Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And I suspect that Tenet wasn't the only one telling him the "slam dunk" story.

If you want to hypothesize that, in between Friday and Saturday morning, someone else told Bush something about Iraqi WMD, something so secret that they couldn't tell the top U.S. general planning for the invasion, go nuts. I can't argue with an imagination like that.

In any event, my main point was in the prior paragraph, and my other posts to you. I don't doubt that Bush thought he was furthering the greater good, that Hussein was a bad man, and that WMD would be found after the invasion. One down, one up, and the jury's still out on the last.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Interesting, and I do have an open mind. One question that continues for me is why? Why would all of these men go to this length if they do not believe what they are professing?

Politics, dumbass.

eta: just doing my part to elevate the discourse.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Kerry didn't lie, . . .

This is your entire argument, followed by "well, at least Bush's lies were way, way worse, man"?

(Re: the internet thing - I was using that as an ironic example. I know Gore got shafted for saying something that was essentially true.)

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is your entire argument, followed by "well, at least Bush's lies were way, way worse, man"?

(Re: the internet thing - I was using that as an ironic example. I know Gore got shafted for saying something that was essentially true.)

When Lincoln said "fourscore and seven years ago," I suspect he may have taken liberties with the exact date. That does not make it a lie.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sorry, I have to go now.

Kidding, kidding, . . .

I'm pounding the espresso just to stay with you.

First - "a damning point"? Damning to which viewpoint? My impression from what I was able to see was that Wilson essentially found that Iraq WAS trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. Or, goats. I guess it could have been goats.

And, British intelligence still stands by the info it gave to Bush, to this day, about that subject.

Damning that Bush gave the speech, but cared so little for the fine points of the intel that he had it boiled down to a single page. Damning in that when you give your subordinates that much leash, sometimes they hang you with it.

Whatever Wilson was (perhaps) lying about, you haven't found it. And this crap about British intel looks worse the longer you look at it. But I don't feel like going there tonight, because we beat it to death a couple of weeks ago (7/20 or so?). Check out the old posts if you like. Slave and club did their best on your side.

And, yeah, I'm sure you can find individuals who told Bush "no WMD's". I can find people who believe in global warming, and others who don't. Franks fell into one camp on the WMD subject, and was pretty consistent all throughout the inspection era, and the war-planning era. But there were quite a few others who thought otherwise. Bush had to weigh the differing viewpoints that were presented to him, and choose. The only dangers of a wrong decision were nuclear (sorry - nucular) detonation here, or stopping the new Holocaust with a predictable small loss on our side. (Yes, I'm actually saying that 900+ American military deaths is a small loss. Resist the urge to start calling me a murderer, or whatever. To take over a hostile country with 900 deaths so far is quite small. To take out a murderer responsible for - what did National Geographic estimate - seven million dead Kurds alone? with only 900 casualties is, on balance, a good trade for humanity.) I think he chose the safer option, for all concerned. Well, except for Saddam. I bet he's still pissed.

And yet, that's not the case he made. He evidently did not feel that leveling with the American public was a prudent course, no doubt because a "conservative" (in the literal sense) might take a very different view. It's not like what Franks was saying was proven verifiably wrong. On your account, there was no proof of WMD, but the possibility that they were nonetheless there was enough. Had he said something like that, he would not have been lying.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
When Lincoln said "fourscore and seven years ago," I suspect he may have taken liberties with the exact date. That does not make it a lie.

Coincidently, Lincoln's sons brought their goats - Nanny and Nanko, if I remember right - into the White House when they moved in. Ever since, goats have scarcely been out of the public eye.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Coincidently, Lincoln's sons brought their goats - Nanny and Nanko, if I remember right - into the White House when they moved in. Ever since, goats have scarcely been out of the public eye.

You're older than I thought.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm pounding the espresso just to stay with you.

I just looked at the clock, and realized that I forgot how much fun this can be, and how it can make you lose track of time. I have a meeting with the Gommint in six hours. Damn. (And, you're two hours behind me!)

Damning that Bush gave the speech, but cared so little for the fine points of the intel that he had it boiled down to a single page. Damning in that when you give your subordinates that much leash, sometimes they hang you with it.

I thought the speech was quite effective, I still believe what he said in it, and - do you really want Bush to do a SOTU as long as Clinton used to do them? Bush can't speechify nearly as well as Clinton.

Whatever Wilson was (perhaps) lying about, you haven't found it. And this crap about British intel looks worse the longer you look at it. But I don't feel like going there tonight, because we beat it to death a couple of weeks ago (7/20 or so?). Check out the old posts if you like. Slave and club did their best on your side.

I have disabused myself of the idea of ever trying to read all the posts I missed, so I don't know where you all went. I do know that Wilson was pretty much - well, completely - discredited, and shown to have affirmatively lied about several things for partisan motives. You disagree. You're right in that we should probably just accept that state of disagreement.

And yet, that's not the case he made. He evidently did not feel that leveling with the American public was a prudent course, no doubt because a "conservative" (in the literal sense) might take a very different view. It's not like what Franks was saying was proven verifiably wrong. On your account, there was no proof of WMD, but the possibility that they were nonetheless there was enough. Had he said something like that, he would not have been lying.

Here's where I get such a huge disconnect that I really have to struggle NOT to impute dishonorable motives to the accusations: what I just described was my exact set of beliefs as to why we should go to Iraq, before we went there. I saw and heard all of the same evidence that you did - and so it baffles me how you can say, now, that "we never considered all of that, and it's just after-the-fact justification." I know I'm one of those best-read Minnesotans and all, but I formed those beliefs hearing the same speeches you heard. So, I remain puzzled.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You're older than I thought.

No, I just have this goat fixation.

Baa.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I thought the speech was quite effective, I still believe what he said in it, and - do you really want Bush to do a SOTU as long as Clinton used to do them? Bush can't speechify nearly as well as Clinton.

You think it was "effective" and I am troubled by the fact that Tenet said the President shouldn't have been saying those things. Whether or not the part about British intel was literally true, the CIA disagreed with the message conveyed.

I have disabused myself of the idea of ever trying to read all the posts I missed, so I don't know where you all went. I do know that Wilson was pretty much - well, completely - discredited, and shown to have affirmatively lied about several things for partisan motives. You disagree. You're right in that we should probably just accept that state of disagreement.

The list I've seen is three things, and is hardly conclusive. But as I said weeks ago, Wilson's credibility isn't important because nothing turns on it. He set things in motion, but he's not relevant.

Here's where I get such a huge disconnect that I really have to struggle NOT to impute dishonorable motives to the accusations: what I just described was my exact set of beliefs as to why we should go to Iraq, before we went there. I saw and heard all of the same evidence that you did - and so it baffles me how you can say, now, that "we never considered all of that, and it's just after-the-fact justification." I know I'm one of those best-read Minnesotans and all, but I formed those beliefs hearing the same speeches you heard. So, I remain puzzled.

I am puzzled that you could have been thinking at the time that there was substantial doubt about whether we'd find WMD. As you said a few posts ago, "everyone" (?) thought they were there.

And you and I didn't have the evidence that Bush did. Hell, Kerry didn't have the evidence Bush did.

I'm going to bed.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Wilson's credibility isn't important because nothing turns on it. He set things in motion, but he's not relevant.

Wow. You spent HOW MANY WEEKS crowing about Wilson back then? (Boy, poor Josh took quite the hit, too, didn't he?) At some point, Ty, you start to sound like Kerry. "I thought Wilson was the smoking gun before I thought he was irrelevant"?

I am puzzled that you could have been thinking at the time that there was substantial doubt about whether we'd find WMD. As you said a few posts ago, "everyone" (?) thought they were there.

And you and I didn't have the evidence that Bush did. Hell, Kerry didn't have the evidence Bush did.

Nope. I heard contradictory evidence, as did we all, and came down on the side of "there's a very good chance they're there, and we need to decide based on a calculus of the dangers of action versus inaction." I was more certain that he had the facilities up and running to make them, and I was wrong about that, but, again, it's a cost-benefit equation.

Night. See ya'all in a few weeks.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
If I gave you the answer that I think is the correct one, you'd just get all high and mighty and dismissive with me

Moi?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Damn. If this is the standard, none of us had better aspire to public expression. Who among us hasn't made comments about some discrete group at least as obnoxious as this?

I will cop to having said something obnoxious and unkind about J.C. Watts. It was said in a moment of weakness. It was an indiscretion I wish I could plausibly call youthful. I retract it.

Flip flop!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
See ya'all in a few weeks.

GOD DAMN IT!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
My best bud went in when he was only 16-3/4, down to Florida flight school. He eventually flew medivacs, about 200 of them. Ultimately he got blown apart. He was a true hero. But, (and I say this with love), he would have made a shitty president.