Bush Republicans...what does it take to give up on Bush ?

[Fear_Itself]

@blowero

So if Bush gives you lemons, you make lemonade. What other choice does one have?

The Republican view seems to be, “Shut up and eat your goddam lemons!”

[Kimstu]

Shodan: You see Bush, and you see a man who lied about WMD. I see a man who clearly acted on a belief that was almost universally believed, and actually followed thru on a threat he believed to be real.

I don’t have a problem with your different interpretation (except for the “almost universally believed” part: while it is certainly true that almost everybody thought it very possible that Saddam might have WMD, most people in the world were very skeptical of the claim that it was so certain that Saddam did have immediately-dangerous WMD that it was imperative for the US to take him out soonest, which is what the Administration was telling us).

But it doesn’t square with what you said in the post I was responding to. You gave the following sample dialogue as an example of changing-places perspectives between conservatives and liberals with regard to Clinton and Bush:

“How can you possibly support that person? He is a known, proven, definite liar! Don’t you care anything about truth or morality or the dignity of the US?”

To which the reponse is, “That isn’t as important as this other issue that I care more about. Overall, things are going relatively well, and therefore I support the guy.”

You were the one who said that this dialogue was applicable to both presidents, except that the liberal and conservative parts would be reversed. That clearly implies that you thought it was accurate to call Bush, as well as Clinton, “a known, proven, definite liar”.

Now you’re saying that in fact, you don’t actually believe that Bush is a “known, proven, definite liar”. I don’t care which position you hold and am happy to debate on the basis of either assumption, but it gets confusing when you flip-flop.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

pervert:

In debating you I find myself confronted with what appears to be a complete epistemological relativist. It would seem you judge all possible interpretations to be of equal weight, no matter how outlandish they might be.

I’m quite certain that other possible interpretations of Schlesinger’s opening testimony exist. However, when faced with a number of such possible interpretations, one must at some point or another make a judgement call, at least if one intends to take a stance on the issue. One selects the interpretation that, in one’s best judgement, clarifies or explicates the question at hand. In this particular instance, in order to underscore the tentative nature of his assertion, Dr. Cole selected the word “seems:” “It seems clear to me…” This indicates to me that he is open-minded and willing to reconsider, should new evidence present itself, but that based upon his own current experience things appear to be something like this.

Naturally one can call that judgement into question. Merely asserting that other possible interpretations exist, however, is not the equivalent of a forceful argument in favor of a competing interpretation. Rather, it more akin to “playing Devil’s advocate;” and it is difficult to get anywhere in the discussion if one’s debating opponent meets one’s arguments by simply asserting, for example, “Well, it’s possible that we could interpret X this way instead, as well.”

I mention this because it seems to me that you sometimes get lost in this world of competing interpretations. That’s just a casual impression, of course, so I freely admit I could be wrong. But I think as well it tends to lead to very confusing debates. I seem to notice that your debating opponents get a bit confused by you at times, and can’t really tell what you’re on about. They find themselves “swatting at flies,” as you present one possible alternative interpretation after another, usually without arguing for why one alternative is significantly better than the others.

The observation that decision-makers in the Bush administration tend to make rhetorical connections between disparate events like “9/11”, “Hussein’s regime,” “terrorists,” “WMDs,” and “al-Qaida” is not the exclusive property of the left, or of those who oppose the war. (Let me be clear: there are of course factual connections between terrorism, al-Qaida, and 9/11, obviously. There are also, possibly, some connections between Hussein’s regime and terrorism, as well as between al-Qaida and “WMDs.” There appears to be no connection whatsoever, however, between, for example, Hussein’s regime and “WMDs,” or Hussein’s regime and al-Qaida. I mention this to avoid confusion.) Anyway, for a further example, I would like to draw your attention to the Army War College report, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, by Jeffery Record, professor in the Department of Strategy and International Security at the US Air Force’s Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama. This report can scarcely be considered the product of a partisan, left-wing think tank, yet Record would almost certainly agree with Cole’s observations:

** The administration has thus postulated a broad, international terrorist threat to U.S. national security interests that encompasses (1) three geographic levels of terrorist organizations–national, regional, and global, as well as (2) rogue states–specifically Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Also on the threat list are (3) any individuals or entities that proliferate WMD to terrorist organizations or rogue states, and (4) failed states, like the Taliban’s Afghanistan, that may not sponsor terrorism overseas but that willingly or unwillingly provide safe haven and assistance to organizations that do.

Discrimination, however, is not the first word that comes to mind in examining the administration’s language on terrorism. Administration rhetoric is not clear, for example, on the matter of whether there are strategically and operationally consequential differences between terrorist organizations and rogue states….

As it approached war with Iraq, the administration insisted on co-conspiratorial links between the Saddam Hussein regime and al-Qaeda; repeatedly raised the specter of the dictator’s transfer of WMD to al-Qaeda; and encouraged the view that Saddam Hussein had a direct hand in the 9/11 attacks. At war’s end, it hailed the regime’s destruction as a victory in the war on terrorism.

In September 2002, President Bush declared, “You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terrorism. They’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.” He added that “the danger is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.”

In a formal news conference on March 6, 2003, just days before he launched Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, the President linked the case for war against Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, implying that Saddam Hussein would replicate them once he got nuclear weapons. “Saddam is a threat. And we’re not going to wait until he does attack,” he declared. “Saddam Hussein and his weapons [of mass destruction] are a direct threat to this country,” he reiterated. “If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime . . . free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September 11, 2001, showed what enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what . . . terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.”**

Let’s pause to inspect Bush’s argument here. He claims that we can’t “distinguish” between al Qaida and Iraq, because, “They’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.” Now, how much sense does this make, really? We might argue, for example, that PAK Pong-chu, Premier of North Korea, is equally as bad, equally as evil, and equally as destructive as, say, Charles Manson. Does this mean that we can no longer make reasonable distinctions between the two?

After quoting a number of other examples, Record goes on to note:

** The President thus postulated, at least with respect to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, a monolithic, direct terrorist threat to the United States in the form of undeterrable WMD attacks. By implication, the threat extended to Iran and North Korea as well, because as rogue states they, too, like Saddam’s Iraq, regard WMD “as weapons of choice,” as “tools of intimidation and military aggression” that could “allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states.” Thus, as threats, terrorists, terrorist organizations, and terrorist states are one and the same.

Unfortunately, stapling together rogue states and terrorist organizations with different agendas and threat levels to the United States as an undifferentiated threat obscures critical differences among rogues states, among terrorist organizations, and between rogue states and terrorist groups. One is reminded of the postulation of an international Communist monolith in the 1950s which blinded American policymakers to the influence and uniqueness of local circumstances and to key national, historical, and cultural differences and antagonisms within the “Bloc.” Communism was held to be a centrally directed international conspiracy; a Communist anywhere was a Communist everywhere, and all posed an equal threat to America’s security. A result of this inability to discriminate was disastrous U.S. military intervention in Vietnam against an enemy perceived to be little more than an extension of Kremlin designs in Southeast Asia and thus by definition completely lacking an historically comprehensible political agenda of its own.**

He then goes on to list some of the commonalties and significant differences among these conflated threats. Foremost among the differences is the fact that rogue states are emendable to traditional forms of military deterrence, while sub-state entities (such as terrorist networks) cannot be deterred in that manner. (Again, this in is no left wing hooey clap-trap; prior to becoming National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice herself made precisely the same argument in a paper published in Foreign Policy Review.)

(I’m sorry I don’t have a link to this report, by the way; I’ve downloaded it on my hard disk. Does anyone out there know where pervert could locate a copy, should he so desire?)

• I know this is not the way you intended the quote, but I’d just like to point out that this is the sort of evidence commonly brought out to claim that the Bush Administration has tried to link the Iraq war and 9-11. If you could see how such evidence might be dismissed, or perhaps how it might be lowered in probitive value, you might be able to understand how so many people disbelieve the things which you take for granted.*

I don’t “take this thing for granted,” and as you can see, I’m willing to forcefully argue that there is some real merit to this view. But of course, it is not my only point of contention against Bush; I could fill entire notebooks. This is why I feel that the evidence against Bush is really so overwhelming. It’s definitely not something that I’ve decided in a casual, hap-hazard manner; I’ve exhausted hours of my free-time reflecting (and writing) on these issues.

Regarding the question of a critic’s potential partisanship, you ask:

How would you tell?

Again, this question seems to reflect back upon your basic relativism, I think. I would make a judgement call; are this person’s objections reasonable or unreasonable?

Would my judgement be totally objective? Or course not. But I do my best.

• Are you saying that there is no Al-Quaeada fighters there now? Are you asserting that the philosophy of AQ is irrelevent to the current situation?*

With regard to first question: no. I don’t know if there are or aren’t. Do you? With regard to the second question: yes.

• Well, there is certainly a single umbrella under which they can be encompassed. Surely you can see that they both belong to a sort of “Islamic Militant” demographic. Although there may be more of these two things which are not like the other, surely you can acknowledge that they are not exclusively distinct. Within certain contexts certainly they are unique issues. But within other contexts, surely you can see similarities.*

See my reference to the War College report, above, for a response.

• Don’t you mean that no such link existed before the war?*

I certainly do mean that no link existed between al-Qaida and Hussein’s regime before the war; nor does one exist afterwards, since there is no Hussein regime anymore. I also mean that the difficulties faced by coalition forces in Iraq today are only tangentially related to al-Qaida and it “philosophy,” whatever that might be.

[Sevastopol]

@Kimstu

Shodan: You see Bush, and you see a man who lied about WMD. I see a man who clearly acted on a belief that was almost universally believed, and actually followed thru on a threat he believed to be real.

I don’t have a problem with your different interpretation (except for the “almost universally believed” part: while it is certainly true that almost everybody thought it very possible that Saddam might have WMD …

In fact this is another flat out lie from the songbook. Try googling the following:

“Robin Cook” “resignation speech”
“David Wilkie” WMD
“Paul O’Neill” evidence

Although, I’m not sure I have the right spelling for O’Neill. These 3 were privy to the intelligence in, respectively England, Australia and the US.

The better view, recently confirmed by the Israelis as well, is that the US’s allies kept a diplomatic silence about the lack of evidence supporting the war Bush was determined to have.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Shodan:

Would you vote for him, or would you simply disbelieve in the sincerity of his conversion and vote for Kerry or Nader anyway?

Well, I’d have to see concrete steps made in all of those areas, as well, rather than just campaign promises. But I just want to try to make clear that my distaste for Bush stems first from his stance on the issues and only secondarily from my view of him as a person, at least as far as I can tell. In fact, to a great extent, my view of him as a person is also derived from his position on various issues.

I’ll concede that there are a few left-wingers out there whose views are determined primarily by their visceral dislike of George Bush. So what? By painting all of his critics with this brush, you actually avoid really tackling the issues. Instead of arguing the merits of a view, for and against, you risk dismissing it as just another anti-Bush rant, a-priori. It’s a great way to save oneself the trouble of actually having a serious debate.

In addition, this constant accusation of partisanship from one side or the other effectively collapses all critical discourse. How can we meaningfully debate any issue if, from the start, I dismiss everything you say as left-wing Bush-bashing partisanship, while you dismiss everything I say as a rabid right-wing demagoguery (or vice-versa)? It’s an effective rhetorical tactic if you’re interested solely in winning debating points, but it paralyzes the possibility of a meaningful, fruitful exchange of ideas. It’s really little more than a species of ad hominum; “I don’t have to actually meet your claims with evidence and counter-arguments, really, since it’s all a bunch of Bush-bashing and left-wing spin to begin with.” And it seems to me that the public discourse in America has collapsed, precisely because of these tactics (at least in part). I find them to be prominent among right-wing commentators and pundits, but won’t accuse the right solely of such sins; I know Michael Moore ain’t exactly a choir boy regarding this point, either. I read stuff on the net over here in Sweden, shake my head, and think, “Yeesh, you guys have all gone crazy over there.” The political polarization in the States is the worst I’ve ever experienced. Nobody can talk to anybody, because as soon as you open your mouth, somebody’s accusing you of blind partisanship, no matter how reasonable you try to be, simply because you take a position.

• But I meant to illustrate something beyond “Clinton is a liar”. You dismiss Clinton’s mistruths as insignificant. Thus, not only is his lying about adultery dismissed, but also his history of sexual harassment, misuse of the office, etc., etc.*

Well, I wouldn’t want to go that far, especially when you put it like that. But I do think that Clinton’s false testimony in this instance can’t be classified as an example of “sexual harassment,” and as far as adultery goes, it really ain’t none of my business.

• I see Bush as acting in good faith thru out the Iraq invasion.*

And I just don’t, and I wonder what more could possibly be done to convince you that he (and his administration) mislead you and your country into an unprovoked, unnecessary, and extremely expensive war. You once wrote:

*** It has, unfortunately, gone way beyond the point of sober reflection. Some liberals now are attempting to deny reality. To claim that the evidence is ambiguous that Saddam “may or may not” have WMD is to take that step.***

You wrote this was because you believed, unquestioningly, what this administration told you. And yet all of those claims – every single one, Shodan, every last single one!! – have turned out to be false. There were no “WMDs.” There were no programs. There were no connections to al-Qaida. There were no Scuds. There were no mobile weapons labs. There were no aluminum tube centrifuges. There were no attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. There were no chemical carrying drones. The list goes on and on. There was nothing – nothing, nada, zip, zero, null set, or in Swedish if you like, INGENTING. Doesn’t this make you scratch your wooly (or not-so-wooly) pate and wonder, just a little bit – could I have been lied to?

• So maybe my answer to the OP is, that Bush would have to do a lot worse, and there would have to be someone out there who I think would do better. And, despite all the bashing, Bush is not doing as badly as the lefties would have us believe, and Kerry is still much worse.*

Well, I’m certainly no fan of Kerry’s. But my view here is similar to yours, only reversed: Bush would have to do a lot better, and Kerry considerably worse, before I’d change my stripes.

Although thanks for your straightforward answer to the question.

My pleasure.

Sam:

You’re next, bub.
Gotta go to work, though, so it might be a day or two before I manage to work up a good response. Stay tuned!

[Shodan]

@Kimstu

Shodan: You see Bush, and you see a man who lied about WMD. I see a man who clearly acted on a belief that was almost universally believed, and actually followed thru on a threat he believed to be real.

I don’t have a problem with your different interpretation (except for the “almost universally believed” part: while it is certainly true that almost everybody thought it very possible that Saddam might have WMD, most people in the world were very skeptical of the claim that it was so certain that Saddam did have immediately-dangerous WMD that it was imperative for the US to take him out soonest, which is what the Administration was telling us).

Well, I suspect we are going to go around on differing interpretations again, but practically nobody had any doubt of the danger from Iraq’s WMD when Clinton lobbed missiles at them - not Clinton, not Hilary, not Kerry, not Gore, not etc. The notion that it was obvious that Iraq never had WMD only arose after the invasion. Before that, and when it was a Democrat in the White House, nary a peep of doubt as to Saddam and his WMD. And this includes conviction strong enough to warrant killing Iraqis.

@Kimstu

But it doesn’t square with what you said in the post I was responding to. You gave the following sample dialogue as an example of changing-places perspectives between conservatives and liberals with regard to Clinton and Bush:
You were the one who said that this dialogue was applicable to both presidents, except that the liberal and conservative parts would be reversed. That clearly implies that you thought it was accurate to call Bush, as well as Clinton, “a known, proven, definite liar”.

Now you’re saying that in fact, you don’t actually believe that Bush is a “known, proven, definite liar”. I don’t care which position you hold and am happy to debate on the basis of either assumption, but it gets confusing when you flip-flop.

No, I was saying that both sides felt the dialogue applied to the other guy. Republicans said thru out the 90s that Clinton was lying (and a scumbag). And Democrats defended him. And Republicans were dumbfounded that so obvious a slimeball as Clinton would still be taken seriously (and could win elections and get substantial approval ratings).

Now it is Democrats on the other side, with equal dumbfoundedness. How can Republicans still support a liar like Bush (they say)? Isn’t it obviously, clearly, blatantly true that he is a liar (they say)?

Which accounts for much of the tendency of Democrats to conclude that only stupidity or evil can account for continuing Bush support. It seems so clear to them that Bush is eee-vil, that they can account for his lead in the polls in no other way. In the same way, Republicans had no idea how (for instance) the same groups that campaigned against sexual harassment with such fervor when Clarence Thomas or Bob Packwood were accused, would instantly change their tune when Clinton was accused. When Anita Hill makes accusations against Thomas, she is “speaking the truth to power”, said her supporters. When Paula Jones and Juanita Broadderick say the same against Clinton, she is “trailer trash”, said Clinton’s supporters.

As I said, both sides are seeing the same facts, but thru different lenses. I can’t remember the exact quote, but some feminist or other said she would be happy to have sex with Clinton because he kept abortion legal. As in my example, issues besides sexual harassment are more important to that woman. Therefore she can excuse or condone behavior that would be instantly condemned in an ideological opponent.

I am not saying that I, or any partisan, believes that Clinton and Bush are morally equivalent. I am saying that both sides are unable to see that the other side has a different view on the same facts.

And are confused by it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kimstu]

Shodan: No, I was saying that both sides felt the dialogue applied to the other guy. Republicans said thru out the 90s that Clinton was lying (and a scumbag). And Democrats defended him.

But I don’t think anybody seriously tried to argue that he wasn’t lying about his affair. We just said that lying about your personal sex life isn’t important enough for us to be concerned about.

You, on the other hand, are claiming that Republicans don’t think Bush is a liar. In other words, Democrats admitted that Clinton lied about a blowjob but didn’t think it was important, while Republicans are claiming that Bush hasn’t lied at all. So your dialogue doesn’t apply in both cases. The two cases look more like this:

Republican says to Democrat about Clinton:
“How can you possibly support that person? He is a known, proven, definite liar! Don’t you care anything about truth or morality or the dignity of the US?”

To which the reponse is, “That isn’t as important as this other issue that I care more about. Overall, things are going relatively well, and therefore I support the guy.”

Democrat says to Republican about Bush:
“How can you possibly support that person? He is a known, proven, definite liar! Don’t you care anything about truth or morality or the dignity of the US?”

To which the reponse is, “No, he’s not a liar.”

You can see why I got confused when you originally claimed that this dialogue illustrated how “the Left is going thru something in the twentyfirst century that conservatives went thru in the 90s.”

[elucidator]

It must be like that “deal-breaker” moment, when something you really wish were plausible finally reaches a break-point. Like a guy with a used car…

“Say, damn, that’s a 1956 T-Bird convertible! How much?”

“700 dollars.”

“That’s a great price!”

“Well, there are problems. Tranny is shot, and the brakes don’t work…”

“Kind of balance out, won’t go, can’t stop…”

“Chassis is rusted out…”

“Some duct tape, some bondo, several very thick layers of primer…”

“A dead guy was locked in the trunk for about three months…”

“Hmmmmm. Winter or summer?”

[Desmostylus]

@Shodan

The notion that it was obvious that Iraq never had WMD only arose after the invasion.

I’d suggest that this “notion” is entirely inside you own head. Who said it was “obvious that Iraq never had WMD”? You did. The rest of us wanted proof. Bush and co lied about the proof, in the same way that you are now lying about the way the debate was conducted.

[athelas]

>Bush and co lied about the proof

Cite?

[Rashak_Mani]

@Pervert

BTW, In the “Is Bush Really in Charge” thread, I did identify a notion that might make me change sides. It was asserted that Bush believes in Creation Science. IF such a thing could be adequately proven it might be enough.

Yes I think Bush beleives in or gives creationism real consideration… again religion getting way too much attention. Anyone got a specific cite it would be nice to post it.

@SamStone

And where did I say that? I said that Bush made reasonable decisions given the intelligence he was presented. That the intelligence was wrong is not really in question now, is it? The important question is how everyone got it wrong. And I mean everyone. France, Germany, Britain, the U.S., Australia… Even Jordan’s intelligence service thought Saddam had WMD. And given that Syria and Libya both have advanced WMD programs, it’s quite surprising that none was found in Iraq, don’t you think?

It was reasonable to believe that Iraq had WMD. That they apparently didn’t is confusing, and a lot of people are still scratching their heads over that.

The UN had a report on it… the US dismissed it. WMD were an excuse… never a reason to invade Iraq. Cherry picked info from the sources that gave them what they wanted… When Powell went to the UN with a phone tap and some WMD trucks everyone was dumbfounded by how little the US had. So no we weren’t scratching our heads after that… after that I was sure that Iraq had at best old stuff… nothing dangerous in 45 minutes to UK or US.

Why was Blair so convinced of the 45 minute threat ? Obviously reports were being inflated by underling happy to please their masters. It was all about Regime change... not security.

@Shodan

Well, I do tend to believe that lying is lying, especially under oath. I am not aware of any instance in which Bush lied under oath, so in legal terms, there is really no comparison between Bush and Clinton. And in moral terms, Clinton is clearly the more extensive liar.

I see Bush as acting in good faith thru out the Iraq invasion.

You see Bush, and you see a man who lied about WMD. I see a man who clearly acted on a belief that was almost universally believed, and actually followed thru on a threat he believed to be real.

So Clinton lied... did Kerry ?  Why keep comparing blowjobs with Iraq invasion ? Kerry is the contender now. Bush might not have lied... but he sure is stretching those WMD... those terrorist threats... those AQ connections. Bush asked for an got the reports that supported his view on Iraq. No one outside the coalition of the willing thought that WMD were an adequate excuse. It was never about Terrorism ...

@Sam

But I just showed you poll results that show that nearly 50% of Iraqis STILL support the invasion

See my other thread about Polls in Iraq. The common man in Iraq will be swayed by their leadership... their leadership (all religions but Kurds) has been neglected and disregarded by the CPA. The CPA is isolated. You said Al-Sadr barely has support... then the US surrounds him and kills loads of people. Now he has loads of support. So its one mistake after another. The US is acting the villain's part perfectly.

America’s worst enemy in the region, now America’s friend. Libya has also moved out of the ‘enemy’ column, although I wouldn’t exactly call it an ally.

Thank God for UN and USA sanctions no ? Why do people keep thinking that Bush scared them into compliance… when in fact they have been under economic sanctions that clearly were the major factor ? Or that his US educated son had a major influence. Americans should beleive more in moral power than military power.

[Squink]

@athelas

>Bush and co lied about the proof

Cite?

On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News interview when asked about WMDs: “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1109-11.htm

If you don’t like my link, find another one. Rumsfeld’s lie is slathered all over the internet.

[Shodan]

My damn PC keeps freezing up on me. Third time lucky.

@Mr.Svinlesha

You wrote this was because you believed, unquestioningly, what this administration told you. And yet all of those claims – every single one, Shodan, every last single one!! – have turned out to be false.

Every one?

@Mr.Svinlesha

There were no “WMDs.”

Yes, there were.

@Mr.Svinlesha

There were no programs.

Yes, there were.

@Mr.Svinlesha

There were no connections to al-Qaida.

Yes, there were.

@Mr.Svinlesha

There were no Scuds.

Yes, there were, at least at one point.

@Mr.Svinlesha

There were no mobile weapons labs. There were no aluminum tube centrifuges. There were no attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. There were no chemical carrying drones.

These parts are true or mostly true. Or perhaps it would be more accurate that the Bush adminstration claims about the aluminum tubes cannot be proven beyond doubt.

And it would seem that the idea that Iraq definitely, clearly, unmistakably didn’t have any chemical munitions is not as certain as it might be.

I think we are hitting on the same issue as before. We look at the same set of facts, and draw very different conclusions.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Desmostylus

I’d suggest that this “notion” is entirely inside you own head. Who said it was “obvious that Iraq never had WMD”? You did. The rest of us wanted proof. Bush and co lied about the proof, in the same way that you are now lying about the way the debate was conducted.

No, you are as full of shit as you usually are.

A lie is a statement known to be false as it is made. You claim that Bush and Co. lied. Therefore, they must have known that Iraq did not have WMD.

No evidence exists that this is the case. I know the less honest lefties repeat it ad infinitum, but that doesn’t establish it, especially not when it comes from you, who we already know is prone to telling ugly and racist lies about Bush and others who disagree with you. Accordingly, you have no credibility as regards related subjects. Sorry.

Regards,
Shodan

[Rashak_Mani]

@Shodan

There were no connections to al-Qaida.
Yes, there were.

Your link is about AQ connections AFTER the invasion ! So get your stuff right… claiming AQ connections PRIOR TO INVASION was false. Now Iraq is Terror Disney.

Also you don’t invade countries because of primary WMD like chemical shells. Bush claimed a REAL menace. Why does the US spend billions in intelligence and then cannot find these WMD ?

[MMI]

Are we having fun with tenses, Shodan?

Mr. Svinlesha referred to present tense statements made by the administration (in the past) about Iraq’s purported (then) current WMD’s. Which claims have been generally to have not been accurate descriptions of the facts on the ground when the statements were made.

The administration’s claims of knowledge of the (then) current facts on the ground cannot be validated by referring to events that occurred years before the claims were made. My statement “The Russians are putting nuclear missiles in Cuba!” is not rendered true by the events of the Kennedy administration.

You can argue that Iraq’s history certainly makes more plausible the administration’s claims, but it does not, can not, validate them.

[pervert]

Thank you for your considered response. I’ll only address a few points. In the interests of avoiding a hijack, I’ll avoid getting into one on my debating style, but I think a couple things are relevant.

@Mr. Svinlesha

In debating you I find myself confronted with what appears to be a complete epistemological relativist. It would seem you judge all possible interpretations to be of equal weight, no matter how outlandish they might be.

Not at all. Unless you mean that I view all possible interpretations (interpretations, mind you, not the facts on the ground as it were) as similarly suspect.

However, when faced with a number of such possible interpretations, one must at some point or another make a judgement call, at least if one intends to take a stance on the issue.

That’s correct. I certainly agree. I have no problem with you accepting one interpretation over another as long as you recognize that part of your data as an interpretation. Its only when you put a quote from an editorial and imply that it is evidence of a particular minds set or intention on that part of those quoted that I have a problem. I only questioned your point because I have heard so many people cite an example where the administration mentioned Iraq and AQ in the same speech, paragraph, or sentence and claimed this as proof that they were trying to claim Saddam was involved in 9-11. Meanwhile, a careful (or even honest) reading of all of this evidence (that I’ve seen anyway) doesn’t even come close to claiming such a link.

One selects the interpretation that, in one’s best judgement, clarifies or explicates the question at hand.

Well, in my experience it is far better to go to original sources to see if the interpretation of the reporter or commentator is accurate. I am willing to be proven wrong, but I have yet to find a single one with whome I agree completely. They all almost always misinterpret the original quote in some way to make thier point. (I am not given to using terms like all or always. As I said, I’m willing to be proven wrong.)

Naturally one can call that judgement into question. Merely asserting that other possible interpretations exist, however, is not the equivalent of a forceful argument in favor of a competing interpretation. Rather, it more akin to “playing Devil’s advocate;”[…]

I agree entirely. I did not mean to suggest that my counter interpretation was more likely than his. Well, alright I did mean to suggest that it was more likely in my opinion. But I did not mean it as a refutation or “forceful argument” against his interpretation. Such a thing would require a link to the original remarks. I really was only trying to make a point about the preponderance of evidence that is trotted out concerning the administration’s supposed lies regarding 9-11 and Iraqs involvement. Just because the two things are used in the same speech, paragraph, or sentence, does not mean that the writer is trying to imply that Saddam caused 9-11.

and it is difficult to get anywhere in the discussion if one’s debating opponent meets one’s arguments by simply asserting, for example, “Well, it’s possible that we could interpret X this way instead, as well.”

I did not mean to make things difficult.

I mention this because it seems to me that you sometimes get lost in this world of competing interpretations. That’s just a casual impression, of course, so I freely admit I could be wrong. But I think as well it tends to lead to very confusing debates. I seem to notice that your debating opponents get a bit confused by you at times, and can’t really tell what you’re on about.

I agree that this happens sometimes. I am not as accomplished at this as others. Misinterpreting the meaning or context of a news event is a pet peeve of mine. Because of this, I tend to react more strongly to presentations of a pundit’s opinions as facts or cites more strongly than I should. When those opinions coincide with the opinions of a debating opponents they tend to take my suggestions (clumsily put I admit) that the opinion is not a fact personally. Also, I find that most people (myself definately included) encounter difficulty identifying interpretations that they have accepted as interpretations rather than as facts. That is, it is often difficult to recognize when I have accepted an interpretation as a fact.

If I may address the quotes from the War College, I’d just like to say this.

The administration has thus postulated a broad, international terrorist threat to U.S. national security interests that encompasses (1) three geographic levels of terrorist organizations–national, regional, and global, as well as (2) rogue states–specifically Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Also on the threat list are (3) any individuals or entities that proliferate WMD to terrorist organizations or rogue states, and (4) failed states, like the Taliban’s Afghanistan, that may not sponsor terrorism overseas but that willingly or unwillingly provide safe haven and assistance to organizations that do.

Discrimination, however, is not the first word that comes to mind in examining the administration’s language on terrorism. Administration rhetoric is not clear, for example, on the matter of whether there are strategically and operationally consequential differences between terrorist organizations and rogue states….

This seems to me to be a fairly honest apraisal of the situation. The administration has linked Iraq to the war on terror in very vague ways. This is not the same as claiming that the administration claimed or is claiming a causal link between Iraq and 9-11. Suggestions otherwise seem to be conspiracy theories.

For instance:

Does this mean that we can no longer make reasonable distinctions between the two?

Of course not. And I do not think that the administration is making no reasonable distinctions between the two. Does this mean that we cannot mention their similarities either?

I don’t “take this thing for granted,”

That was a poor choice of words on my part. Especially using the pronoun “you” preceding it. I meant only that the question in the OP seemed to take this sort of thing for granted. <I had an english teacher work very hard to discourage my use of the generic “you” and yet a couple months here and I am right back in the habbit. ;(>

Again, this question seems to reflect back upon your basic relativism, I think.

No, not at all. Just the opposite. It is my paranoia, so to speak, of relativism.

@pervert

Are you saying that there is no Al-Quaeada fighters there now? Are you asserting that the philosophy of AQ is irrelevent to the current situation?

With regard to first question: no. I don’t know if there are or aren’t. Do you? With regard to the second question: yes.

So you are saying that there is a possibility that AQ fighters (or perhaps only those who may have trained with AQ) may be in Iraq fighting American troops but that the tactics that AQ uses are not relevant to the current situation in Iraq? I’m sure that is not how you meant those answers.

I also mean that the difficulties faced by coalition forces in Iraq today are only tangentially related to al-Qaida and it “philosophy,” whatever that might be.

Agreed, conditionally. And unless I am mistaken, the quote you provided from Schlesinger before congress only mentioned AQ “tangentially”.

Now, perhaps he did so in oreder to create the false impression in people’s minds that AQ and Saddam worked closely together to commit the 9-11 attacks. But that is entirely the opinion of the commentator. Not the facts. That really was the only point I was trying to make.

Thanks again, for the considered response.

[elucidator]

By golly, Shodan, you’ve outdone yourself! All your previous efforts are as nothing next to this stunning display, this does for “disingenuous” what Stonehenge does for rocks.

First cite: looks like the real McCoy, being scientific, and all. But all it states, and all that it purports to prove, was that Saddam had, at some point in the past, chemical nasty. Which we knew. Your problem is this: the Bushiviks claimed to be going to war to disarm Saddam, to rid him of things he was currently in possession of, not things he had at one time. I don’t mean to be insulting by pointing out the blazingly obvious, but the point appears to have eluded you. Again. It makes about as much sense as declaring war on South Carolina to free the slaves, by offering evidence of slave sales circa 1850.

Proceeding downhill at a blistering pace:

Cite the second: the dug up centrifuge. One centrifuge, count 'em, one. Do you have any idea how many such centrifuges, spinning furiously, and for how long, it would take to produce enough fissionable material for one clumsy bomb? Go find out, and get back to us. Hint: oodles of 'em. Further hint: burial in dirt is not considered to be efficacious.

Cite the third: already well dealt with.

Cite the fourth: Scuds, schmuds. The Scud is a piece of crap, a low-tech, essentially balistic missile with a guidance system that would embarrass a 4-H Science Fair. The missiles Iraq was dismantling in the days preceding this scheisssturm were superior to the Scud, and they were taking them apart under UN supervision. Which is to say, complying. Did you miss that part?

The “aluminum tube” nonsense has not been proven “beyond doubt”? Well, here is a cite for you.

http://www.iht.com/articles/83026.html

titled: “Atomic agency challenges Bush’s key claim against Iraq”. I suppose, if one were desperate enough, or possessed of the faith that surpasseth all understanding, one might cling to the notion of proving “beyond doubt”. But then one has to presuppose some expertise on your part that exceeds that of professional nuclear physicists. A leap of faith I am unwilling to make, barring a demonstration otherwise.

And finally, I object to your representation of friend Demo as “full of shit”. You have demonstrated neither the right nor the capacity to make such a judgement. Shame on you.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

practically nobody had any doubt of the danger from Iraq’s WMD when Clinton lobbed missiles at them - not Clinton, not Hilary, not Kerry, not Gore, not etc.

Those Republicans who stoutly insisted that he was “wagging the dog” to distract them from the blowjob story seemed to have had some doubt.

The notion that it was obvious that Iraq never had WMD only arose after the invasion. Before that, and when it was a Democrat in the White House, nary a peep of doubt as to Saddam and his WMD.

Excluded middle, or, in short, bullshit. You do recall, don’t you, the UN inspections, the much-maligned Blix team whose job was to go find out the facts first, so that a war didn’t have to depend on guesswork? Remember that? All of us who certainly entertained the possibilities either way, but saw no reason not to make sure first? Why, in your opinion now, could Bush not have waited the extra 2 damn weeks for that? It did happen that way, and any further attempt to deny it casts a serious doubt of good faith on anything else you say here - as if that weren’t already a problem based on your efforts to equate lying about a consensual sex act with lying about a war.

The topic there, as I’m sure you must realize but are conflating anyway, isn’t Bush’s being a liar, or Clinton’s, but about what they lied about. Since you ask what lies Bush told, we’ve been there many times before. Saying you know something that you don’t really know is lying, m’kay? Refusing to go find out first before you act on it is something beyond that. The reasons for doing so are murky, but some of those that have been offered are things we hanged people for at Nuremberg and Tokyo. But to you that’s the equivalent of a blowjob? What happened to all the sermons about character and the evils of moral relativism that used to be in vogue from the hard right?

I am saying that both sides are unable to see that the other side has a different view on the same facts.

And are confused by it.

No. There is disagreement as to what the facts are here, not how they are seen. When someone is constantly shown to be cherrypicking facts, and believing things that have already been shown false, and refuses to acknowledge such corrections, then they no longer can be credited with a “different view of the facts”. “Confusion” is too kind an interpretation to put on that thought process.

[pervert]

@pervert

Well, in my experience it is far better to go to original sources to see if the interpretation of the reporter or commentator is accurate.

Since I finally found The Statement by James Schlesinger before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate 20 April 2004 <PDF Warning> Lets compare them to the impression Mr. Svinlesha quoted from The Juan Cole’s Blog* 5 days later. (Note you have to scroll down a ways to see the essay which mentions Schlesinger’s remarks)

As Mr. Svinlesha correctly pointed out, Mr Cole suggested:

saw how the mythical opinions are generated at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations where I testified last Tuesday. Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testified, and began his testimony with a long quote from Usama Bin Laden about how the US was timid and had easily been chased out of Lebanon and Aden with a few bombs. It was an odd way to begin a hearing on what has gone wrong in Iraq.

[…]

So it seems clear to me that Schlesinger was trying to shape his Senate testimony so as to hint around that the Iraq War was somehow connected to al-Qaeda, even though we all know that it wasn’t. The only one who challenged Schlesinger on this was Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee:

and yet he included the question asked and answered.

SEN. CHAFEE: I know these gentlemen have good opinions, but they don’t speak for the administration. Those are the people we’re going to get the answers from ultimately. But nonetheless, Secretary Schlesinger, in your opening comments, you quoted some very chilling testimony from Osama bin Laden. Why use that testimony at a hearing on Iraq?

MR. SCHLESINGER: The mention of that is to discuss why it is that the United States is engaged in the Middle East, because we were attacked, because of a declaration of war against Americans.
The question of Iraq, which is what you point to, it may or may not have been, as some stated, central at the time we went in. It may have been secondary or peripheral at the time we went in. But the administration is quite right that it is now the central front in the war against terrorism, because much of what we see in Fallujah today are terrorists who have come from the outside world. They are the ones primarily who have been setting the car bombs and have been doing the training.

There’s definately more in the blog, but go see it for yourself. It seems pretty clear to me that Mr. Schlesinger was trying to make the point that OBL’s words were meant to address the question of withdrawing from Iraq to the larger question of dealing with the War on Terrorism. He was in no way asserting that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime. In fact, he said in regards to a clarifying question:

I think you’ve had testimony, or a letter, at least, from George Tenet talking about the contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam going back at least a decade. But that is – we are there. We are where we are. And the consequences of not winning, of not being successful, would be disastrous not only for the United States –

<I am assuming that this is the full answer. It appears in the Blog that the Senator cut him off>

And from his initial remarks:

Usama himself has opined that, “when the people see a strong horse and a weak horse—they naturally gravitate toward the strong horse.” Consequently, this country must conclusively demonstrate that we are NOT the weak horse. Withdrawal before we have successfully stabilized Iraq is, therefore, not an option. It would be dramatically more visible throughout the Middle East and elsewhere than were those earlier retreats cited by Usama. I recognize that inevitably debate will continue regarding at least the timing of our move into Iraq. Nonetheless, we must not allow the political contentions of an election year to create any impression that we are anything but united in our determination to persevere and to prevail in Iraq. Success is the only acceptable course of action.

The quotes he included from OBL were intended to link his position, that we cannot withdraw from Iraq until it is stable, to the larger question of the war on terror. Certainly a reasonable position, and reasonable way to illustrate it.

Once again, however, this is so far from an attempt to link Saddam’s regime with the attacks on 9-11, that I am surprised it is even mentioned this way by Mr. Cole.

Mr. Svinlesha Perhaps you have history with this person which inclines you to take him at his word. Perhaps he has some evidence that Mr. Schlesinger’s remarks were intended other than Mr. Schlesinger suggested. However, he did not include any (with the exception of an impression of British official Lord Cromer in 1970 on some other remarks by Mr. Schlesinger not excerpted here).

Absent such evidence, his impression seems to be nothing more than supposition. And heavily biased supposition at that. Have I missed something?

I understand the proposition that the American public is not totally cognizant of these issues. I even understand the proposition that some of the confusion comes from the rhetoric used by the Administration. But the proposition that the administration has actually claimed, or that it seeks to blur the truth about Iraq’s involvement in 9-11 is just silly. It implies either a blatant lie on the one hand or a sinister conspiracy on the other.