I see the bloggers have finally told the Usual Suspects what to think.
The current “talking points” now seem to be:
-
Bush didn’t Lie! Intelligence wasn’t perverted for political ends! Everybody thought Saddam had WMD. And here’s 5+ year old cites to prove it!
-
If Saddam didn’t have WMD, why did he “refuse to cooperate with the inspectors?” (See mine and others’ refutation of this crap in this thread. )
-
Hi, Opal!
-
The war wasn’t about WMD. Really! (See cites by many folks that refute this. The mendacity is breathtaking.)
(Did I miss any?)
You can now expect to see December, Shodan, and others throw out these talking points repeatedly whenever the WMD subject comes up. The talk-radio/bloggers brigade hive-mind has spoken.
Big Bunch of Bull#$@!
Decembers deranged demagoguery definately displeases dopers. Decease! Double time!
Better than the “La la la, I can’t HEAR you!” response that they normally get.
december, I really don’t think it’s Bush’s critics that are looking bewildered right now.
From the Associated Press today:
(This is a Yahoo News link so it probably won’t be good for long. But I feel reasonably certain that other such articles will take its place.)
december, even if weapons are found now, multiple intelligence sources are saying that there was no hard evidence and that Bush was less than honest with the American people.
Doesn’t that bother you at all?
Well, what woeful world when W wost the weapons.
Oops, forgot one:
- The only people that harp on this subject are rabid Bush haters. They don’t care about WMD or The Poor Iraqi People We Freed, thier only motivation is to Hate Bush.
The blog hive-mind has spoken. Resistance is futile. You will be nauseated.
Heck, I’m not a Bush hater at all. But the unwillingness of some people to admit Bush et al. duped them into supporting a war of naked imperialism by throwing around bogus WMD claims is… well, I can’t say it’s surprising. People are loathe to admit being fooled.
But I’ll tell you; this is one guy who wasn’t a Bush-hater in the slightest who thinks he’s now essentially a war criminal. Starting a war with no evidence in support of your stated casus belli is a crime against humanity.
Can anybody with a lick of damned common sense (which eliminates december and his blind, rabid, partisan ilk) please explain to this centrist exactly why and how stupidity serves anyone?
I didn’t “love” Clinton. I voted for him, not because he was a baby boomer, etc., blah, barf, but because he was a centrist. He faced down the worst excesses of his own party and got elected anyway. The loudest wailing came from my Pubbie friends: “He stole our ideas!” Guess what? Shut the hell up. I’m an Independent. I don’t care what party gets useful stuff done for the country and the world, I just care that it gets done. I’m the swing vote who ain’t gonna march in lock-step without without a helluva lot of convincing. God help us all, this much hate and resentment for somebody remotely in the middle?
I didn’t for one moment like or approve of Clinton’s sleazier aspects. Admirable? No. Effective? Yes. He was a walking oil-slick but he didn’t violate essential public trust. (Though it was exhaustively, expensively and futiley dissected at public expense.)
Guess what? It’s entirely possible to evaluate GWB on his own merit, word and performance–and find him sadly *and actually, potentially criminally *lacking. Not from pre-conceived notions or partisanship, y’understand, but with reluctance approaching dread.
Of course those who insist on viewing the world through easy, cartoon nuggets can knock themselves out. I’m just wearily resistant to buying into their easy answers and stupidity.
Veb
Wait… I think I’m catching on… let me try…
:strains:
Well, I’ve got a nosebleed, anyway. I must be getting close.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
**[li] German intelligence service reported in 2001 that Hussein was three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.[] **[/li][/QUOTE]
I’m sure they could have gotton it done in 3 years. Sadly, the program was scaled back due to budget cuts. All that money used to fund terrorists has to come from somewhere, don’t ya know.
To give credit where it’s due, this was the thought of Glenn Reynolds.
A desperate desire to deny Bush the moral high ground might explain the scatter shot criticisms that are being bandied about: [ul][]Bush allowed 170,000 priceless antiquities to be looted.[]Bush and Rumsfeld used too few troops.[]Bush permitted Iraq to fall into chaos.[]Bush allowed radioactive material to be looted.[]Bush doesn’t really want democracy in Iraq.[]Bush lied about the WMDs before the war.[]Bush is lying now about the two mobile bilogical weapons laboratories.[]Bush-supporter Chalabi is lying.[]Bush visited the troops on an aircraft carrier in the wrong way.[]Bush flew over Iraq in the wrong way.Bush has bad breath.[/ul]OK, I made up the last one. But, it may not be the silliest item on the list.
[quote]
Originally posted by appletreats
**Based on the information available at the time, their accusations were very valid. You cannot possibly blame people for being angry over stolen artifacts when the reports available at the time said thousands were missing. It is not the fault of those who were up in arms over this looting that they did not personally visit Baghdad and investigate these claims.**Can’t the same argument be made about the WMDs?
“Based on the information available at the time, their accusations were very valid”
Exactly true. The accusations that Saddam had WMDs was very valid at the time, based on the available evidence (see the OP for the list). According to appletreat’s logic, you cannot possibly blame the coalition for being angry over Saddam’s stonewalling.
So moron boy’s spin machine continues spinning, well, moronically.
First, I wonder if december has ever had a point not predigested into baby food idiocy consistency by some drooling idiot of a ideologue pundit.
That aside:
Your harping on the 170 k figure is a fine little rhetorical device. An initial estimate, yes it was off, however the reality that it reflected is that massive looting occured when it need not have. The Admin got lucky that curators had already removed materials and helped rescue some from the very real looting and destruction (I do not believe it has been refuted that serious Islamic archives were lost in fires stemming from looting), as well as the success of post-conflict recovery efforts.
The political damage, based on very real losses, although not of the magnitude of initial seat of the pants estimates, is real and undeniable, what ever idiotic excuse making you engage in.
Quite clear that they did. Painfully clear. Regular military I know round these parts are categorical they need more people.
American planning was clearly inadequate, do you actually deny that? I will report to you directly, the current Provisional Authorities from Baghdad, e.g. Richard Grecko, do not. Personal conversation.
Insofar as insufficient forces were avaiable, yes.
Well, this may or may not be the case. Present pious posturing notwithstanding.
You have a refutation for this? Other than your whinging? A clear and present danger was painted, that clear and present danger clearly did not exist, whatever chicken little scaremongering there was – and which I may add you shrieked about at the top of your lungs for months. The best case is that the evidence was exagerated by people who believed more than analysed. The worst case is deliberate falsehoods were used.
Well, presenting as certain what is in fact doubtful or as of yet not confirmed is in my book a form of lying.
The man lies as he breathes, and is a profesional defrauder, is this actually a point?
None of the above are trivial.
You left one off your list, december
The list was incomplete. I actually saw two separate articles complaining that
– Bush showed too big a “package” in his flight suit.
If a man from Mars read all this carping, he would never guess that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are thrilled to be relieved of Saddam’s cruel dictatorship, terrorism has suffered a setback, and the world is now a safer place.
That’s because, Moron Man, terrorism has not “suffered” a set back at all and the motherfucking world is not a safer place. Good lord you are an incredibly dim and tedious ideological boot licking toady. As for Iraqis being thrilled or not to have Sadaam gone, well that’s sweet and all that, but hardly gets to the problems at hand.
I have no fucking idea where the fuck you get your dumb motherfucking assertion on saftey and terrorism.
I wouldn’t worry about him. The threads he starts require no thought*. If some spin blog ends with the words Fly, my pretties! he posts an OP.
*He’s quite capable of it - it’s his choice to be a traitor to Cecil’s mission of fighting ignorance.