Economist
 

"Everybody was not, in fact ,working from the same misleading information. The Administration's line on WMD these days is: OK, we may have been wrong, but everybody was wrong, and everybody came to the same conclusion that we did. The foreigners came to that conclusion through their intelligence services, and the Democrats (especially that weasely Kerry and that ambitious Hillary) did it when they voted for the war resolution.

But at the time, Administration sources were most emphatically NOT saying, "hey, we're all working in the dark here." The implied message in every briefing for reporters, every speech to the public, and every background session with legislators was: If you knew what we knew, you'd be as alarmed as we are. ... The argument over Iraq's capabilities was by definition one-sided, because the Administration's presumed insider knowledge trumped what anyone else could say. To pretend that this was just a widely shared confusion is dishonest and wrong."


-- James Fallows

The Final Word from the Economist
 

All this babble does not change the fact that the Bush administration did not lie. It really thought Iraq had WMDs and any statements to the contrary are: LIES.

To wit, they had already decided to take out Hussein, and simply marshaled the data points which supported that end. To make Hank happy, I'll point y'all to a post by Mark Schmitt that seems very well put.

Interesting
 

At the risk of failing to STP, the Washington Post (among others) has reported that Alaska is still getting the same amount of money, and the ability to spend it on the bridge to nowhere -- all that's happened is that because GOP congressmen were hearing complaints from constituents about the bridge, they took the specific designation out of the bill.

eta: stp; what bilmore said (I like being able to say that)

America treats Arabs better than France
 

There is a long history of rioting in France. Hell, every July 14 they celebrate the fall of the Bastille. Looks to me like Arab immigrants there are fitting in just fine.

Interesting
 

What bizarre about all the earmarks is that it's the same way for all of them. They divvy up a pot, and different congressmen specify projects. The state would get the money either way. For some reason, they feel this is more effective than having it go into general transportation funds, which the state government could spend as it sees fit. I suppose the reason is that it's a lot more impressive to cut a ribbon on a big bridge than to point out how smoothly the Town Car rolls down the freshly paved highway.

The point is settled
 

So we can all agree:

1) Clinton lied under oath
2) Bush did not lie about the existence of WMDs in Iraq.

From now on these two statements will be considered accepted fact.

The point is settled
 

Of course Clinton lied under oath.

As for whether Bush lied, why don't we just say that we don't know enough about his state of mind yet. (You didn't read the Schmitt thing, did you?)

Suppose someone said that there was "no doubt" that there were WMD in Iraq, or that "we know where the WMD are." Given that the intelligence was ambiguous, and that we did not in fact know where the WMD were, would not those be lies?