Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've spent a fair amount of time on lengthy posts explaining what I think Bush was thinking, and what I hold him responsible for, and I think I've been pretty clear that I don't think he knew that there were no WMD and decided to tell people there were. It's much more like a reckless disregarded for the truth. Bush was convinced in some larger way that he was right, and the end justified the means -- he was willing to say what it took to drag an unwilling nation into a war he thought was justified. I concede that Bush did not care about the details about whether Iraq was trying to acquire yellowcake from Niger -- actually, a damning point -- but he certainly is responsible for the fact that the people who wrote the State of the Union speech were more interested in saying whatever they could to scare people than they were in making sure they had things right. But every time I bother to spin this stuff out in any detail, whichever conservative I'm talking to disappears. Last time around it was club, and while he sent me a gracious PM regretting that he had to run and couldn't respond, where's the upside in laying out a nuanced view if you guys are just going to disappear on me.

And then there's this:

• On Friday, September 6, Franks and Rumsfeld briefed the president and the NSC on the latest war planning. . . . General Franks had something important to add. "Mr. President," he said, "we've been looking for Scud missiles and other weapons of mass destruction for ten years and haven't found any yet, so I can't tell you that I know that there are any specific weapons anywhere. I haven't seen Scud one."

Plan of Attack 173

• [On Saturday, September 7,] Blair and Bush took questions from reporters. They said they were committed to ending Saddam's threat one and for all. How or when went unanswered. Bush asserted unequivocally, "Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Plan of Attack 178

Bush's top general tells him they haven't found any WMD in ten years of looking, and the next day he's telling journalists -- unequivocally -- that Hussein has them. I'm not sure that lying is the worse-case scenario here.

this is the bee's knees circa 1797 definition.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

Actually, he has tried this. Shortly after it became clear there were no WMD, nor would any be found, Bush began arguing that Iraq was nevertheless the correct course because his intel indicated that Saddam wanted and had the ability to easily maintain WMD.

If given one half an hour with Bush, most lawyers could cross examine the WMD Lie out him:

Q: Is it not a fact that Saddam's primary interest was self-preservation?

Q: Well, why would a self preservationist dictator take on the world's sole superpower?

Q: Do you believe that Saddam would be foolish enough to think he could engage with terrorists, aid in striking us and his involvement never be discovered?

Q: Surely, you have to appreciate that Saddam knew that if he aided terrorists who nailed us, he put himself in peril?

Q: Yes, yes, I understand that he could covertly aid terrorists, but we know for a fact that Iran and Syria and Yemen and the Saudis do that every day, and we have no plans to attack them?

Q: Was an analysis of the benefits of long term containment made at the same time the war plans were drawn up? Why not?

Q: Well, if containment was not an option, then why in February 2001 did Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell both do press briefing in which they stated that Saddam had been effectively "emasculated"? On what intel were those briefings based? And what happened between their receipt of that intel and the admin's March 2002 decision that regime change was necessary?

Q: But hadn't containment been previously effective for over a decade?

Q: Yes, he did shoot at British planes doing flyovers and flouted UN terms, but he started doing that years ago... why the sudden war decision?

Q: OK, ok... he was a threat, but any more athreat than the Iranians who actually have nuclear capabilities?

Q: So, this war was just a "let's take the war and put it elsewhere, and Iraq is the easiest target, so lets go there" scenario, wasn't it?

Q: Cheney basically told you that we either lose a few thousand Americans in Iraq over a decade, or we risk losing many thousands in some huge terrorist hit on our soil, right?

Q: The idea was "Anyplace but here... the Islamists will flock to the easiest traget, so lets put one in their backyard," right?

Q: But the American people, they wouldn't agree to such a war, would they?

Q: So you made up the WMD scenario, didn't you?

Q: Well, lemme shake your hand... you're probably right. And you're probably going to lose this Fall because of it, but for those of us who understand, the lie was ok. The ends do sometimes justify the means. Your problem is you're a bad liar and you're too arrogant. Your biggest mistake isn't foreign policy ineptitude - its lack of good PR. You and you'r people come off as sneaky connivers. You should have taken some lessons from your predecessor... that son of a bitch could sell sand to Arabs...

[dtb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would make Santa Claus himself vomit with rage.

Much like, if Jesus came back to life today and saw what people were doing in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

Bush just overspent his wallet. His had three free daquiris for his excellent performance in rallying the country after 9/11. But Iraq was a bottle of Cristal and two Johnny Walker Blues.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by dtb
Much like, if Jesus came back to life today and saw what people were doing in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.

dtb, under anyone's definition of the powers held by "God," is surely the ability to control one's regurgitory function.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because I know he likes to discuss Scooter . . .

Time reporter to be jailed on contempt charges

Looks like eventually Robert Novak will get his turn to sing, either like a man or like someone's bitch.

Novak is already self-destructing like Paul Krugman*, William Safire and all the other once credible political analysts who've decided to become rabid partisans.** He's always had the softest brain of the Sunday morning political bullshitters. Hell, Tucker Carlson is half his age and can speak rings around him. I've watched Carville discuss politics with Novak. Its fucking embarrassing - like watching a doddering fool take punches he doesn't even know he's receiving. Jail him or give him more airtime - either way, no one's taking anything he says seriously. Lightweight.

As to Scooter, he should be boiled in poison oil. He's three things I can't stomach - sneaky, Napoleonic and super-disciplined... a trifecta that would give only Richard Nixon a hard-on. Unlike Nixon, however, from what I read of Scooter, he's way too organized to let something human, like paranoia or lust for power, overtake his twisted discipline to futhering the agenda of his overlord, Reich Chancellor Cheney. My guess is that if the Plame thing gets too close to good ole' Twisted Mouth, Scooter will fall on the sword and think of himself as the greatest patriot since Ollie North.

In a perfect world, Novak outs Scooter, gets disgraced in doing so and Scooter slinks off to do 9 mo in some min security joint.

** Novak doesn't appear to carry 1/4 of the native intelligence of either Krugman or Safire.

* By training, an economist, I believe. I have no idea how he is qualified to write on topics from WMD to school prayer, but if someone knows something about his qualifications that I don't, I'm all ears.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Interesting, and I do have an open mind. One question that continues for me is why?

Yes, why? Why did the guy who was "yards away" from Rassmun (albeit in a crippled boat) not pull Rassmun out of the water, especially if (as he contends) there was no enemy fire harassing them. Why did Rassmun, weighed down by clothes and gear, and probably injured from his fall, have to wait for Kerry's boat (if we believe the "Swift Vets") to come back around? Was the bastard just going to let the guy go under?

I'm going to be charitable and just say the guy is making the shit up, and he wasn't so cold-blooded as to just let his fellow soldier drown.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And I bitched about it at the time. http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/cl...?msg_id=000Vzs

(And whoa on the time machine ride to get to that post. I'd forgotten about a lot of posters...)

You wouldn't believe who just showed up on the DC board!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You wouldn't believe who just showed up on the DC board!

Holy shit. And pictures of tanks were posted on the FB yesterday. Coincidence?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You wouldn't believe who just showed up on the DC board!

People Who Care [about tanks]?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is Kerry who keeps focusing on Vietnam. It is going to blow up in his face.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
fuck the inane asides, I've been covering with Kennedy and Clinton bashing for the last 2 weeks. i'm no you, but I'm trying. I need to know if you're back. I need to shed that baggage because I'm going to regime change here, plus destroy Gattigap. No time for fat hillary/Ted jokes. Capice?

And so the transformation process begins, as Hank unveils his plan to shift from the Alan Keyes role he's been playing for lo these many weeks back to "George W. Bush, Defender of Freedom."

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
fuck the inane asides, I've been covering with Kennedy and Clinton bashing for the last 2 weeks. i'm no you, but I'm trying. I need to know if you're back. I need to shed that baggage because I'm going to regime change here, plus destroy Gattigap. No time for fat hillary/Ted jokes. Capice?

Regime change? Are you sure you aren't confusing this board with one of your war games?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
If Kerry comes out tomorrow and says that he was in Cambodia, then I will give this one a LOT less credence. But that hasn't yet been part of his response to this days-old blip.

Why should he say anything about it until/unless it starts to hurt him? As a purely tactical matter, further disussion of an issue circualting on the right-wing blogs but which hasn't been picked up by the mainstream news sources is hardly likely to help. Sometimes silence is the best response.

It's a waste of time and energy to wrestle with a pig. It just gets you all muddy, and the pig likes it.

S_A_M

P.S. Hi!

[Replaced_Texan]

Is it just me or has Jon Stewart started an all out offensive against the media?

Last night it was Robert Novak. Two weeks ago it was Ted Koppel (http://www.lostremote.com/archives/001905.html, Koppel didn't show up that night for his scheduled appearance on the Daily Show) and Chris Matthews.

I've been watching the Daily Show for quite some time, and it seems to me that something changed after the DNC convention, and Stewart's main target is the media.

Of course, he let Maureen Dowd have a fairly easy time of it last night, when about a month or so ago, he really ripped into Stephen F. Hayes from the Weekly Standard. And his bit with Tom Brokow must have been around the time that he did his interview with Koppel.

It seems, though, in the last two or three weeks that Jon has decided to take on the media.