Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Slowly now, so you can follow:
1. Taguba, in both his report and before Congress, said that the intel officers were put in command of the MPs at AG.
2. Taguba said that order came from above Janis's head.
3. He was contradicted by the Pentagon rep at the witness table.
4. The fact that the Pentagon contradicted him does not change the fact that Taguba, the man you were citing in your prior post, said that the intel officers were put in command of the MPs at AG and that that order came from above Janis's head.

In other words, the Taguba report was not two words long ("Blame Karpinsky") with a bunch of pictures attached.

So what's your point?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
So what's your point?

My point is that I clearly have too much time on my hands if I really am trying to explain to you how Taguba didn't say that it was all Karpinsky's fault. You are only going to listen to those voices in your head anyway.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
And you do have to admit that his new approach of "citing-to-a-book-as-conclusive-proof" is a step above his pervious approach of "citing-to-a-blog-as-conclusive-proof."

Yes, but you have to admit that you're playing the worst form of "your sources suck." Come on, we all know Ty didn't personally hear Franks say that. But he presented the quote from a well respected source. The ball is in your court to provide evidence that Franks didn't say that (a denial from Franks, e.g.). Fuck, I've never been to Iraq. This whole war could be fictitious if we're going by an individual empirical observation standard.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bush said repeatedly "We know he had X, and he can't verify that he destroyed them." And I'm sure there are sound bytes where he inadvertantly moved away from that, but the big speeches followed the above.

Gattigap has a monster database of what Bush and other top officials said, and when he gets back from lunch and sobers up he's going to show just how wrong you are about this. They crossed that line too many times for it to have been inadvertant.

Nice that this is the President talking about the most vital issue of the day, and your defense of his veracity boils down to whether his mistruths were "inadvertant." It's a sign that you are on thin ice, my friend.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Gattigap has a monster database of what Bush and other top officials said, and when he gets back from lunch and sobers up he's going to show just how wrong you are about this. They crossed that line too many times for it to have been inadvertant.

Nice that this is the President talking about the most vital issue of the day, and your defense of his veracity boils down to whether his mistruths were "inadvertant." It's a sign that you are on thin ice, my friend.

no mas....


edit:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them

SotU 2003.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
My point is that I clearly have too much time on my hands if I really am trying to explain to you how Taguba didn't say that it was all Karpinsky's fault. You are only going to listen to those voices in your head anyway.

Whiff!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Fuck, I've never been to Iraq. This whole war could be fictitious if we're going by an individual empirical observation standard.

No because there are pictures.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Whiff!

To recap, for those keeping score at home:

Not Me: Taguba said x.

Larry Davis: No, Taguba said not x.

Not Me: Whiff!

Evil Idiot is looking more and more plausible.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
No because there are pictures.

Whiff!

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Gattigap has a monster database of what Bush and other top officials said, and when he gets back from lunch and sobers up he's going to show just how wrong you are about this. They crossed that line too many times for it to have been inadvertant.

How about "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -GWB, 3/17/03

Or

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Dick Cheney 8/02

By the way, Ty, for future reference the password to Gatti's database is "Dewar's".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
How about "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -GWB, 3/17/03

Inadvertant. Can you prove that was in his prepared remarks?

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Dick Cheney 8/02

Inadvertant.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
How about "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -GWB, 3/17/03

Or

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Dick Cheney 8/02

By the way, Ty, for future reference the password to Gatti's database is "Dewar's".

I will not respond to Ty's inevitable follow up or any other. They have become little more than the ying to Notme's Yang. Only you have credibility Larry- this stuff was the subject of about 200 posts, at the end it was clear Ty had proven nothing with his myriad of quotes- he admitted as much. While I do like to try and help the left along, i simply cannot repeat all 200 posts.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To recap, for those keeping score at home:

Not Me: Taguba said x.

Larry Davis: No, Taguba said not x.

Not Me: Whiff!

No, that is not what happened. Here is what happened:


Queen Not Me: Taguba said x and I agree with x.

Larry Davis: No, Taguba said x but the guy next to him said y.

Queen Not Me: I still agree with Taguba who said x.

Larry Davis: long explanation about what the guy next to Taguba said.

Queen Not Me: [joke]So what's your pont?[/joke]

Larry Davis:[exasperated][I cannot believe you cannot understand me[/exasperated]

Queen Not Me: Whiff!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I will not respond to Ty's inevitable follow up or any other.

I win again.

T.S.

374-2

eta: And I now know that in Hankspeak, a "myriad" of quotes means 2.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I will not respond to Ty's inevitable follow up or any other. They have become little more than the ying to Notme's Yang. Only you have credibility Larry- this stuff was the subject of about 200 posts, at the end it was clear Ty had proven nothing with his myriad of quotes- he admitted as much. While I do like to try and help the left along, i simply cannot repeat all 200 posts.

OK, but to say that the admin didn't oversell from time to time is just wrong, my man.

It's like Cheney and the Iraq-9/11 connection: if he gives 10 speeches saying there was a connection until GWB is eventually forced to come out and say that we have no evidence of a 9/11 connection, you can't say that the admin wasn't fostering an erroneous impression among those listening to the first 10 speeches.

Aside from all that, it makes me nervous that you assign me this credibility. Am I becoming the Alan Colmes of the board?