Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
There seems to be more than enough evidence that, for Davis, money was the convincing factor. He was for sale. Arnold is just taking contributions from people who want him to continue with his exhibitied philosophy. Big Difference.

You might be right. However, it is remarkable that you say things like this, and yet seem to believe that your positions/perceptions are somehow more rational and well-supported, and less motivated/colored by ideology, than Ty's.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Especially considering the news about the organized bugout of Saddam's nuclear weapons facilities.

What "news"? That isn't news -- unless it is because its finally published somewhere tht you choose to believe it.

We talked about shit like that in late 2003 and 2004 to criticize the chaos and mismanagement of the early occupation. I recall Slave, Hank and others swearing it could never have happened because those organized mass movements would have been seen and stopped. (Remember the whole controversy over the allegedly missing uranium under IAEA seals? You said it was an election year ploy.)

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And those Chemical RVs.


Bush lied!

As far as the weapons of Mass Destruction. I think they were used as a justification to go to war and were not the main reason we went to war. But I am almost positive that everyone in the administration thought Saddam had WMDs. They were just as surprized as anyone else that they were not there. If you remember he had used them before, and he was completely not cooperating with the weaponse inspectors. Why else would he provent the weapon inspectors from inspecting certain places if he didn't have WMDs. Clearly everyone overestimated Saddan Husseins intelligence and level headedness. It is clear now that he messed with the weapon inspectors out of pure spite or insanity. But I just don't think the administration would have gone on and on about the WMDs unless they thought they were there. At the time they were hyping up the WMDs that it was clear that if none were found it would be big trouble for the administration. I remember Colmes, on Hannity and Colmes, saying to Hannity that if we go in and there are no WBDs George was in big trouble. Hannity agreed, but said that it was absurd to think that Hussein didn't have the WMD. Yes, it was a big intelligence screw, but it was not a conspiracy of lies like everyone likes to think it is. Every mistake by the administration is not some conspiracy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You might be right. However, it is remarkable that you say things like this, and yet seem to believe that your positions/perceptions are somehow more rational and well-supported, and less motivated/colored by ideology, than Ty's.

S_A_M

I think bilmore was just trying to say that Arnold can't be for sale, since he is his own man, while Davis had to have been for sale, because he certainly didn't seem to stand for much of anything.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
His wife told him she'd divorce him.

S_A_M

This is absolutely true. I was part of the draft Powell committee in 2000 and we almost had him in until the prime minister of Israel was shot. That was his wifes last straw. 9-11 hasn't made it any better. Regardless of the speculation, I am pretty sure he pulled out of the State Department because of family. I wanted to kill his wife in 2000 but as the years have gone on I understand her position.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
We talked about shit like that in late 2003 and 2004 to criticize the chaos and mismanagement of the early occupation. I recall Slave, Hank and others swearing it could never have happened because those organized mass movements would have been seen and stopped. (Remember the whole controversy over the allegedly missing uranium under IAEA seals? You said it was an election year ploy.)

A couple of forklifts, and that's all the proof of WMD that club and bilmore need. Organized looting? There must have been WMD.

What scares me is the thought that the people in the Vice President's office who are responsible for our foreign policy think this way too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
As far as the weapons of Mass Destruction. I think they were used as a justification to go to war and were not the main reason we went to war. But I am almost positive that everyone in the administration thought Saddam had WMDs. They were just as surprized as anyone else that they were not there. If you remember he had used them before, and he was completely not cooperating with the weaponse inspectors. Why else would he provent the weapon inspectors from inspecting certain places if he didn't have WMDs. Clearly everyone overestimated Saddan Husseins intelligence and level headedness. It is clear now that he messed with the weapon inspectors out of pure spite or insanity. But I just don't think the administration would have gone on and on about the WMDs unless they thought they were there. At the time they were hyping up the WMDs that it was clear that if none were found it would be big trouble for the administration. I remember Colmes, on Hannity and Colmes, saying to Hannity that if we go in and there are no WBDs George was in big trouble. Hannity agreed, but said that it was absurd to think that Hussein didn't have the WMD. Yes, it was a big intelligence screw, but it was not a conspiracy of lies like everyone likes to think it is. Every mistake by the administration is not some conspiracy.

In other words, it can't have been fraud because they convinced themselves, too.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You might be right. However, it is remarkable that you say things like this, and yet seem to believe that your positions/perceptions are somehow more rational and well-supported, and less motivated/colored by ideology, than Ty's.

S_A_M

I don't know about this personal stuff, but Davis definitely did pay for play. The evidence is overwhelming. Arnold doesn't care about any donors position at all. They make think different, but the donors are not going to influence him one bit. However, he is a political neoghyte so his advisors have huge influence. He has a few advisors I can't stand, and it was these jerks that kept him from endorsing the open primary until it was too late. It is these advisors everyone should worry about. I tried to stop their appointments and have been trying to get them fired, but clearly my opinion doesn't mean much in the Governor's office. I couldn't even get LessinSF an appointment.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Lie? You've gone from "he only heard it third-hand" to "lie"? That word has been tossed around awfully easily in the last year or two, and has done more than most other factors to make the rift permanent, I think. I'm just about to the "f you" point, just over the ease with which that word is used.

Especially considering the news about the organized bugout of Saddam's nuclear weapons facilities.

My last word, then you can respond.

Nice. I was talking about the overall smear. I have no idea if the Navy doc was lying about what he overheard his staff saying they were told in 1970. But I think that the people who put those ads together were being misleading at best.

I think that it is fair to say that the "I heard third hand" statement from the doctor is certainly is not the impression one got from watching the commercial that was aired. It implied that the doctor "served with Kerry" and that he *knew* that Kerry had not been injured in a firefight.

He didn't say "I didn't really serve with John Kerry, but I did pull a small piece of steel out of his arm, and I later overheard people who overheard people who said that there was no firefight when he was hurt."

As for lies, I am comfortable saying that the alleged observers of the rescue of Rassmussen are lying. If he was in no danger, and no one was shooting at him, why was Kerry's boat the only one to turn around to get him? And why would Rassmussen lie about it?

And O'Neill lied to Colson and Nixon. So he is a liar. As are those in the Swifties group who contend that they were non-partisan. Read the factcheck.org article about how they got their money.

I haven't read about the WMD deal. I saw when looking on Slate that Hitchens has a story about it, but who can trust that liberal rag about anything?

I'm done.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In other words, it can't have been fraud because they convinced themselves, too.

Pretty much. I think the conventional wisdom was so strong that there were WMDs that any evidence to the contrary was dismissed. Everyone overestimated Saddam's mental stability and intelligence. I should also point out, I think we still would have done to war if intelligence had discovered definitely there were not WMDs (although I have no idea how intelligence can prove a negative) but the administration would have focused on another excuse of the war.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Giuliani can't win the nomination. Pataki is a bore. He lost the nomination during his key note speech at the convention.

But don't you think Pataki will still run. I am pretty sure he wants it badly. But I agree he does not have a chance. I hope you are wrong about Giuliani but there is strong evidence to support your position.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Pretty much. I think the conventional wisdom was so strong that there were WMDs that any evidence to the contrary was dismissed. Everyone overestimated Saddam's mental stability and intelligence. I should also point out, I think we still would have done to war if intelligence had discovered definitely there were not WMDs (although I have no idea how intelligence can prove a negative) but the administration would have focused on another excuse of the war.

What do you think was the underlying reason for the war, then, if WMDs were a pretext?

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
What do you think was the underlying reason for the war, then, if WMDs were a pretext?

How about Saddam's utter disregard of over 17 UN Security Council Resolutions over a 12 year period?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
How about Saddam's utter disregard of over 17 UN Security Council Resolutions over a 12 year period?

I didn't ask you, dear. I asked Spanky. You may recall that you have expressed your opinion on this many, many times, at length.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I didn't ask you, dear. I asked Spanky. You may recall that you have expressed your opinion on this many, many times, at length.

that was polite- good show!