Well, there goes any respect I had had for you (and it was quite a bit).
You’re demonstrated that you are a true and loyal member of the GOP Right Wing - “I’ve got mine - screw you!” I really had thought better of you. Well done.
Don’t you people see - the point is that Bricker was right. He said that Bush would win, and some other people (including me) said that Kerry would win. Bricker even bet on it, and he won! Bricker has been dancing about that for six months now! Nothing else matters. It doesn’t matter why or how or who. All that matters is that Bricker was right! Let it be marked! Let it be membered! Bricker won!
(If anybody expected honor, decency, dignity, or integrity from Bricker, all I can say is: Welcome to the Straight Dope Boards! I’m sure you’ll enjoy it, once you get to know your way around.)
Bricker, in early 2003 I was working in a building where our mission was to present the facts as we saw them to higher headquarters. A building full of career analysts all said the same thing: “there is no evidence to support the assertion that Iraq has X or has done Y. It’s possible, but not probable, that Z.” Arriving at these sentences took months of nuancing, rejecting flawed evidence, and so forth. We sent it to D.C., where the CIA and/or Rumsfeld’s “Special Cell” overruled us by referring to the very evidence we had rejected as flimsy. Whem a room full of partisan political hacks are allowed to call their punditry “intelligence” and it is given equal weight with the considered professional research of about a few hundred experts in the President’s eyes, well… that’s not the truth or even a good-faith effort at finding the truth. Intelligence doesn’t advise; it simply states facts as well as they currently can be known.
I’d just like to hear you admit that a large portion of the “fact-finding” was done in bad faith.
Thank you, Spavined Gelding for so aptly expressing what I fear most.
If the truth is denied and ignored, if there can be no understanding because one group refuses to acknowledge that this war was based on an entirely false premise, if justifications for the current administration’s legislation are continually advanced despite empirical evidence that it favors only those that have while consistently eroding the rights of those that have not, I fear greatly the ultimate consequences for our nation.
I remember the late 60’s and early 70’s far too well.
I remember the deep divisions, the rage and the fear.
I remember being afraid of the police because too many of my friends had been beaten and arrested.
I remember the agent provocateurs coming into the Oakland headquarters of the V.V.A.W. in an attempt to incite us into us into unlawful actions.
And I think it’s going to be worse this time.
Where were you with this before the war?
We had on this very board your opposite, the despicable and widely despised bluesman who while a US intelligence operative, told flat out lies about the evidence, for an obscure motive of his own, connected with support for the inevitable war.
Were you under legal restraint?
In 1932 the National Socialist Party had control of the German legislature and, as a result, the office of the Chief Executive. He was some guy by the name of Hilder or something like that…my memory is kind of fuzzy on it, but I think lots of people were pretty satisfied with the way the elections turned out. I mean, it is hard to argue with a successful election campaign, right?
Uh oh, you said the “H” word, now people are going to leap on that citing ‘Godwin’s Law’, thinking that somehow disproves it. You just gave the Bush supporters something they can argue against, since they obviously can’t argue against the main point of the thread.
Other noted election winners include Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, and Augusto Pinochet Ugarte.
Feel free to substitute any of the names This Year’s Model added to the list. I’m sure there are lots of others.
Funny, I thought he was a lawyer.
But seriously, how the fuck could any of you people not seen this coming? I mean, seriously, he’s made it pretty obvious he doesn’t care one way or the other, and as long as them fags are getting it stuck to them he’s perfectly happy.
The mask has come off. Big deal. Anyone paying attention to him has been able to see past it for quite some time.
-Joe
I was also, apparently, a person required to ignore such barbs as the claim that I’m figuratively fellating the President, that I’m a coward, and the like. No, to your mind, those are acceptable slurs… but let me deviate even slightly from a calm recital of the facts that I believe support my position, and suddenly I have fallen from the pedestal of integrity and high ethics.
What I said was true. It’s not for me to make the case – elucidator smugly suggested that I wasn’t convincing anyone with what I was saying, and I replied by pointing out that I didn’t need to convince anyone. That’s true: the burden of proof is on the proponent of the claim. I don’t need to convince a soul. It’s all well and good for the left-wing crowd here to be in lock-step agreement that Bush is EVIL. But in the real world, that view is simply not shared by the public. The GOP is poised to gain seats this coming election, not lose them. That’s also fact… (care to bet against it?) So what is so unethical about my pointing out that fact, eh? What terrible hit does my integrity take by noting that the near-universal view of EvilBush here is not remotely similar to the view taken by the American voter?
What, specifically, is my ethical lapse here? Please, educate me.
But calling someone a traitor isn’t crossing the line.
Welcome to dufferland. Tell milroyj and his ilk I said hi.
Totally fucking delusional.
You slipped up in your little game, Bricker. Remember how you could get away with the most unpleasant things as long as you were polite about it? Remember how you could then claim moral and intellectual superiority when people reacted with rancor to your (oh so polite) vileness?
And now you’ve pissed it all away. Poor little Bricker.
Then again, now you can stop pretending and just show yourself for what you really are. All that typing you can save!
-Joe
Um – when did I call someone a traitor?
Do you believe that the rightness and wrongness of actions are determined by how much they sway public opinion? If Bush commits a great evil, but the general public approves, is it still a great evil?
Now, given that your response to yet-more-evidence that the war in Iraq was naked agression against Saddam, and the feeling that this kind of behavior is evil, do you see why claiming that ‘So what? No one cares!’ rings a few alarm bells?
Truth doesn’t matter. Morality doesn’t matter. The country doesn’t matter. People’s lives don’t matter. Money doesn’t matter. Only power matters. Only power.
All this shows me is that there are a lot of people out there ignoring the facts, or are simply too apathetic to give a shit. I think a pretty solid case can be made that Bush has pointed this country in a bad direction. I don’t think Bush is evil, I think he’s a a bit of country bumpkin being taken advantage of by some evil cabal. At this point it doesn’t even matter, what does matter is the real world effects of his tenure. The debacle in Iraq will be a money pit, and a huge drain on our military for at least another decade.
By the way, what the fuck is up with this? 15 of the 19 hijackers are Saudis and they ease up visa restrictions to make travel here simpler? Good thinking morons!
Where to begin? Try this list:
- You have more than “smugly suggested” but stated as fact that Bush had not definitively decided to invade Iraq until just before doing so. You go on to claim the burden of proof is on the other guy. You have been provided with ample evidence that your assertion of fact is false, and you, as “proponent of the claim” have provided no support whatsoever in support of it. You even refer, in this very post, to
. Well, where the fuck is it? Is it the statement that matters of fact are properly settled by elections? If that isn’t it, you’re lying about having facts, too. Lying is an ethical lapse, isn’t it? Well, apparently not in Brickerland.
-
You continue to smugly insist that the view that starting a war based on lies is morally reprehensible is simple “lock-step” “Bush is evil” bashing. One can only conclude that you don’t think Bush’s actions are morally reprehensible. There is no possible argument you can raise, nor have you raised one, that it’s morally acceptable. Yet you continue with the childish bullshit, thereby ceding the point on morality.
-
You continue to assert that electoral victory is the ultimate goal in public life. That is a quick dismissal of the very concept that there could be anything more important, of course. That isn’t immoral, it’s amoral, and that’s something far worse. The immoral person at least recognizes that there are standards he refuses to live up to.
You go on to claim that a majority of the American people agree with you.
Your asserting that as fact when you know it is not.
You’ve been provided with ample evidence to the contrary, and have nothing current of your own. Yet you continue to make the assertion. That, too, is therefore a lie.
- You continue to suggest that the only true measure of sincerity is the willingness to put money on it, and that your own willingness makes your position “fact”. Once again, you refuse to consider that there may be other measures - or perhaps you are simply incapable of such a thought.
Good suggestion by elucidator above. A person who proudly proclaims his amorality is hereby a “bricker”. And, on preview, what vibrotronica said.
How many willfully oblivious posts in a row is that for you? If you really are a lawyer I hope you’ve got more tricks in your bag the the Chewbacca Defense.
-Joe
Thanks for coming back to the thread Bricker.
You stated conditions for avoiding war that you think Bush would have accepted, but these did not include ending Saddam’s reign and freeing the Iraqi people, which is what seems to be the main way the war is defended nowadays. The Bush admin’s current justification of the war in these terms seems consistant with earlier evidence that toppling Saddam was their primary goal, as presented in this thread by several posters.
It seems like your conditions contradict the current administration’s position, since they would leave Saddam in power and the Iraqis under his yoke. Can you explain how it is not a contradiction?
Er, I haven’t grepped this thread for the word traitor, but the traditional response to a challenge like this is to quote the relavent post or posts.