I recognize that the questions are poorly phrased if they are meant to have a simple answer, but they aren’t. I believe it was you that said a while back that Bush detractors did not understand you, and I agree. But that ignorance won’t be defeated by a “yes” or “no” answer, no matter how skillfully written the question. It will take somebody actually saying what their views are.
What I want to know is how Bush supporters feel about the strategy we used. To me it just looks like a particularly egregious example of incompetence and misplaced priorities, but I already know what I think. I have no idea what Bush supporters think about it.
That question was poorly phrased. I’m not looking for the views of the general public at all, actually. Those are easy to figure out (and I doubt most know the facts about Chalabi, or even the basics of who he is).
I’m trying to understand the views of Bush supporters who do know how we tried to get Bin Laden, and do know about Chalabi. These are the views that I sincerely don’t understand at all.
I don’t understand how Bush’s actions with regard to Chalabi can be tolerated in a Commander in Chief. I want to know how Bush supporters feel about it.
"In the rush to Baghdad, Coalition forces
raced past most suspected weapons of mass destruction sites, and looters took
over, reports Newsweek Correspondent-at-Large Rod Nordland in the current
issue. Roughly 900 possible WMD sites appeared on the initial target lists for
U.S. troops after Saddam Hussein’s fall. So far, V Corps officers say, fewer
than 150 have been searched. “There just aren’t enough troops in the whole
Army,” Col. Tim Madere, the overseer of V Corps’ sensitive-site teams, tells
Newsweek. “There just aren’t enough experts to do everything.”
Meanwhile, the President himself has used looting as a possible reason we have not found WMD.
And Iraqi weapons related materials have already shown up elsewhere: "Since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, sites associated with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs have been destroyed, and Iraqi missile engines have turned up in Europe, according to a May 28 report from the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). "
Nuclear facilities were allowed to be looted: “Seven nuclear facilities in Iraq have been damaged or effectively destroyed by the looting that began in the first days of April, when U.S. ground forces thrust into Baghdad, according to U.S. investigators and others with detailed knowledge of their work. The Bush administration fears that technical documents, sensitive equipment and possibly radiation sources have been scattered.”
If we thought that Iraq had WMD, then that should have been our first priority. It should have been a disaster, not an excuse, that the sites were looted.
I am asking about how Bush supporters see this, because I honestly have no idea.
No I’m not. And absolutely nothing you say, even based on logic and evidence, will change my mind.
So there.
Maybe. But if so, I sure can’t see it.
Actually, if we follow the line of reasoning, my observations lead me to conclude that one’s political views (even yours and mine, arguably) are fundamentally irrational. Deeply held irrational beliefs are seldom amenable to rational discourse. When you stop to think about it, this isn’t even a particularly novel observation. It’s pretty fucking obvious. But that’s how dense I’ve been.
George Lakoff argues that ”liberal” and ”conservative” are worldviews reflecting different unconscious structures, derived primarily from different family experiences. These structures ”frame” the way we understand the world at an unconscious, preverbal level. In other words, our political views are, at a deeper (more emotive, less rational) level, an expression of our relationship to the family. According to Lakoff, the ”liberal ideology” is an expression of the ”Nurturant Parent Model,” while ”conservative ideology” reflects the ”Strict Father Model.” (You can read more about Lakoff’s ideas here.)
Now, before my experiences here at the SDMB, I’d probably dismiss Lakoff’s arguments as rather far-fetched. But not anymore. Lakoff’s model explains quite handily why so many people are immune to facts and logic in the realm of political discourse. In the words of Kevin Drum: ”Facts are great, but don’t fall into the trap of thinking that you’re going to win arguments with facts. When facts collide with a person’s worldview, it’s the facts that get tossed overboard, not the worldview.”
Furthermore: when worldviews collide, facts appear to become irrelevant.
Gandhi was a mahatma; my soul is tiny in comparison.
Perhaps you think I sound bitter and pessimistic. Yet never has an incumbent been more vulnerable than George Bush. Despite that, he was able to prosecute his goddamn invasion, he’s still in the White House, and the Republicans gained congressional seats in the last election.
If the left can’t beat that yahoo, who can we beat? Bricker:
Well… they impeached him for lying under oath about a blowjob. In essence I think Captor objects to attempts to create an aura of legitimacy around the impeachment by rhetorical deployment of the argument ”he lied under oath,” coupled with sanctimonious expressions of dismay. They try to justify the impeachment by claiming, ”It wasn’t about a blowjob – it was about the lying,” as if that argument somehow excuses the abuse to which Clinton was subjected. The Clinton impeachment wasn’t legitimate – at least I don’t think so, even though, again, I can’t prove that logically. Hamlet:
I disagree. I don’t think you can arbitrarily separate the fact that Clinton lied from what he lied about. Or rather, while I can understand that you might do so, I’m not sure you can construct an irrefutable logical argument for doing so. Hope I’m not being too obtuse by pointing this out.
To put it another way, had it been illegal for a president to receive a blowjob from an intern, then the impeachment would have been about the blowjob. Since it’s not illegal, prosecution settled on perjury. (I know, that’s not a logical argument either. Like I said, I don’t think we can make headway on this issue by appeals to logic.)
No, the line of reasoning here is that Republicans were horribly offended by Clinton – so offended that they would have used virtually any excuse, even a blowjob, to bring him down. After all, the accusations of hypocrisy against Republicans rest precisely on the fact that, in other contexts, they don’t appear to be offended by the act of oral sex in the least.
Some of them, I hear, are even fond of ”loofa” sponges.
Thank you, Hamlet. Very kind of you to say, seriously.
Do you remember if I led you to change your opinion on the matter?
This is like someone coming home to find a stranger climbing out of their broken window with their TV set under his arm. “Stop, thief!” they cry. And the thief replies, “Hey, you don’t have to resort to insults here!”
Fact is, I’ve been calling the Pubbie behavior over the blowjob impeachment exactly as I see it, and there is no nice way to describe that behavior. If my words are insulting it is only because I am describing behavior that is so morally unsound that any fitting and accurate description of that behavior tends to sound like insult.
Not on that particular point I can’t for the reasons just described. Any watering down of my phraseology tends to diminish the moral outrage that was committed. It’s like calling a murderer “life preservation challenged.”
I have made a new contribution. My contribution is the notion that attempts by Pubbie apologists to decry the blowjob impeachment as having been about perjury is a rhetorical device designed to lend it an aura of respectability, and to distract people from the real nature of the affair. To go back to my “thief” analogy, when the cops come the thief claims he stole the TV set because you looked at him funny in a parking lot one day, and that the whole deal isn’t an instance of theft but of an offended party trying to get even with the person who looked at him funny. It’s a funny look thing, not theft.
Obviously if the thief can manage to bring this extraneous sideshow in and make it the main attraction, things are much more likely to go to his advantage. The correct thing to do is dismiss the sideshow and concentrate on the real issue – the theft, or the blowjob impeachment. And that’s what I’m doing. I’m not going to let you or Hamlet or anyone get away with identifying the blowjob impeachment as anything but what it was.
Well, of course you’re not. All the evidence of recent history shows that you are wrong. The only persons who are likely to believe the notion that the blowjob impeachemnt was a simple matter of perjury are partisans like yourself and those mainstream people you manage to hoodwink by your repeated assertions. This is why I feel it’s important to point out that the impeachment was about Monica Lewinsky sucking Bill Clinton’s cock – you Pubbies swamped the media with this stuff back in 1998-2000, you don’t get to paper it over with your perjury bullshit if I have anything to say about it.
I don’t blame you for complaining, it must hurt, but you can avoid the pain by admitting that the impeachment was about a blowjob, a matter of Pubbies cynically whipping up sexual hysteria, or indulging in it themselves in some cases. That’ll hurt, too. Can’t say it bothers me.
Bullshit, it’s an honest and fair response to an intellectually and morally dishonest attempt to give a veneer of respectability to behavior which was blatantly venal and palpably slimy.
You think you can discredit my arguments by calling me names and then accusing me of not presenting any logical backing for my statements. It’s just not gonna work. While I cannot conceive of anything that would convince you, Shodan, of the rightness of my position, I’m confident of the validity of my arguments and their general acceptability.
One thing you should be aware of is that the blowjob impeachment is recent history. Most people were around for all the breathless coverage of the stain on Monical Lewinsky’s dress, of the human humidor play, and all the other fun and games, and were able to see the Republicans simultaneously describing the sleaze in oleaginous detail and harrumphing about the impropriety of it all. It gives my statements a certain force which the “it’s all about perjury” stuff lacks. To go back to the “thief” analogy, there were many millions of witnesses to this particular theft. Good luck convincing everyone that it was anything but theft.
It’s self serving twisting like this that makes me question the wisdom of Svinlesha (and other good posters) who treat you as if you were worth two shits. (Sorry Svin, but you’re enabling this piece of garbage, and the repugnant world view he represents. I submit that you learned an incomplete lesson from Lakoff.)
Of course Sherman coined the phrase. Took you long enough to google it after I threw it at you. Dimwit. I used his term as a derisive description for your dangerously stupid and morally appalling counsel that the power-grabbing scam you turdsellers call the “War on Terror” requires us to use “everybody we have, plus one” to “destroy the enemy and take over his land.” “Genocide,” you simper, “is implied.”
Stupid and evil.
You want to know what the real reason this latest round of insanity continues in the country, Mr. Svinlesha? It’s not because good people like you remain silent. It’s because good people like you politely treat these horrible, backwards, meanspirited and dishonest propositions and platforms as if they were reasonable, honest and arguable political thoughts. And as if the proponents of these excremental ideas didn’t reek of the stuff themselves.
Maybe you’ll take some comfort, during the rise and inevitably quick fall of the fascistic American Empire, that you were polite and reasonable in your arguments with turdsellers. As for me, I damn the Scyllas and the Brickers right along with the Shodans, Sam Stones and Brutuses. Fuck 'em.
Bricker, Bricker, Bricker. What was Clinton lying under oath ABOUT?
A BLOWJOB. Got that?
A BLOWJOB!
You are correct in your assertion that the right would have done anything to get Clinton, but the particular approach they took is the issue not their motivation for taking that approach. It’s probably true of criminals that they’ll do anything to get money, but we prosecute them for robbing banks and such, not for wanting to get money really badly.
I see. So when Ronnie said “No arms for hostages, nosirree, never happened” that doesn’t count, because he wasn’t actually “under oath”. Other than that trivial stuff he recited when he had his hand on the Bible. Not impeachable. And when GeeDubya says he’s posolutely, absivitively sure that there are “vast stockpiles” of nasty stuff, that’s ok too, because, he was just exaggerating a little tiny bit about being “sure”. So that’s a pass as well, yes?
But when Clinton is asked a question he shouldn’t have been asked in the first place, by people who are asking it for no other purpose to elicit such an offense, about something that has nothing whatever to do with anything other than the President’s winky… For that, the mighty gears of impeachment simply must be brought to bear, how can we live with such a liar as that?
Is there a word for a level beyond mere “hypocrisy”, some neutron density of hypocrisy that tests the theoretical limits? Mind if we use “bricker”?
I’m arguing that, as it appears to me, the vast majority of my debating opponents are examples of (3), at least with regard to political issues.
I do not really care about “holding the high ground.” What good is the high ground if your opponents are utterly impervious to reason, and prefer disingenuous arguments?
Therein my dilemma. Obviously, if you’ve not been able to convince someone with reason, issuing a stream of invective isn’t going to get you much further. The third alternative is to simply give up the debate altogether, which is what I was on the verge of doing.
Look: my argument against the war never rested on the assertion that I could prove Iraq did not have “WMDs.”
Listen carefully: one of my arguments against the invasion was that the Bush administration failed to produce clear, convincing evidence that Iraq possessed “WMDs.” It is my contention that, before going to war, the administration needed to provide, at absolute minimum:
A. Strong, incontrovertible evidence that Iraq possessed some form of “WMDs” such as could pose a significant threat to the territorial integrity of the US, or to a large portion of the US population, coupled with
B. Strong evidence that, within a relatively short time frame, the Hussein regime intended to use those weapons against the US, or give them to terrorists who intended to use them.
To express it more succinctly: capability + intent = threat. Without capability and intent, very little threat. Very little threat, no reason for war, that most terrible of human endeavors. (Mind you, this is only one of the strands of my reasoning on this issue.)
Now I argue that, prior to the war, the administration failed to demonstrate either capability or intent on the part of Iraq’s regime. Even granting that Saddam Hussein was inimical to US interests in the region – which he undoubtedly was – doesn’t necessarily lead to the inevitable conclusion that he was actively planning to ship load of Chemical Drone Robots of Death over the Atlantic, with which to assail Topeka.
Could I have been wrong? Of course. But I assessed the evidence critically, and as honestly as really could. For example, I carefully went through all the arguments, both pro and con, regarding the dreaded aluminum tubes. I listened to both sides of the “yellowcake” controversy. I considered with great care the evidence presented by the administration to support its contention of operational ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. I read through Powell’s UN presentation with a fine-toothed comb, several times. And so on.
The Bush administration presented to the US public, and the world, it’s best arguments for invading Iraq. I concluded that those arguments were extremely flimsy. In thread after thread on these boards I demonstrated again and again exactly how flimsy they were.
The proof that I was correct can be found in the pudding. Where are all those terrible weapons, now? We who opposed the war were extremely lucky that the US Army was unable to discover anything but scraps of “WMDs” in Iraq. Had it found so much as one unambiguously laboratory, or one forgotten stockpile, the entire debate would have ended with a substance-less, rhetorical victory for the right. The pro-war faction would have shamelessly exploited that forgotten stockpile to prove that they had been right all along, and to justify the war. Hell, Bush tried anyway: he told reporters in Poland that the discovery of a single vile of botulin bacilli – not even the toxin, mind you, just the bacilli – was “proof that Saddam was a threat to the world.” (!) Cheney continued to argue that the helium trailers were biological laboratories friggin’ months – months!! – after specialists had concluded they were unsuitable for such purposes. How do you explain that, if not as an example of intentional misleading?
Well, the reason that I discuss this with you is because I don’t see you as being immutable reason, of course. You’re a tough nut to crack, but you did admit that Bush lied, and that even before Thanksgiving. Others here are not so forthcoming, not at all.
Please, let’s not mark words. Obviously in the hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts by Shodan on this topic, there might be a couple of valid arguments.
What I mean is that none of major arguments for invading Iraq have withstood critical scrutiny, or the test of time, at least not as far as I can tell.
On what grounds? Certainly not the fact that he threatened the US with “WMDs,” I’ll wager. xeno:
I can’t make any claim to wisdom, but since Scylla hasn’t really treated me poorly – not yet, at least – I have no reason to treat him poorly. Maybe I’m just blind, but I really don’t see what Scylla does that riles up so many posters against him.
Well, I live in Sweden, but believe me when I tell you that I’ve been anything other than silent about the Iraq invasion.
I’m beginning to suspect that you’re right about this, hence my disgust. But how does dropping down to their level change the equation, here, on this message board? Your tact, as far as I can see, would lead to nothing but a non-stop, sterile flamewar.
No, I wouldn’t take any comfort from that at all.
But are things really that bad?
Finally, I can only second Nightime’s very pertinent questions regarding the war, although I have little doubt the usual suspects will come slithering out from under their rocks with their standard stock of disingenuous bullshit faster than I can hit “submit reply.”
Lying under oath is a criminal offense. It’s impeachable.
Before you offer up any other idiotic questions, ask yourself if they constitute lying under oath. Follow along - it’s so easy that even a hopeless dickweed such as yourself can accomplish it:
Right. May have been plenty of things, but not perjury.
If he said things under oath that were not true, then that WAS perjury. What did he say under oath?
Was he under oath? No? Oh. Well, then whatever that was, it wasn’t criminal perjury.
Do have any other examples to trot out?
Let me give you some, as a test:
The President lies in grand jury testimony about his blowjob? YES.
The President lies during a TV interview about his blowjob? NO.
Get it?
No, of course not, you useless piece of fecal matter. I have more chance finding chastity in a Hunt’s point crack whore than I have finding the slightest hint of intellect or intellectual honesty in you. So you don’t get it, and no matter how many times it is explained to you, you will cravenly ignore it, and repeat your mantra over and over, because that’s about all your addled intellect can manage, and it’s a wonder that it can make even THAT happen.
You are too kind. Such effussive calumny from the likes of you, borders on shameless flattery. A badge of honor.
You would have us honor the letter of the law in order to pervert its intent. You interpret “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a self-serving fashion.
Oath? What lying under oath did Reagan commit? Well, how about that part about “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”? Did he have his fingers crossed, Kings-X?
There are those of us who regard skullduggery and lying in order to subvert the stated will of Congress as fitting that category. Rather a lot of us, I imagine. But not Bricker, no, this is a triviality, to be brushed aside. Lying about the President’s willy, now there! there is a matter of earth-shaking importance!
It would appear then that the Bricker principle is marvelous in its simplicity: any crime, however minor, rises to the level of impeachable offense if it shall involve someone Bricker does not like very much. St. Ronnie of Bakersfield, however, can trade arms with a hostile power and funnel the proceeds, against the stated will of Congress, to whomsoever he likes, and that is nothing more than an excess of boyish enthusiasm!
But thanks again for the vituperation! From one such as you, it would bring a blush of modesty, if I had such.
Bricker, Clinton didn’t lie about the blow job to the Grand Jury. He was perhaps a little economical with the truth during his civil deposition but he admitted the suck job to the GJ. In his impeachment he was not charged with lying about a blow job but with lying to the GJ about whether or not he sucked her titties (I wish I was joking but I’m not) as well as obstruction of justice (for the alleged “talking points” memo which Ms. Lewinsky claimed to have written herself and for which no shred of evidence was ever produced to the contrary).
The Obstruction charge was never anything but horseshit. A protracted, he said-she said food fight about whether he really lied about sucking her nipples may seem like a worthwhile expenditure of government resources to you. You may even think it’s a high crime worthy of impeachment to lie about sucking a woman’s nipples, but I have a hard thing seeing it as anything more than an excruciating embarrassment, especially in light of a POTUS who lied us into a war.
No. He wasn’t lying when he took the oath. That’s not lying under oath. Not a crime. Not impeachable.
Lying UNDER OATH.
You don’t remember the lesson I just explained in the last post?
I’m not really surprised.
No. If it involves LYING UNDER OATH. Remember? Simple worlds. Not “Bricker doesn’t like.” LYING UNDER OATH.
Didn’t say that. But it’s not LYING UNDER OATH, is it? If President Reagan broke the law in some other way, then, of course, he should have been impeached as well. I’m not saying that LYING UNDER OATH is the only crime that warrants impeachment. But I certainly think that to be impeached, there must be a criminal act on the part of the President.
Not only that, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the law at all. The crap we got fed constantly during that episode about how the impeachment process was somehow a special court for defendants who happen to be federal officeholders fooled many a person who wanted to believe that what they were supporting was honorable. It even fooled Bricker, obviously:
Unrelated statements. No, friend, impeachability is whatever Congress wants it to be. Criminal offenses are charged and tried in court no matter who the defendant is and no matter what Congress does. Well, this is actually a hypothetical case (something that **Bricker ** loves, his own views being so often at odds with reality) in that Clinton was never, ya know, *charged * with anything. He was impeached because the opposition party of a lame-duck Congress *wanted * to impeach him, purely and simply. The reasons don’t actually matter except in the court of public opinion and in the far-harsher court of history.
It is most deplorable for someone who claims to revere the Constitution so deeply to be so ignorant of it:
Teeheehee. You can start here:
Article 1, Section 3: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "
Dio, you simply have to be kidding! Nipple sucking! Dear Og, I had no idea!
Friend Bricker, please accept my profound, nay, abject apology! Until this moment, I had no notion that such a perilous crime had been committed. Oh, the perfidy of such a crime against Nature! Actual labial/aureole contact! I swoon with horror!
I’ll suggest that’s it’s not helpful to your argument to add the insults for reasons I’ve been discussing. I’m convinced they detract from a refutation.
[QUOTE=Nightime]
Thank you for responding, Scylla.
I’m flattered by your attention and good nature.
Well, I’ll tell you what I think about it. It looks to me that in hindsight we fucked up. Incompetence, no. Misplaced priorities, no. Fuckup, yes.
Do you really think that it is Bush who’s responsible for this strategy that failed? I think the military’s job is to execute the wishes of the President. I don’t think it’s the President’s job to micromanage the military. He does however, retain responsibility. Getting the Afghanis involved in policing themselves is a good idea. We need allies working with us. As your article fairly points out, we did do a lot of things right in the invasion of Afghanistan. This wasn’t one of them.
I don’t indict Clinton for Somalia. As far as I know, the military accepted the mission and presented Clinton with confidence in it’s outcome. As far as I know, the military accepted the mission in Afghanistan with confidence. We will not execute with perfection under any circumstances.
Once again, with the benefit of hindsight, we fucked up in this particular. I’m not sure what you want me to say. These are not simple undertakings we are working at. They are large and complex with many factors and loyalties and weighings of good and evil.
I am encouraged by the fact that we are not hiding or covering up our mistakes. We’re addressing them and trying to correct them
I think it sucks. I also don’t understand how one can realistically expect perfection. If we invaded Iraq slowly consolidating each mile and searching each mile, that carries risks too. We leave large parts of Iraq in control of the opposition. Those portions may have had WMDs that they may have used.
Do you smash the opposition and then consolidate, or do you try to take the country slowly and piecemeal in a protracted battle that leaves the enemy time to regroup and consolidate its forces and resources? Both have their drawbacks.
We chose a smash and grab and accomplished it relatively bloodlessly. It went very well. The tough part thereafter is the consolidation.
If we fight inch by inch and consolidate along the way we risk much higher casualties on both sides.
One the one hand we risk leaving munitions untended for looters. On the other hand we risk them being used.
These are hard questions you’ve asked dealing with difficult strategic decisions. I was pretty optimistic about Iraq. All and all, I think things are going better than I anticipated they would. I expected the country to be destroyed like Europe was in WWII. I expected heavy casualties. I expected WMDs, chemicals and gas to be used.
I think we took the country relatively intact with a minimum of casualties.
I challenged this by pointing out that Sherman practiced total war without committing genocide during the civil war.
You responded thusly in post 308
I responded as follows (with editing)
Your response was:
At this point, it became fairly obvious that you were wholly ignorant on the subject that you were talking about and your hostility was nothing more than a screen for this ignorance. I considered your actions and lack of integrity cowardly and stupid. I prove it in post #324.
You have however run away, a lying, stupid coward, unable to admit an error.
It’s nice of you to finally admit it (both that Sherman said it, and that you are stupid and evil)
Unfortunately you are a liar as well. I pointed out this misattribution in post 324 and do so again. Genocide is nowhere implied by me except in your fantasy.
Wow! How courageous of you! Your going to say mean things on the internet while you cower anonymously. I am in awe at the meaninglessness of this sentiment, of your gesture.
The only thing with meaning that you can do on these boards is patiently refute bad arguments. Your failure to do so is symptomatic of the fact that you are a persistant purveyor of bad faith, pretension and intellectual dwarfism.
Well, I don’t think you need to completely ignore hostility, or forego rubbing someone’s nose in something particularly stupid they said while being hostile (like I did to Xeno.) You just need to prove your argument and let the chips fall where they may. They are what they are. You are what you are. If you let them change you and turn you into and irrational vessel of hate spewing naked insults across the internet than you have lessened yourself. The good of the high ground is in residing there, not what anybody else does.
I’ve trotted out my list of reasons why I think we were justified several times since my return, and I haven’t seen them refuted, or even seriously addressed.