Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
They repeatedly characterize North Korea as a threat to the US. Ya know why? 'Cuz it is.

As you know from what I've posted on this board, I agree.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But I know you . . .

Like cyberknow or know IRL?

I have pictures in my mind of what you all look like IRL. I picture you all as younger than me, even bilmore. Yet even though I know that is not the case, I still picture all of you as younger. There is significance in this somewhere but I am too buzzed to pick up on it.

Oh wait, correction. I picture Hank as older than me. And tanner.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You guys are all fucking incredible. The only reason the right had to get into this word parsing to begin with is because the left began the "Bush Lied" campaign.

WTF? The Administration hyped the threat to us posed by Iraq to get public support for the war because they knew the public would not support other justifications, like the one you like -- draining the swamp. The public did not want to send American kids to die unless our country was threatened, so the Administration told us it was. They may even have believed they would be proven right once they took over Iraq. But they weren't. You are the one who is parsing words -- as someone else (ncs?) pointed out, we all know what impression the Administration was trying to leave.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
As you know from what I've posted on this board, I agree.

But would you characterize them as an imminent threat?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. But if you're saying that they said Iraq was an imminent threat, but that they said this because those words are a term of art under NATO agreements, . . .

No, I mean that, in the NATO governance rules, when one member nation (i.e., Pakistan) wishes to invoke immediate NATO protection, it invokes a specific rule subsection (don't remember the name or number) that labels the threat to that member nation as "Imminent". That's the conversation that was being had at that time. Completely separate from what we're speaking of. Only reason it comes up is that, when bloggers google "imminent", you get things out of context.

(ETA - maybe I need to add - Pakistan was being pressured by us to request that NATO rule invocation so that we could move in right away to protect it from SH. To do so, one reads the rule language and makes the specifically-called-for request to NATO, using the word "imminent" that is contained in the rule.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
I picture you all as younger than me, even bilmore.

I'm actually twenty-four.

That's in penguin years, though.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
But would you characterize them as an imminent threat?

Dunno.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I mean that, in the NATO governance rules, when one member nation (i.e., Pakistan) wishes to invoke immediate NATO protection, it invokes a specific rule subsection (don't remember the name or number) that labels the threat to that member nation as "Imminent". That's the conversation that was being had at that time. Completely separate from what we're speaking of. Only reason it comes up is that, when bloggers google "imminent", you get things out of context.

(ETA - maybe I need to add - Pakistan was being pressured by us to request that NATO rule invocation so that we could move in right away to protect it from SH. To do so, one reads the rule language and makes the specifically-called-for request to NATO, using the word "imminent" that is contained in the rule.)

You mean Turkey. So you are suggesting that Iraq was an imminent threat to Turkey, but not to us?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You mean Turkey. So you are suggesting that Iraq was an imminent threat to Turkey, but not to us?

Yeah, I mean Turkey.

No, I'm suggesting that we were asking Turkey to say that so we could stage out of there.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Statement 1 specifically calls out nuclear threats. Statement 2 references threats in general. Also, he's making the case for war, so there is some selling going on.

This leaves two possibilities --

1. He thought Iraq was an immediate threat, making statements consistent with that belief that he now is trying to take back.
2. He did not think Iraq was an immediate threat and he parsed words extra super carefully when he was interviewed so that later he could deny ever having said "Iraq is an immediate threat."

I doubt that any of the people arguing with you here think that possibility 2 is correct. I certainly don't ascribe evil motives to him or efforts to deceive the American public into war. I think that the break-down between your (and bilmore's) position on this and what generally others are saying is that it seems pretty clear to most of us from a first-time watching of the Meet the Press video that Rumsfeld got caught up by his own quotes. You guys want to say that hypothetically he could have said these things and have it not equal the very thing he was denying, but if you take a step back and pretend for a moment that instead of Rumsfeld it was a democrat on Meet the Press who said and did exactly what he said and did, you would have the impression that the rest of us currently have.

Why not just stand up and say - "Yes, when we went to war we thought that the threat was more immediate than it has proven to be. We still think it was a good decision because we got that bastard dictator out."

We didn't start the parsing words battle tonight. Club did. I think we all basically thought that the MtP segment spoke for itself. You guys showed that people could defend the position that it [MtP] didn't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, I mean Turkey.

No, I'm suggesting that we were asking Turkey to say that so we could stage out of there.

I understand now. But I think that's silly. There were a lot of statements made for public consumption. If we needed Turkey to take that position, it didn't need to broadcast to the American public. The Administration was hyping the threat to build public support. They may even have feared that Iraq had more than the intel people thought, and gambled that they would be shown right.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Why not just stand up and say - "Yes, when we went to war we thought that the threat was more immediate than it has proven to be. We still think it was a good decision because we got that bastard dictator out."

Yes, when we went to war we thought that the threat was more immediate than it has proven to be. We still think it was a good decision because we got that bastard dictator out.

I think this has been acknowledged over and over again here. No WMD (nukes) so far, which really lowers the threat level, and an army that was underequipped and undertrained. Hindsight is wonderful - but this argument has it's roots in the insistance of some here to continually harp that "Bush lied", and that's (in my mind) not the case at all. I forget who keeps saying this, but ask Ty - he's the mod, and will remember.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I understand now. But I think that's silly. There were a lot of statements made for public consumption. If we needed Turkey to take that position, it didn't need to broadcast to the American public.

I'm missing this somehow. Invocation of NATO help between nations is a very public process. This wasn't something that could be helped. Plus, if I remember correctly, the timing on this would have been wrong for the idea that "imminent", in this context, was being used to Pump You Up.

(ETA - maybe forget that last sentence - as I think about it, I don't remember for certain when this occurred.)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
This leaves two possibilities --

1. He thought Iraq was an immediate threat, making statements consistent with that belief that he now is trying to take back.
2. He did not think Iraq was an immediate threat and he parsed words extra super carefully when he was interviewed so that later he could deny ever having said "Iraq is an immediate threat."

I doubt that any of the people arguing with you here think that possibility 2 is correct.

I wouldnt' have gone with 2, but club is making me think that 2 must be the answer.

Good job clublette!

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yes, when we went to war we thought that the threat was more immediate than it has proven to be. We still think it was a good decision because we got that bastard dictator out.

Well okay then. My work here is done.