All Hank, all the time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What I'm wondering is how he lived in Austin all that time without learning to play a G chord properly.

I've lived in detroit all these years and I don't know the G code.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I've posted about this before, and when I refer to it the conservatives hereabouts are always asking for a cite. I think Gattigap is reading Fiasco, so maybe he can amplify.

Wingnut Hugh Hewitt interviews Fiasco author Thomas Ricks:

• HH: There are a number of very fascinating passages in Fiasco, which is why everyone should read this, and I want to get to them serially, Thomas Ricks. First, I want to get to the WMD question. Any doubt in your mind that George W. Bush and his team and the Pentagon career believed there were WMD there when the war began?
  
  TR: No doubt whatsoever. I think they drank their Kool-Aid, and talked themselves into it, on the basis of no evidence. But yeah, they believed it.
  
  HH: When you write that Operation Desert Fox was tremendously successful, you're concluding that those WMD were there in 1998? Or did Clinton drink the Kool-Aid as well?
  
  TR: Yeah, there were WMD facilities in '98, and they were taken out pretty effectively by those raids. The most effective aspect of the Desert Fox raids, though, which we didn't recognize at the time, it's very difficult to pull out, was the psychological effect. The message sent to Iraqi weapons scientists was Uncle Sam is not going to let Saddam Hussein have this stuff. And their hard work of seven years, after the '91 war, was taken out. It was destroyed.
  
  HH: Can it really be said to be, "drinking the Kool-Aid", as you just said, to conclude that that which had been destroyed in 1998 would immediately be begun to be rebuilt, even as Saddam had begun to rebuild after 1991. Or would it have been prudent, post-9/11, to conclude that Saddam then, as Saddam now, is Saddam always?
  
  TR: Well, that would, but it would be untethered from the realities of Iraq, which was that the country was becoming increasingly poor, weaker, had a less strong military, and that in fact, the '98 Desert Fox raids had almost toppled Saddam Hussein.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've posted about this before, and when I refer to it the conservatives hereabouts are always asking for a cite. I think Gattigap is reading Fiasco, so maybe he can amplify.

Wingnut Hugh Hewitt interviews Fiasco author Thomas Ricks:

• HH: There are a number of very fascinating passages in Fiasco, which is why everyone should read this, and I want to get to them serially, Thomas Ricks. First, I want to get to the WMD question. Any doubt in your mind that George W. Bush and his team and the Pentagon career believed there were WMD there when the war began?
  
  TR: No doubt whatsoever. I think they drank their Kool-Aid, and talked themselves into it, on the basis of no evidence. But yeah, they believed it.
  
  HH: When you write that Operation Desert Fox was tremendously successful, you're concluding that those WMD were there in 1998? Or did Clinton drink the Kool-Aid as well?
  
  TR: Yeah, there were WMD facilities in '98, and they were taken out pretty effectively by those raids. The most effective aspect of the Desert Fox raids, though, which we didn't recognize at the time, it's very difficult to pull out, was the psychological effect. The message sent to Iraqi weapons scientists was Uncle Sam is not going to let Saddam Hussein have this stuff. And their hard work of seven years, after the '91 war, was taken out. It was destroyed.
  
  HH: Can it really be said to be, "drinking the Kool-Aid", as you just said, to conclude that that which had been destroyed in 1998 would immediately be begun to be rebuilt, even as Saddam had begun to rebuild after 1991. Or would it have been prudent, post-9/11, to conclude that Saddam then, as Saddam now, is Saddam always?
  
  TR: Well, that would, but it would be untethered from the realities of Iraq, which was that the country was becoming increasingly poor, weaker, had a less strong military, and that in fact, the '98 Desert Fox raids had almost toppled Saddam Hussein.

you can't be this dense, can you? do you understand the difference between the ability to make the weapons and the weapons themselves? bombing may take out the facilities to make the weapons, but it cannot effectively destroy tons of chemical weapons. Cannot.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you can't be this dense, can you? do you understand the difference between the ability to make the weapons and the weapons themselves? bombing may take out the facilities to make the weapons, but it cannot effectively destroy tons of chemical weapons. Cannot.

The only people who really care about Saddam's chemical weapons, if any, are wingnut conservatives engaging in post hoc rationalization.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The only people who really care about Saddam's chemical weapons, if any, are wingnut conservatives engaging in post hoc rationalization.

Speaking of post hoc rationalization, you get a load of the bunk being spewed by David Corn these days?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Speaking of post hoc rationalization, you get a load of the bunk being spewed by David Corn these days?

Sadly, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't read his stuff very much.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Sadly, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't read his stuff very much.

Nevermind then. Ive already wasted far, far too much of my time posting on those jackoffs Wilson and Plame.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Nevermind then. Ive already wasted far, far too much of my time posting on those jackoffs Wilson and Plame.

Particularly when the crux of the dispute is about those jackoffs Rove and Libby.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Particularly when the crux of the dispute is about those jackoffs Rove and Libby.

Armitage.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Armitage.

I gather that he's involved too, but it's not clear to me that he's a jackoff. Does not change the fact that Rove leaked and Libby (allegedly) lied.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You're forgetting two of the most basic rules of statistics. First, in order for statistics to have any meaning, there has to be a correlative relation between the things being measured. Your basic fallacy is that there is a correlation between being Arab and blowing up planes. That is not true.

I don't know how to respond to this. You are saying black is white. Is there anyone else on this board that thinks there is no "correlative relation" between being Arab and blowing up airplanes?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The only people who really care about Saddam's chemical weapons, if any, are wingnut conservatives engaging in post hoc rationalization.

this makes my head hurt. what does it mean? I know that the Clinton administration was comfortable with the thought that Sadaam had chemical weapons, or that Osama was blowing up our boats and embassies, but that doesn't mean no one else cared.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I know that the Clinton administration was comfortable with the thought that Sadaam had chemical weapons, or that Osama was blowing up our boats and embassies, but that doesn't mean no one else cared.

(1) Bitch, please. Clinton is the one who destroyed the WMD programs.

(2) Chemical weapons have nothing to do with Osama bin Laden blowing shit up.

(2a) That's why no one cares about them.

(2b) Unlike nuclear or biological weapons.

(3) I didn't say no one "cared." Present tense. A lot of Kurds used to care. Donald Rumsfeld didn't care. Only you apologists care now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) Bitch, please. Clinton is the one who destroyed the WMD programs.

(2) Chemical weapons have nothing to do with Osama bin Laden blowing shit up.

but even you said, when we still thought sadaam had weapons, that he wasn't a threat- how come Clinton let Osama go free? I would have arranged a peace conference where JFK Jr. would fly OBL to it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) Bitch, please. Clinton is the one who destroyed the WMD programs.

Yes - he had exact knowledge of where all the chemicals were stored and got rid of them all by launching cruise missiles from hundreds miles away. He got rid of the chemicals just like he got rid of Osama and all the Al Queda infrastructure in Afghanistan.

That is such B.S. That is just giving way to much credence to airpower. Since that attack there are many liberals that claimed that those attacks achieved absolutely nothing. I am glad Clinton did them but to aver that they took out all of Saddam's WMDs is just blind partisan denial of what is possible. The only way to insure that we got all the WMDs was through a ground invasion.

And the claim that these cruise missles almost brought down the regime - please. During the Gulf War we bombed IIraq mercilessley and two major insurgencies were started and Saddam still held on. But a few cruise missles launched at the country almost brought him down. Yeah right.

And it didn't matter if Saddam was poor after 91. Its not like he cared about his people and he still had money. There was no reason to believe that he didn't start building them again.