Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

Perhgaps I need to rephrase. Say SH stopped taking the crazy pills and actually let the inspectors go everywhere we thought they needed to go to verify what we have seemingly verified since the war. Do you believe that there was a possibility that Bush would have said "OK, no WMDs, Iraq must stay disarmed, but we can bring our boys home"?

This is probably a stupid hypo, but at any rate I think our invasion was inevitable by the time UN passed its reso and the inspectors went in. I'm curious if the admin's supporters feel the same way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Say SH stopped taking the crazy pills and actually let the inspectors go everywhere we thought they needed to go to verify what we have seemingly verified since the war.

You don't even need to call him crazy, something which the MSM does all the time when talking about Arab leaders. He's a secular nationalist dictator. His legitimacy, such as it is, is based on his power and on standing up to the West. So he's going to let foreign inspectors walk all over the country? I don't think so.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You don't even need to call him crazy, something which the MSM does all the time when talking about Arab leaders. He's a secular nationalist dictator. His legitimacy, such as it is, is based on his power and on standing up to the West. So he's going to let foreign inspectors walk all over the country? I don't think so.

You're right, to a point. But at some point a rational secular nationalist dictator (a job I someday hope to have) has to realize that taking his chances with a population that thinks he knuckled under the West is a better bet than taking on the most powerful army in the world. I mean, the guy had enough thugs on the payroll, you would think he could risk some of his "legitimacy".

Trent: "I'm telling you baby you always double down on 11"
Mike: "Yeah, obviously not always"
Trent: "Always baby"
Mike: "I lost OK! How can you say always???"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
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.

SS and i are always on the same line, just opposite side- yin yan.
See to me the above proves that JFK won't make the tough decisions to stand for what he thinks right. What do you think it means SS?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Perhgaps I need to rephrase. Say SH stopped taking the crazy pills and actually let the inspectors go everywhere we thought they needed to go to verify what we have seemingly verified since the war. Do you believe that there was a possibility that Bush would have said "OK, no WMDs, Iraq must stay disarmed, but we can bring our boys home"?

Yes, with the condition that inspections remained ongoing for the foreseeable future.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, with the condition that inspections remained ongoing for the foreseeable future.

If you believe that was a possibility, then it made sense for Kerry to vote to authorize and yet to oppose the war. It's really that simple.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, with the condition that inspections remained ongoing for the foreseeable future.

So what happens to the other justifications for invasion (humanitarian crisis, forward strategy of democracy, etc)? Do they just get ignored?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you believe that was a possibility, then it made sense for Kerry to vote to authorize and yet to oppose the war. It's really that simple.

No it doesn't, unless that condition is specifically set forth in the resolution. If his support for authorization was conditional, then he should not have voted for an unconditional approval.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
So what happens to the other justifications for invasion (humanitarian crisis, forward strategy of democracy, etc)? Do they just get ignored?

That's a good question. But again, if Congress wanted to limit the authority to the WMD issue/resolution 1441, it should have done so in the resolution. I can't remember if it did or not.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

I realize you know you can't stretch your story to account for this, but I do want to make sure you know that I know you know.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No it doesn't, unless that condition is specifically set forth in the resolution. If his support for authorization was conditional, then he should not have voted for an unconditional approval.

When Congress passes a law criminalizing certain behavior, this is not seen as a statement that the behavior must be punished in all circumstances. We all still understand that prosecutors have some discretion in how they do their job.

And you are twisted words beyond their recognition. Kerry's support for authorization wasn't conditional. His support for a war was. If Saddam Hussein had converted to Christianity and free trade and thrown his borders open to Southern Baptists and Wall Street Journal vendors, there isn't a Senator who would have supported a war, but not one of them voted to limit the authorization accordingly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I realize you know you can't stretch your story to account for this, but I do want to make sure you know that I know you know.

I thought you were essentially conceding that you were making shit up, so I wasn't bothering to respond. Do you really think that's what Blix thought on day one of the war? I don't think so. eta: See, e.g., this review of Blix's book.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6010222/site/newsweek/

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When Congress passes a law criminalizing certain behavior, this is not seen as a statement that the behavior must be punished in all circumstances. We all still understand that prosecutors have some discretion in how they do their job.

And you are twisted words beyond their recognition. Kerry's support for authorization wasn't conditional. His support for a war was. If Saddam Hussein had converted to Christianity and free trade and thrown his borders open to Southern Baptists and Wall Street Journal vendors, there isn't a Senator who would have supported a war, but not one of them voted to limit the authorization accordingly.

The distinction you draw is exactly why I said that someone should force him to answer the question of what he would have done had he been president. I suspect he has been asked this before, and has answered by saying he authorized the war as a Senator. Take a stand flipper, take a stand.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The distinction you draw is exactly why I said that someone should force him to answer the question of what he would have done had he been president. I suspect he has been asked this before, and has answered by saying he authorized the war as a Senator. Take a stand flipper, take a stand.

Is it not obvious from what he told Imus that he supported continued containment? I.e., hold Hussein accountable, but don't invade. Why don't you try to find statements of his that you disagree with instead of attacking him for the positions you hypothesize you hold? It's surely easier to do it your way, but it has a difficulty rating of 0.2.

And while you're asking for Kerry's positions on things, what's Bush's position on Iraq? What's his plan to fix things? 'Cause "more of the same" ain't working.