An Homage To Mr. Svinlesha

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Starving:

I simply disagree. So-called proof can be wrong, as can anything involving human endeavor. But that doesn’t mean those who believe it are liars if events show that proof to be wrong.

Indeed, this is true.

However, what we are claiming is that Bush and other members of his administration knew, flat out, that the evidence they presented to support the case for war was questionable, but chose to present to the American public as ”incontrovertible proof” anyway. They wilfully lied about the nature of the evidence they presented. This isn’t a matter of being mislead in good faith by evidence that turned out to be incorrect; it is a matter of doing everything in their power to misrepresent inconclusive evidence as incontrovertible, agreed-upon matters of fact.

For example, consider the following, taken from Fury’s New York Times article, linked on the first page:

*In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had “irrefutable evidence” - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration’s brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein’s revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” Condoleezza Rice, the president’s national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice’s staff had been told that the government’s foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.*

Now, this is a fact. I know, because prior to the war Sam Stone and I had a very long, in-depth debate about the nature of these tubes. I sought to demonstrate in that discussion that the administration’s claims about the aluminium tubes were flat out false. I eventually succeeded in convincing Sam that my view was correct, although he later recanted.

Continuing:

*Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America’s leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration’s most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.*

The article goes on to describe the work of a single CIA specialist, whom they call “Joe,” who was the sole proponent of the thesis that the aluminium tubes were intended for uranium centrifuges. This is not the first time I’ve seen Joe mentioned in articles about the tubes. In this particular case,

*Suddenly, Joe’s work was ending up in classified intelligence reports being read in the White House. Indeed, his analysis was the primary basis for one of the agency’s first reports on the tubes, which went to senior members of the Bush administration on April 10, 2001. The tubes, the report asserted, “have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program.”

This alarming assessment was immediately challenged by the Energy Department, which builds centrifuges and runs the government’s nuclear weapons complex.

The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges. Simply put, the analysis concluded that the tubes were the wrong size - too narrow, too heavy, too long - to be of much practical use in a centrifuge.

What was more, the analysis reasoned, if the tubes were part of a secret, high-risk venture to build a nuclear bomb, why were the Iraqis haggling over prices with suppliers all around the world? And why weren’t they shopping for all the other sensitive equipment needed for centrifuges?

All fine questions. But if the tubes were not for a centrifuge, what were they for?

Within weeks, the Energy Department experts had an answer.

It turned out, they reported, that Iraq had for years used high-strength aluminum tubes to make combustion chambers for slim rockets fired from launcher pods. Back in 1996, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency had even examined some of those tubes, also made of 7075-T6 aluminum, at a military complex, the Nasser metal fabrication plant in Baghdad, where the Iraqis acknowledged making rockets. According to the international agency, the rocket tubes, some 66,000 of them, were 900 millimeters in length, with a diameter of 81 millimeters and walls 3.3 millimeters thick.

The tubes now sought by Iraq had precisely the same dimensions - a perfect match.*

To counter these arguments, Joe argued that the tubes were designed to specifications far exceeding anything necessary for rocket casings. This argument also turned out to be false.

After a shipment of these tubes were intercepted by US intelligence forces, they were further analysed by specialists. Their conclusion:

*On Aug. 17, 2001, weeks before the twin towers fell, the team published a secret Technical Intelligence Note, a detailed analysis that laid out its doubts about the tubes’ suitability for centrifuges.

First, in size and material, the tubes were very different from those Iraq had used in its centrifuge prototypes before the first gulf war. Those models used tubes that were nearly twice as wide and made of exotic materials that performed far better than aluminum. “Aluminum was a huge step backwards,” Dr. Wood recalled.

In fact, the team could find no centrifuge machines “deployed in a production environment” that used such narrow tubes. Their walls were three times too thick for “favorable use” in a centrifuge, the team wrote. They were also anodized, meaning they had a special coating to protect them from weather. Anodized tubes, the team pointed out, are “not consistent” with a uranium centrifuge because the coating can produce bad reactions with uranium gas.

In other words, if Joe and his Winpac colleagues were right, it meant that Iraq had chosen to forsake years of promising centrifuge work and instead start from scratch, with inferior material built to less-than-optimal dimensions.

The Energy Department experts did not think that made much sense. They concluded that using the tubes in centrifuges “is credible but unlikely, and a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes.” Similar conclusions were being reached by Britain’s intelligence service and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body.*

British and UN specialist reached similar conclusions.

The tubes were intercepted in June of 2001. The conclusions of these specialist were made known to administration officials before the end of 2001. Yet here we have Condoleeza Rice, proclaiming on national TV, that these tube were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” in September of 2002. A lie? Or simply an example of total incompetence? The call is yours.

Note now the following example of doublespeak: Cheney, in August of 2002.

We now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he declared, words that quickly made headlines worldwide. “Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon, we cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances.”

If intelligence is an uncertain business, as Cheney claims, then how can he know that Saddam was attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon? In fact, after the invasion, this administration consistently exploited the ”uncertainty” of intelligence information as an explanation for why they were unable to locate any ”WMDs.” Yet, prior to the war, there was no uncertainty whatsoever in their assertions.

To claim that you know something for a fact, when, in actuality, you do not – is this not a lie?

*In his Nashville speech, Mr. Cheney had not mentioned the aluminum tubes or any other fresh intelligence when he said, “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.” The one specific source he did cite was Hussein Kamel al-Majid, a son-in-law of Mr. Hussein’s who defected in 1994 after running Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. But Mr. Majid told American intelligence officials in 1995 that Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled. What’s more, Mr. Majid could not have had any insight into Mr. Hussein’s current nuclear activities: he was assassinated in 1996 on his return to Iraq.…

The White House did much to increase the impact of The Times’ article. The morning it was published, Mr. Cheney went on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” and confirmed when asked that the tubes were the most alarming evidence behind the administration’s view that Iraq had resumed its nuclear weapons program. The tubes, he said, had “raised our level of concern.” Ms. Rice, the national security adviser, went on CNN and said the tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.”

Neither official mentioned that the nation’s top nuclear design experts believed overwhelmingly that the tubes were poorly suited for centrifuges….

Not only did Mr. Cheney draw attention to the tubes; he did so with a certitude that could not be found in even the C.I.A.'s assessments. On “Meet the Press,” Mr. Cheney said he knew “for sure” and “in fact” and “with absolute certainty” that Mr. Hussein was buying equipment to build a nuclear weapon.

“He has reconstituted his nuclear program,” Mr. Cheney said flatly.*

I cannot see how this could have been an honest mistake on Cheney’s part, who by this point must have been very well aware of the debate surrounding the tubes.

In addition, for Sam Stone (should he ever read this), here’s the money quote:

Such “key judgments” are supposed to reflect the very best American intelligence. (The Niger intelligence, for example, was considered too shaky to be included as a key judgment.) Yet as they studied raw intelligence reports, those involved in the Senate investigation came to a sickening realization. "We kept looking at the intelligence and saying, ‘My God, there’s nothing here,’ " one official recalled.

Just as I kept telling him, over and over, prior to the war.

Observe, as well, the rationale behind one of the greatest not-lies of my lifetime:

*On Jan. 27, the international agency rendered its judgment: it told the Security Council that it had found no evidence of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq. “From our analysis to date,” the agency reported, “it appears that the aluminum tubes would be consistent with the purpose stated by Iraq and, unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges.”

The next night, during his State of the Union address, President Bush cited I.A.E.A. findings from years past that confirmed that Mr. Hussein had had an “advanced” nuclear weapons program in the 1990’s. He did not mention the agency’s finding from the day before….

**The senior administration official also said the president’s words were carefully chosen to reflect the doubts at the Energy Department. The crucial phrase was “suitable for nuclear weapons production.” The phrase stopped short of asserting that the tubes were actually being used in centrifuges. And it was accurate in the sense that Energy Department officials always left open the possibility that the tubes could be modified for use in a centrifuge.

“There were differences,” the official said, “and we had to address those differences.”***

I invite the reader to re-read that statement a time or two in order to let it sink in. In the view of the White Hose, the very serious doubts expressed by experts regarding the potential use of the tubes was fairly dealt with by the wording of the sentence: they said ”suitable for,” not ”actually being used.” Still, this did not stop the President from asserting that ”Clearly, Saddam has many things to hide.” In fact, is really quite evident that it was the White House that had many things to hide.

Finally, with regard to this, Starving:

I suspect it’s because one was a Democrat and could therefore do no wrong, and the other is a Republican and can therefore do no right.

It is beneath to you make such an accusation against me, and beneath me to respond to it.

Please withdraw it at once.

[SteveG1]

For those of us (like me) who prefer the condensed Readers Digest version, they fucking lied.

[Sevastopol]

@Liberal

Yeah, I got one. Was Hillary Clinton lying when she said this?

Quote:

“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. **Should he succeed **in that endeavor, he **could **alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security. This much is undisputed.” — October 10, 2002.

(Emphasis mine.)

Can do this one on your own? Try and see:

Question 1: What is the salient feature of the quote?

• Hint 1* : The bolding is a clue

• Hint 2* : Certain other parties may have expressed an opinion on the region in a way that was materially different.

[Starving_Artist]

@Mr. Svinlesha

Finally, with regard to this, Starving:It is beneath to you make such an accusation against me, and beneath me to respond to it.

Please withdraw it at once.

Mr. Svin, I feel badly when someone goes to all the trouble to research and organize and post a message such as yours just above and I don’t have the time to do it justice. Unfortunately that is the situation just now. I wouldn’t even be logged in right now but for seeing this message appear in my email…but I did want to address the point above.

The quote of mine you post above was intended for blowero, as was the entire post you took the quote from. I know you are intelligent enough to know that and I’m surprised you have chosen to extrapolate from what I said a blanket condemnation of all of those who feel as you do, and that you therefore take it upon yourself to feel insulted as you are a member of that same group. People who feel the same way about a certain issue can still choose to be insulting in how they interact with their opponents – such as is common with blowero, or they can be civil, level-headed and pleasant as you usually are (hence the OP to this very thread).

In short, I won’t be retracting my comment as you request because it wasn’t directed at you. You and I have a respectful history. Please don’t see insults where none were intended.

Regards.

[Starving_Artist]

@SteveG1

For those of us (like me) who prefer the condensed Readers Digest version, they fucking lied.

Oh, yeah? Oh, yeah?..Well, that’s just what you say!

[Sevastopol]

Because it bears re-posting and reflects on the colourful “Everybody thought he had them” claim.

What British Intelligence really did think:

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

And for nostalgia’s sake:

…

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam’s medium and long-range missiles programmes.

…

On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

Smart man that Robin Cook.

[New_Iskander]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

Isk, my man, perhaps you should stick to reading stuff at your level of comprehension.

Like, oh, I dunno, maybe “My Pet Goat”?

Look, I thought I made it perfectly clear that I prefer Red Fury’s wrath to Mr. Svinlesha’s masticated pap.

What are you, some kind of stupid?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

[Ronald Reagan]

There you go again.

[/Ronald Reagan]

[Starving_Artist]

All right, this is getting scary!

First SteveG1 agrees with me (not necessarily here, I might add), not once but a couple of times…and now EddyTeddyFreddy is running around quoting Ronald Reagan!

What the hell is going on?

I know Halloween is just around the corner but this is getting downright freaky!

[SteveG1]

It even worse than that, it’s confusing. Right. Now then just who was I fighting with this time?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Starving Artist

All right, this is getting scary!

First SteveG1 agrees with me (not necessarily here, I might add), not once but a couple of times…and now EddyTeddyFreddy is running around quoting Ronald Reagan!

What the hell is going on?

I know Halloween is just around the corner but this is getting downright freaky!

Yes, and when you took the “Which one would you shoot?” test you came out as a “typical Democrat”. Unbeknownst to you, this is all a Diabolical Plot[sup]TM[/sup] to wean you from your GOPartisanship. And it’s working!

Heh. At this rate, by November 2nd we’ll have you pulling the lever for John Kerry.

BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

:: snerk ::

[blowero]

@Starving Artist

How do mean that Bush “lied” if you don’t mean that he intentionally deceived the American public into believing that Iraq had WMD when he knew it didn’t. Are we back again to Moore’s assertion that he lied because he said something that ultimately proved inaccurate? Are we calling noble people of hundreds of years past liars because they contended the Earth was flat?

O.K., third time now. I don’t think you’re ever gonna get this, but I guess I like banging my head against the wall. Bush lied because he said he had proof. He did NOT necessarily have to believe there were no WMDs for it to be a lie. If he thought or suspected that there were WMDs, but had no solid evidence, BUT SAID ANYWAY that he did have solid evidence, then it’s a lie.

Consider this example: Police Officer Smith believes that Mr. Jones committed murder. Officer Smith tells a grand jury that he has matched a slug in the body to a gun owned by Mr. Jones. But Officer Smith knows he has no such slug. Officer Smith is lying. EVEN THOUGH HE BELIEVES JONES IS GUILTY, IT IS STILL TRUE THAT HE IS LYING. Are you getting this yet?

Twice I’ve said this, and twice you have said Bush would have had to KNOW there weren’t any WMDs. That’s wrong. It’s just wrong. Incorrect. Illogical. So stop saying it, because it’s wrong.

Need I point out that Bush has many advisors. How many do you suppose counselled that the evidence was likely valid?

I suppose zero. Why, do you know of someone who did so? The “yellowcake” document ostensibly bore the signature of a government official, but that person did not hold that office at the time the document was dated. It was an obvious forgery. Tenet has said that he advised the president not to rely on that evidence. I am not aware of anyone who advised the president otherwise. Are you?

Why do you apparently accept Tenet’s word as the end all and be all of the true activity going on in Iraq?

Excuse me, but if it’s not the job of the head of the Central Intelligence Agency to provide intelligence, exactly whose job is it?

You have no idea, based on your own personsal knowledge, as to what had been discredited at that time or not.

Yes I do. Tenet said himself that it had been discredited. Are you paying attention to what I’m saying at all?

Your post is a classic example of someone picking and choosing his quotes and evidence and the weight they should be given based on his own preconceived notions.

How you arrive at that conclusion is beyond me.

And by the way, Mr. S has provided a plethora of additional evidence that Bush lied. It doesn’t matter whether you were addressing him or not, it still proves you are wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blowero
Because in Bush’s case, he put the cart before the horse. He had already decided to invade Iraq, and then pressured the intelligence agencies to come up with an excuse.

There is absolutely no way you have any such knowledge of your own that he did anything of the sort. Therefore, this is just what you believe.

Wrong. I know this because White House insiders who left their jobs, most notably Richard Clarke, have said so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blowero
And to compare this to the Cuban Missile Crisis is absurd. IIRC, they had PHOTOS of the missiles. What evidence did we have for Saddam’s WMDs? Nothing - just a bunch of hype.

Well, this brings up two questions. IIRC, I believe there were supposed to be at various times photos of mobile chemical weapons labs here and there.

Those weren’t chemical weapons labs; they just said they were.

And secondly, are you saying there can be no “proof” without PHOTOS. Are PHOTOS to be the only proof that is acceptable to you? And if so, what about modern technology that can so easily alter them.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I said the Cuban Missle Crisis is not an analagous situation to Iraq, because the evidence was much more clear for the former. Period.

The JFK analogy was to illustrate that no president has first hand knowledge of the things he must either accept or reject as fact.

So what?

[Liberal]

@Blowero

You might believe that John Edwards (the psychic) has clairvoyant abilities, but if you claim to have scientifically proven it, when you know you have not, then you are lying.

The alleged psychic is John Edward.

[Liberal]

@sevastopol

(Emphasis mine.)

Can do this one on your own? Try and see:

So, you’re saying that Hillary intended her summary assertion — “This much is undisputed.” — to apply only to bits and pieces of words and phrases from what she had just said? I can accept that. She is nothing if not conniving and dishonest. Incidentally, you left the subject out of your condescending attempt at a bitch-slap. If you’re going to pretend to be superior, you need at least to proofread your sissy-ass scribbles.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

So, you’re saying that Hillary intended her summary assertion — “This much is undisputed.” — to apply only to bits and pieces of words and phrases from what she had just said? I can accept that. She is nothing if not conniving and dishonest. Incidentally, you left the subject out of your condescending attempt at a bitch-slap. If you’re going to pretend to be superior, you need at least to proofread your sissy-ass scribbles.

Let’s try this one again.

@Liberal

“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security. This much is undisputed.” — October 10, 2002.

Firstly, you’re asking us to accept that you yourself are not lying about this quote. Where did it come from? Please cite the source.

Secondly, you’ve ignored RedFury’s post where he pointed out the obvious “if left unchecked” part.

Thirdly, there are the “should he succeed” and “could” bits.

Fourthly, you admitted in your “Trolling” thread that you are quite prepared to lie in order to win brownie points in debates. Why should anyone give a fuck about anything you have to say?

[ElvisL1ves]

@sevastopol

(Emphasis mine.)

Then you’ll take responsibility for an attempt to mislead, won’t you?

Question 1: What is the salient feature of the quote?

The words “If left unchecked”.

• Hint 1*: He wasn’t left unchecked, as you damn well know.

Now try again.

[Liberal]

@Desmostylus

Firstly, you’re asking us to accept that you yourself are not lying about this quote. Where did it come from? Please cite the source.

The source is the Congressional Record for the Senate on October 10, 2002, page S10288. If you are unfamiliar with the Congressional Record or how to retrieve data from it, just ask and I’ll assist you. Incidentally, in that same speech, she noted that it was her husband who had established the US policy of regime change in Iraq: “In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.”

Secondly, you’ve ignored RedFury’s post where he pointed out the obvious “if left unchecked” part.

The context of that, of course, was the debate on the Senate floor over whether to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. She voted in favor of the invasion. You can consult the same records to find her vote. Again, let me know if you need assistance.

Thirdly, there are the “should he succeed” and “could” bits.

In her speech, she conceded, despite a lack of evidence of direct involvement in 9/11 by Saddam, that he assisted Al-Qaeda and that intelligence reports indicated he was actively rebuilding his WMD arsenal: “In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.”

Fourthly, you admitted in your “Trolling” thread that you are quite prepared to lie in order to win brownie points in debates.

As usual, you’re confused. What I actually said was that lying is allowed and that “liar” is an ad hominem that is allowed in Great Debates. I even explained that exact point to Daniel, saying that I was not endorsing lying, but merely stating that it took place. He and I eventually agreed that certain forms of deception (but not lying) were acceptable in debate. Our only point of disagreement was whether to call the acceptable forms of deception “deception”.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

The source is the Congressional Record for the Senate on October 10, 2002, page S10288. If you are unfamiliar with the Congressional Record or how to retrieve data from it, just ask and I’ll assist you. Incidentally, in that same speech, she noted that it was her husband who had established the US policy of regime change in Iraq: “In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.”

Found it. If you had the link, you might have simply posted it. I can’t see any point to your incidental comment. Clinton ordered the bombings in 1998. Is there anyone here who doesn’t know this, or disputes this?

@Liberal

The context of that, of course, was the debate on the Senate floor over whether to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. She voted in favor of the invasion. You can consult the same records to find her vote. Again, let me know if you need assistance.

ISTM that she didn’t technically vote in favor of invasion. Technically, she voted in favor of giving the Chimp a gun, which was foolish, because he shot ya’ll in the foot with it.

@Liberal

In her speech, she conceded, despite a lack of evidence of direct involvement in 9/11 by Saddam, that he assisted Al-Qaeda and that intelligence reports indicated he was actively rebuilding his WMD arsenal: “In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.”

Well, she did preface that with “intelligence reports show that…”, and we know now that there were some problems with those reports. Problems she may not have been privvy to.

@Liberal

As usual, you’re confused. What I actually said was that lying is allowed and that “liar” is an ad hominem that is allowed in Great Debates. I even explained that exact point to Daniel, saying that I was not endorsing lying, but merely stating that it took place. He and I eventually agreed that certain forms of deception (but not lying) were acceptable in debate. Our only point of disagreement was whether to call the acceptable forms of deception “deception”.

Ain’t many people round here who are actually decieved by you anymore. You call it deception, most people call it lying.

[Liberal]

If nothing else, I am encouraged that you and I are speaking to one another, on topic, and engaging the issues. Rather than draw this exhange out into a trainwreck, I’ll stop here in the hopes that you and I have planted the seeds of future reconciliation. Thanks for taking the first step and allowing me to respond in kind.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

If nothing else, I am encouraged that you and I are speaking to one another, on topic, and engaging the issues. Rather than draw this exhange out into a trainwreck, I’ll stop here in the hopes that you and I have planted the seeds of future reconciliation. Thanks for taking the first step and allowing me to respond in kind.

You’ve temporarily boosted yourself up from “Total loon” to “Republican hack”. That’s an improvement, sorta.