Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are truly being ridiculous.

To be fair, I think what he's saying (Ty, not Kerry) is that the guy standing guard outside asked for permission to carry a big stick so that he could scare away bad guys, and we said okay, here's your stick, but then he went and clobbered some bad guy with it, which is far beyond the scope of use he implied that he would make of it.

It's at least colorable, but it's weak as hell. You can't issue the stick and then claim that you never meant for it to be used. If you wanted the use limited to "only hit people who are trying to come in", you would say so up front. You wouldn't say that it was obvious that that's what you meant later, after he hit someone with it. Unless you were covering your tracks.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are truly being ridiculous.

Do you guys (I throw this out to whomever) think that there was a non-war option for Bush once he got the congressional vote? In other words, do you think an inspection regime could have succeeded in verifying disarmament, or was that always a big dance number drawing attention away from our underlying need to change regimes?

Actually curious here, flames are still welcome of course.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's the biggest crock of shit, if that accurately reflects his position. And certainly reflects more than simply giving discretion to the president.

That was the stupid thing he said a month ago, at the Grand Canyon. As I recall, I said it was stupid then. However, what he said to Imus this morning isn't as stupid and doesn't contradicted it, which is what club said.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
However, what he said to Imus this morning isn't as stupid and doesn't contradict it . . .

It's still early.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
To be fair, I think what he's saying (Ty, not Kerry) is that the guy standing guard outside asked for permission to carry a big stick so that he could scare away bad guys, and we said okay, here's your stick, but then he went and clobbered some bad guy with it, which is far beyond the scope of use he implied that he would make of it.

Not exactly. "....but then he went and clobbered Iraq with it even after we learned that Iraq didn't have any WMD, and he did it without involving the UN (etc.), and without planning for the post-war." And there's no complaint about implied scope of us that I see -- the point is not that Bush said he wouldn't go to war if there were no WMD, because few were thinking about that contingency.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
In other words, do you think an inspection regime could have succeeded in verifying disarmament, .

Hussein had many, many chances to allow the verification, and stymied it each time over a period of 10 years. He showed no signs of changing, apparently believing that no one, including Bush (most curiously) would, in fact, call his bluff. Why he made that grave miscalculation we'll likely never know, but he did.

I'm pretty confident that given unfettered access to the country we would have found any WMD currently existing. In fact, I think that last 18 months have proven that definitively. Why Hussein required war to get us to that result is beyond me.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not exactly. "....but then he went and clobbered Iraq with it even after we learned that Iraq didn't have any WMD, and he did it without involving the UN (etc.), and without planning for the post-war."

But, Ty, Kerry (nor anyone in Congress), tied the authorization to that very question. Congress could have rejected the authorization on the ground that it was not convinced about WMD, with a resolution to reconsider upon more proof. It didn't. How can anyone who voted for the war say otherwise? because it was politics? like voting against the $87 billion after voting for the $87 billion?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's the biggest crock of shit, if that accurately reflects his position.

It's no more confusing that Bush changing and re-changing his explanation for invading Iraq. Actually, THAT is the biggest crock of shit. There is no bigger crock. Of shit.

"Oh, did I say WMD's and immediate danger? Oh I'm sorry, I meant democracy and humanitarian reasons. Carry on!"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"....but then he went and clobbered Iraq with it even after we learned that Iraq didn't have any WMD,

We didn't learn that till after we clobbered it, did we?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm pretty confident that given unfettered access to the country we would have found any WMD currently existing. In fact, I think that last 18 months have proven that definitively.

Not finding them proves they existed?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But, Ty, Kerry (nor anyone in Congress), tied the authorization to that very question. Congress could have rejected the authorization on the ground that it was not convinced about WMD, with a resolution to reconsider upon more proof. It didn't. How can anyone who voted for the war say otherwise? because it was politics? like voting against the $87 billion after voting for the $87 billion?

Kerry got to vote on the authorization that he got to vote on. Not to shock you or anything, but he's not actually part of the GOP leadership in the Senate. Congress could have done a lot of things. Kerry voted on one specific alternative.

And if your point is that Congress was misled about WMD, I assume that leaves inclined to vote out the people who presided over the executive branch at the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We didn't learn that till after we clobbered it, did we?

Only if by "we" you mean people other than, e.g., Blix, and by "learn" you mean "confirm what Blix told us by occupying the country and looking under every rock ourselves."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm pretty confident that given unfettered access to the country we would have found any WMD currently existing. In fact, I think that last 18 months have proven that definitively. Why Hussein required war to get us to that result is beyond me.

If those insurgents would stop shooting at us and let us democratize them, we could leave and they could just elect whomever they want. Why they insist on fighting about it is beyond me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only if by "we" you mean people other than, e.g., Blix, and by "learn" you mean "confirm what Blix told us by occupying the country and looking under every rock ourselves."

Oh. I thought Blix had said that on the first day of the invasion, he was pretty sure we'd find them. Maybe that was just a Foxnews story.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But, Ty, Kerry (nor anyone in Congress), tied the authorization to that very question. Congress could have rejected the authorization on the ground that it was not convinced about WMD, with a resolution to reconsider upon more proof. It didn't.

Theoretically Congress could have done this, but it was politically impossible after a fear-mongering adminstration whipped the country into a war frenzy mainly on the 9/11 and WMD issues.