All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
So what you are asserting is that your recollections have more reality based credibility than a US Senator, a US Congressman and the Cheif of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces........explain to me your definition of reality based? Is your "reality" medicated or are you non-compliant?

\

I was suggesting that if you want to learn more, you should search for news stories about the Kay Commission work. Not a citation, but something almost as good. Or you can scroll back up to my prior post, where I added a link to a news story which I don't think you've noticed.

We've discussed the Santorum/Weldon crap here before. What seems to have been found is decaying stocks of chemical weapons from the 1980s. They may once have been WMD as we all use that term, and they would not be safe for you to drink, but that applies to lots of stuff in Iraq, and probably under your kitchen counter.

[Yankee Doodle Greedy]

And no that's not a typo.

It is part of my ongoing campaign to have July 3rd declared a new national holiday of Dependence.

All those liberal leaches who believe government should provide healthcare, retirement, free cheese, prescription drugs, and all the other nanny-state teat-suckling free-rider handout social programs should celebrate DEPENDENCE on the 3rd while independent free-thinking self-sufficient patriots who are convinced that the federal government is into all kinds of stuff that they shouldn't be, can celebrate the traditional Independence Day on the 4th of July.

Who's with me?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
His point was that if W was lying so were these others.

I would hope that Bush had better information than those folks, seeing as how he was the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, had Condi Rice to hold his hand, and got daily briefings from George Tenet. Read Justice Thomas's dissent last week in Hamdan, and you will see him explaining that the president deserves deference in matters of national security -- surely this is why.

That said, there were a lot of Democrats who jumped on the war bandwagon and said things they may not have believed or known for fear of the political consequences of standing up to a popular president in a time of war. They have a lot to answer for, too.

[i was penske]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would hope that Bush had better information than those folks, seeing as how he was the Commander in Chief of the armed forces,

okay- what about the Clinton, berger and Albright 98/99 quotes?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
okay- what about the Clinton, berger and Albright 98/99 quotes?

As I already said, we know more now that we have occupied Iraq.

This argument about whether Bush lied is so 2004. It's been clear for years that the Administration was, at the very least, reckless in its disregard for the truth concerning WMD because it had already decided to go to war for other reasons. As Paul Wolfowitz said, WMD was selected as the primary rationale to sell the war for bureaucratic reasons.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I already said, we know more now that we have occupied Iraq.

This argument about whether Bush lied is so 2004. It's been clear for years.

Yes, there was a referendum on the question. 62M said no lie. I forget how many said lie, what's your recollection?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
Yes, there was a referendum on the question. 62M said no lie. I forget how many said lie, what's your recollection?

A year later, a NBC/Wall St. Journal poll found that "57% of Americans believe Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for war" (cited here). I take it that convinces you?

Anyway, I understand that in your world questions of truth and fiction can be resolved through a poll, but we in the reality-based community prefer more traditional Enlightenment principles. You can keep your moral relativism.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A year later, a NBC/Wall St. Journal poll found that "57% of Americans believe Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for war" (cited here). I take it that convinces you?
.

Polls are too biased, plus NBC is a den of liberal media elitist faux intellectual no-nothings.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Anyway, I understand that in your world questions of truth and fiction can be resolved through a poll, but we in the reality-based community prefer more traditional \

Perception is reality.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
Polls are too biased, plus NBC is a den of liberal media elitist faux intellectual no-nothings.

Oh, good point.

Perception is reality.

Only for so long. At some point people realize that our soldiers in Iraq aren't having flowers thrown at them.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Oh, good point.

.

Merci.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Only for so long. At some point people realize that our soldiers in Iraq aren't having flowers thrown at them.

Yet. The War on Terror is hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us. It's incredibly hard. You know why? Because our enemy, the worldwide Islamofacist alliance and their pals in the Euro-socialist-liberal cabal, realizes the stakes. The enemy understands that the spread of freedom and democracy will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred and ignorance. That's why they're fighting so vociferously. Anyway, it is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy, but we fighting the good fight, and winning hearts and minds, one at time, the hard way, despite our enemies at home and abroad.

It's necessary work. And a free Iraq and free and democratic Middle East to follow is going to make this world a more peaceful place.

Jesus willing.

Amen.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought the point of your original post was that Clinton was lying.

I never said Clinton was lying about Iraq. I was pointing out that Clinton thought that there were WMDs.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It occurs to me that you may have been quoting Clinton to prove that Bush wasn't lying. If so, I suggest you read something more germane: Ron Suskind's recent book, The One Percent Solution. The Platonic Ideal .

How come every time you suggest reading something it is just some propagandist B.S. Instead why don't you try making an argument instead of telling us to read something that is irrelevent, of dubious quality, or says something different than what you say it says. Only an idiot would suggest that Bush did not think Iraq had WMDs. Everyone, including Clinton, his wife, Pelosi and everyone else thought Saddam had WMDs. In order to lie you have to believe what you are saying is not true.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky would read that book and come back and say, "it is well and good that Presidents mislead the public about the war on terror because that is what Presidents have always done and it is how we fight these wars."

Presidents have lied in the past, and they have had reason to. In this case Bush didn't lie, but even if he had lied it would have been irrelevent. The whole "Bush lied" argument is pure politics. Just a way for the Democrats to get votes, but from a policy and historical perspective it is completely irrelevent.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You would refer to FDR, and so on.

I seem to recall in prior posts you denied that FDR ever lied (which of course he did - I am glad he did).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And then we would have a well-intentioned and meaningful conversation about how 9/11 changed everything and whether democracy is a good form of government for fighting wars and the extent to which we are abandoning our constitutional traditions in order to export them to countries like Iraq.

There is nothing in the constitution that says the president can't lie (of course lying under oath is a whole other matter). When FDR lied to get us into World War II the consitution was not threatened.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop OTOH, if you were criticizing Clinton's foreign policy,

Can't you read? I have critisized Clinton in the past, but I have never critisized his foreign policy. I have critisized the fact that Clinton lied under oath, committing a felony, and was not punished for it (Impeachment is not a punishment - it has no negative consequences).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I will just point out that no matter how many words you use, it is still true that when he left office Iraq had no WMD and that he found a way to make this happen short of invading and occupying the country.

How do you know that the WMDs did not still exist until Bush II started making his threats? Clinton certainly believed that Saddam had WMDs when he left office. They could have been destroyed during Bush II administration just prior to Bush II's invasion. Or they could have been removed to Syria during the invasion, or destroyed during the invasion. And Clinton did nothing to get Saddam to remove his WMDs. I am not blaming him because there was nothing he could do, but to say he did something to get Saddam to destroy his WMDs is just blind partisan B.S.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Serious conservatives do not pretend that there were WMD in Iraq when they are behind closed doors.

Man you are delusional. No one knows for certain when and if Saddam destroyed his WMDs. The only thing we know for sure is that he had WMDs at one time and that the US forces could not find any when they entered the country. Those are the only two fact we have and the rest is speculation.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would hope that Bush had better information than those folks, seeing as how he was the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, had Condi Rice to hold his hand, and got daily briefings from George Tenet. Read Justice Thomas's dissent last week in Hamdan, and you will see him explaining that the president deserves deference in matters of national security -- surely this is why.

That said, there were a lot of Democrats who jumped on the war bandwagon and said things they may not have believed or known for fear of the political consequences of standing up to a popular president in a time of war. They have a lot to answer for, too.

The senior Democrat members of the Intelligence committee in both the house and Senate have the highest level of security clearence. They were all convinced that Saddam had WMDs and they all supported the invasion. Kerry and Mrs. Clinton supported the invasion because they knew it was the right thing. So did every other responsible Democrat. But it is also these senior Democrats job to try and take control of the congress and the presidency away from the Republicans. They are suppposed to try and do everything they can to accomplish that goal, and if they don't they are being delinquent in their duties. So of course, when election time comes around, they critisize everything the President did. That is just standard politics. It is just the ignorant partisan hacks that don't see this and buy the propaganda.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I already said, we know more now that we have occupied Iraq.

Exactly, but before we occupied Iraq we didn't know. And when the Bush administration claimed Saddam had WMDs we had not occupied Iraq. In addition, when Kerry and Clinton and Albright and Pelosi all claimed Saddam had WMDs we had not occupied Iraq. Everyone, before we invaded Iraq, thought they had WMDs.