Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
Here's an article put out by the Annenberg Political Fact Check group -- which I think is acknowledged by both sides to be evenhanded in its treatment of issues (if I'm not mistaken, Dick Cheney (mis)identified it during the VP debate as support for something he was saying) -- that talks about the Plame/Wilson/Novak/Rove morass.

You do realize that using Factcheck.org here is "going nuclear." If every time someone posted some "fact," it coulkd be disputed using Facctcheck.org, half the banter here would be chilled.

Neither side can dispute Factcheck.org because its absolutely unbiased. I believe it was founded with the directive that it could never take a viewpoint and would be a debate settling instrument.

Funny how you rarely see either the left or the right cite to it.

I predict two things will happen if people start using Factcheck.org here. The right will cobble together nonsense articles from Newsmax.com (Richard Mellon Scaithe's blog, basically) claiming that Factcheck is left leaning. The left will claim Factcheck's stats are incomplete, and cite some pile of rubbish criticism of Factcheck's data as support for that position.

One thing Factcheck will do is pretty much expose the horseshit coming from the "Admin can do no wrong" crowd.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You do realize that using Factcheck.org here is "going nuclear." If every time someone posted some "fact," it coulkd be disputed using Facctcheck.org, half the banter here would be chilled.

Neither side can dispute Factcheck.org because its absolutely unbiased. I believe it was founded with the directive that it could never take a viewpoint and would be a debate settling instrument.

Funny how you rarely see either the left or the right cite to it.

I predict two things will happen if people start using Factcheck.org here. The right will cobble together nonsense articles from Newsmax.com (Richard Mellon Scaithe's blog, basically) claiming that Factcheck is left leaning. The left will claim Factcheck's stats are incomplete, and cite some piles of rubbish criticism as support for that position.

I posted the link before I read the article, so I didn't know which side could claim triumph from it. I think neither. There are nuggets in there for all, although probably more for those who think Rove was inappropriately involved.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Pretty sure it was conceived to save lives, by preventing a nuclear attack (or limiting it). Even in the 80s, we would know within seconds if a nuclear attack were being launched against the US. Our birds would be flying long before they were destroyed by incoming missiles.

Didn't you see war games? jeez.

Matthew Broderick was such a cutie.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
I posted the link before I read the article, so I didn't know which side could claim triumph from it. I think neither. There are nuggets in there for all, although probably more for those who think Rove was inappropriately involved.

I just read the timeline and agree. I think its pretty clear the only potential crime is obstruction or perjury. I don't see any willful disclosure of Plame by Rove.

I love using timelines as exhibits in litigation/trial. They're so impossible to dispute. If you read the Factcheck.org timeline, its impossible not to see a clear pattern of retaliation and covering up a lie.

That Bush used the Yellowcake story even though it was weak indicates that he really had no evidence to support taking us into Iraq. Ostensibly, his best evidence for going to war would be what he cited during his State of the Union speech. So his best evidence was junk, and he later admitted it was false.

In any court except before a California jury, I'd be pretty confident a good prosecutor could convict Bush of lying to get us into Iraq. And I'm pretty confident a good prosecutor could nail most of hiss staff for a variety of conspiracy charges. If not criminally, were there civil liability for what Bush did, I'm sure he'd be found liable.

Its unfortunate thhat the court of public opinion doesn't operate on facts or follow rules of evidence. Bush would have been cooked long ago.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I just read the timeline and agree. I think its pretty clear the only potential crime is obstruction or perjury. I don't see any willful disclosure of Plame by Rove.

I love using timelines as exhibits in litigation/trial. They're so impossible to dispute. If you read the Factcheck.org timeline, its impossible not to see a clear pattern of retaliation and covering up a lie.

That Bush used the Yellowcake story even though it was weak indicates that he really had no evidence to support taking us into Iraq. Ostensibly, his best evidence for going to war would be what he cited during his State of the Union speech. So his best evidence was junk, and he later admitted it was false.

In any court except before a California jury, I'd be pretty confident a good prosecutor could convict Bush of lying to get us into Iraq. And I'm pretty confident a good prosecutor could nail most of hiss staff for a variety of conspiracy charges. If not criminally, were there civil liability for what Bush did, I'm sure he'd be found liable.

Its unfortunate thhat the court of public opinion doesn't operate on facts or follow rules of evidence. Bush would have been cooked long ago.

2. Quick question though: can you remind me why the UN had sanctions in place?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The difference in probability of those two threats is enormous and our relative allocations of resources should reflect that. Let me say this again. I am for SDI spending. Ask anybody on this board, I have argued in favor of it for years and, in fact, post updates on the tests nearly everytime I come across them. But your initial post suggested that anyone who voted against every single SDI bill that came up was an idiot, and that is where we differ.

Yes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yes.

Gatti, I propose that we start the gang of 2.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


In any court except before a California jury, I'd be pretty confident a good prosecutor could convict Bush of lying to get us into Iraq.

Well, if you're forum-shopping, you may actually want to START with a California jury (at least with this topic) instead of, say, one in Alabama.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2. Quick question though: can you remind me why the UN had sanctions in place?

Because after the 1st Gulf War, Sadaam was considered dangerous.

Things changed over the following decade. Quite considerably.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, if you're forum-shopping, you may actually want to START with a California jury (at least with this topic) instead of, say, one in Alabama.

True, but the idea of Gloria Allred, Waxman and Boxer doing live hits outside the courtroom is nausea inducing. Can Boxer become more of a joke? She's so fucking absurdly idealistic and self righteous... And Waxman, although he says some sensible things from time to time, is just such an angry uber-geek. I want to slap him in the lips even when I agree with him.

Gloria Allred should just be taken behind the courthouse and put down, Old Yeller Style. I had enough of her during the OJ trial. WTF did Amber Frye need Allred for? All Amber needed was a damn good agent to get her a book and TV deal.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Because after the 1st Gulf War, Sadaam was considered dangerous.

Things changed over the following decade. Quite considerably.

Obviously. But no one knew that: the UN believed he had weapons or the sanctions would have been gone, he acted like he had them, etc. The "Bush lied" rhetoric ignores all the facts. In essence what Bush said was "given what everyone belives we can't ignore it." I agree.

Guys like Ty answer: if only we let the inspectors keep looking they would have proven there were no weapons.

Problem though was that sadaam kept interfering with inspectors and only really let them in when the US put/kept 200K on the Iraq border.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Obviously. But no one knew that: the UN believed he had weapons or the sanctions would have been gone, he acted like he had them, etc. The "Bush lied" rhetoric ignores all the facts. In essence what Bush said was "given what everyone belives we can't ignore it." I agree.

Guys like Ty answer: if only we let the inspectors keep looking they would have proven there were no weapons.

Problem though was that sadaam kept interfering with inspectors and only really let them in when the US put/kept 200K on the Iraq border.

The UN was our and Israel's rubber stamp on the Iraq sanctions. We pushed for them to remain in place indefinitely, and we had Israel and the Saudis and Kuwaitis backing us up on it. The UN just followed the easiest course. Iraq also did itself no favors by shooting at UN aircraft every now and again.

The timing says it all. Bush had no justification for going to Iraq pre 9/11. Once he got the justification and political capital he needed to do so, he did it. If Iraq were always as real a threat as he claimed post 9/11, Bush would have urged us to go from the day he got elected. But he didn't, did he? I don't recall Bush running on any foreign policy involving us attacking Iraq. In fact, I believe one of his biggest campaign promises was to decrease US troop presence abroad. And Rummy was supposed to be the "Chainsaw Al" style cost cutter at the Pentagon.

Iraq was never a threat until we needed/wanted it to be one. Then it became our convenient first step in the Neocons' Middle East plan.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Obviously. But no one knew that: the UN believed he had weapons or the sanctions would have been gone, he acted like he had them, etc. The "Bush lied" rhetoric ignores all the facts. In essence what Bush said was "given what everyone belives we can't ignore it." I agree.

Guys like Ty answer: if only we let the inspectors keep looking they would have proven there were no weapons.

Problem though was that sadaam kept interfering with inspectors and only really let them in when the US put/kept 200K on the Iraq border.

Others looked at Iraq and saw a problem that could be addressed with containment and inspections. Bush was not content with this, and decided to invade. So far, it looks like a lousy choice. (Sure, Hussein was a bad man, but we haven't exactly installed a form of government preventing another bad man from taking power.) And to get people behind his choice, Bush was, at the very least, reckless and careless with the case he made for war. Since enough Americans have seen The Princess Bride to know that a land war in Asia is a dicey thing, Bush had to persuade people that Iraq was a threat to us. We now know it wasn't.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Others looked at Iraq and saw a problem that could be addressed with containment and inspections. Bush was not content with this, and decided to invade. So far, it looks like a lousy choice. (Sure, Hussein was a bad man, but we haven't exactly installed a form of government preventing another bad man from taking power.)

It also appears that even the American military in theatre is becoming gloomy about the prospects for outright civil war.

• The first signs that America's top officials in Iraq were revising their thinking about what they might accomplish in Iraq came a year ago. As Iraq resumed its sovereignty after the period of American occupation, the new American team that arrived then, headed by Ambassador John D. Negroponte, had a withering term for the optimistic approach of their predecessors, led by L. Paul Bremer III.
  
  The new team called the departing Americans "the illusionists," for their conviction that America could create a Jeffersonian democracy on the ruins of Saddam Hussein's medieval brutalism. One American military commander began his first encounter with American reporters by asking, "Well, gentlemen, tell me: Do you think that events here afford us the luxury of hope?"
  
  It seemed clear then that the administration, for all its public optimism, had begun substituting more modest goals for the idealists' conception of Iraq. How much more modest has become clearer in the 12 months since.
  
  ***
  
  One measure of the doubts afflicting American officials here has been a hedging in the upbeat military assessments that generals usually offer, coupled with a resort to statistics carefully groomed to show progress in curbing the insurgents that seems divorced from realities on the ground. One example of the new "metrics" has been a rush of figures on the buildup of Iraq's army and police force - a program known to many reporters who have been embedded on joint operations as one beset by inadequate training, poor leadership, inadequate weaponry and poor morale.
  
  Officers involved in running the program offer impressive-sounding figures - including the fact that, by mid-June, the Iraqi forces had been given 306 million rounds of ammunition, roughly 12 bullets for each of Iraq's 25 million people. But when one senior American officer involved was asked whether the Americans might end up arming the Iraqis for a civil war, he paused for a moment, then nodded. "Maybe," he said.
  
  ****
  
  Despite these gloomy trends, American commanders have continued to hint at the possibility of at least an initial reduction of the 140,000 American troops stationed here by next summer, contingent on progress in creating effective Iraqi units. Some senior officers have said privately that there is a chance that the pullback will be ordered regardless of what is happening in the war, and that the rationale will be that Iraq - its politicians and its warriors - will ultimately have to find ways of overcoming their divides on their own.
  
  America, these officers seem to be saying, can do only so much, and if Iraqis are hellbent on settling matters violently - at the worst, by civil war - that, in the end, would be their sovereign choice.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Others looked at Iraq and saw a problem that could be addressed with containment and inspections. Bush was not content with this, and decided to invade. So far, it looks like a lousy choice. (Sure, Hussein was a bad man, but we haven't exactly installed a form of government preventing another bad man from taking power.) And to get people behind his choice, Bush was, at the very least, reckless and careless with the case he made for war. Since enough Americans have seen The Princess Bride to know that a land war in Asia is a dicey thing, Bush had to persuade people that Iraq was a threat to us. We now know it wasn't.

He was a threat. That's why the UN had sanctions.

How were we containing them? Wasn't there a need for 200K troops on the border for him to let inspectors in?