# How are the conservatives/GOP getting away with all this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445 "2005-02-10T19:23:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/181 "2005-02-18T09:55:55Z")
**Shodan** ’s _blatant misrepresentations_ aside (because I have no faith that he will become reasonable in the near future), what are the origins of this faulty intel, in _both_ the Clinton and Bush admins? I still maintain that the POTUS is responsible for any actions on the intel, but at the same time, I accept that the POTUS is not responsible for the _collection_ of intel. Where did the intel that determined there was existing WMD come from, in both the Clinton and Bush admins.? We know that the Chalabi fronted INC was in existence from at least 1998 onwards, and the UNSCOM intel from 1998 saw no significant WMD threat. If there was other intel at that time I am unaware of the origin, and hopefully, someone will enlighten. Was it INC related? The reason I am against “Bush lied”, _as it pertains to WMD_ (because obviously, he lied about many other things), is the strength of “plausible deniability” when it comes to intel. Obviously, the POTUS doesn’t collect intel first-hand, and relies on multiple sources. What I don’t know, and haven’t been able to find out by precursory google searches, is what intel led Clinton to believe there _was_ a threat of WMD in Iraq. If this is old news, I apologise. I didn’t spend much time in the US in the '90’s, and wasn’t a member of SDMB during the time it might have been relevant. Was there a thread that dealt with this subject prior to my memborship? Or is it still unexplained? When I posted my “those who originated” assertion, I was thinking of “those who _presented_ the intel”, and not the POTUS. IOW, there’s a chance Bush could _claim_ deniablility on the intel. Regardless of whether we _believe_ that or not, I’d like to know the _origin_ of the intel, even going back into the Clinton admin. Anyone who has a cite or info on this, thanks in advance (and sorry if it’s old news). ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/182 "2005-02-18T11:03:42Z")
Very quickly and sketchy for time has run out: as far as I recall, the intel consisted of a connect the dots picture between OBL, AQ, Sudan, a chemical factory, Saddam Hussein, and Iraq around the time of the attacks on the two US embassies in Africa. That was hardly the finest intelligence. After Clinton had the chemical factory in question blown up, independent reports claimed that items like aspirin and other medicine bottles were found in the debris, corroborating the official story that the factory produced drugs. There were no further conclusions or investigations I am aware of, and no apology. I remember being singularly unimpressed. Clinton (and Hilary, I suppose) did appear to believe in SOME kind of WMD “program” (though not necessarily in Iraq), and SOME kind of cooperation between AQ and Saddam Hussein, but as I said they were playing a connect the dots game with intelligence that was of a largely circumstantial nature (I do remember a factory soil sample that supposedly tested positive for a toxin, and alleged communication between Sudan and Iraq’s government at the time when OBL was headquartered in Sudan – conclusion? Theoretically, none. In practice, Saddam Hussein was plotting and arming). Clinton was planning three potential strike scenarios against OBL towards the end of his term, but never pulled them off – according to some reports because the evidence did not appear strong enough to justify attacking foreign soil. That’s what I remember off the top of my head, apologies for any errors. After the 90s decade and into the 2000s, improved and more uptodate intelligence was being gathered by, among others, the UN weapons inspections program. At this point, I am arguing, who necessarily cares what the Clintons thought on the subject of intelligence? They weren’t in power anymore. They weren’t getting daily intel briefings and updates. They weren’t meeting regularly with the chiefs of staff. They were quite simply – compared to the President and his people – out of the intel loop. Everyone in he US, it seems, was out of the intel loop in the days of Bush’s mad convincing. Not so in Europe; aside from valid objections raised by countries like France and Germany, not to mention objections that were fiercely squashed by the governments like Italy and Spain, in the UK Robin Cook, who would have been privy to any intel the prime minister himself had, resigned and stated that he saw no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had or was building up or maintaining WMDs in any conventional sense. I strongly disagree with distracting from the real issues by attempting to get a “you too” fallacy airborne, as if somehow the Bush and Clinton cases were so identical as to require the genetic fallacy to distinguish them. Clinton, whatever his faults in general and in the Sudan/Iraq/AQ debacle in particular, did not steamroll over evidence that didn’t directly support his agenda, and did not drag his country into a foolhardy war on such poor justification. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/183 "2005-02-18T14:19:18Z")
> [@Rufus Xavier](#): > > I am not arbitrarily excluding Presidents not re-elected. You are comparing GW to Clinton. Sure you are. I compared Bush to all Presidents since Reagan (and later to the two before him). You are the one trying to say “they don’t count, since they weren’t re-elected”. They do count, if we are discussing who has the better claim to a mandate, and/or who is bucking a trend of the last thirty years or so. Only Bush and Reagan buck that trend, both by being re-elected and by doing so with an absolute majority of the popular vote. > [@Abe](#): > > No, to see how that works requires, I suspect, an approach wide open to bias. You are deliberately avoiding the real arguments here, attempting instead to focus attention on the Clintons. I love this kind of shit. Hilary makes a direct and unequivocal statement that Iraq has links to al-Queda. But talking about what she said is “avoiding the argument”. > [@Abe](#): > > That’s ridiculous. If we are talking about intelligence dating back to when the Clintons were in power, we’re referring to fairly old information that was superseded a number of times. Hilary made her statement in 2002. > [@Abe](#): > > Focus on the actual problem Shodan, and stop it with these pathetic distraction tactics and blatant misrepresentations. Once again I ask you: How can you argue that the two items of intelligence and the positions presented by Bush/Clintons were equivalent in scope and honesty? Because they are practically the same. Except as regards the party affilliation of the source of the statement. > [@Abe](#): > > You haven’t even made the attempt to show that the Clintons were deliberately using falsehoods in a manner similar to the way Bush was repeatedly shown to employ. We already covered this one. Bush uses “Iraq” and “9/11” in the same speech, so he is using “deliberate falsehoods”. Hilary very explicitly and clearly states that Iraq gave aid and refuge to al-Queda, but that gets glossed over. As I mentioned before, if Bush says Iraq had links to terrorism, it’s “Bush lied”. If Hilary says Iraq had links to terrorism, it’s “Bush lied”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/184 "2005-02-18T15:06:58Z")
Boy, **Shodan** you sure are fond of that word, “absolute”. Must update my **Shodanese** to English dictionary: “absolute” means much the same as “just barely”. So if the perfidious Packers kick a field goal from the 50 yard line in the last five seconds of the game, and win 21-20, this is an “absolute” victory. And if GeeDubya’s approval should eke up to 51%, this is the “absolute” approval of the majority of the American people. As far as Hillary goes, so what? Do you imagine you can distribute the responsibilty for the disastrous decision to invade Iraq? How many signatures do you imagine there are at the bottom of the orders, where it says Commander in Chief? Five? Twenty? Or just one? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/185 "2005-02-18T16:02:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I love this kind of shit. Hilary makes a direct and unequivocal statement that Iraq has links to al-Queda. But talking about what she said is “avoiding the argument”. No. As you well know, **Abe** explicitly said what he believed was the argument. Hillary Clinton did make that statement. If you wish to call it a lie, fine. Why would she believe that there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda? I would suggest to you that she made the mistake of believing what the administration told her. She made her statement on October 10, 2002. At the end of September, 2002, there was a concerted effort by the administration to put forth the idea that there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda. I apologize for the length of this post, but the transcript of Rumsfeld’s Pentagon briefing is highly illustrative of the effort put forth by the administration to misinform, shade, be circumspect and lie. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/26/national/main523326.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/26/national/main523326.shtml) > [@](#): > > Bush Administration Links Iraq, Al Qaeda > (AP) President Bush’s national security adviser said al Qaeda operatives have found refuge in Baghdad, and accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime of helping Osama bin Laden’s followers develop chemical weapons. [http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2002/t09262002\_t0926sd.html](http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2002/t09262002_t0926sd.html) > [@](#): > > \*\*Q: Mr. Secretary, Condi Rice was interviewed on television last night and she said that – she said that al Qaeda had – I believe she put it, “taken refuge” in Baghdad. And she also said that suspect al Qaeda captives had told the United States that al Qaeda has been trained by Iraq in how to make chemical weapons. Could you shed any light on either of those, including whether or not these al Qaeda in Baghdad might be senior al Qaeda? > Rumsfeld: The knowledge that the intelligence community, the shared intelligence information among the coalition members, has of the al Qaeda relationship with Iraq is evolving. It’s based on a lot of different types of sources of varying degrees of reliability. Some of it, admittedly, comes from detainees, which has been helpful, and particularly some high-ranking detainees. > Since we began after September 11th, we do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training. And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al Qaeda. The reports of these contacts have been increasing since 1998. We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of – weapons of mass destruction capabilities. We do have – I believe it’s one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members. There is, I’m told, also some other information of varying degrees of reliability that supports that conclusion of their cooperation. \*\* > Q: Are there any indications that senior al Qaeda are in Baghdad or Iraq? > Rumsfeld: I’ve – I think I’ve – the problem with it is that when intelligence is gathered, it’s gathered at a moment, and then that moment passes, and then there’s the next moment and the moment after that. We certainly have evidence of senior al Qaeda who have been in Baghdad in recent periods. Whether they’re currently there or not one never knows, because they’re moving targets. > Yeah? > Q: Mr. Secretary, are you even cleared to say that Saddam Hussein – or there’s no intelligence that you’ve seen that Saddam Hussein has a direct tie to September 11th? > Rumsfeld: I didn’t address that. > Q: And I’m asking that. Do you – have you seen any or is there any intelligence that Saddam Hussein has any ties to September 11th? > Rumsfeld: I think I’ve probably said what I’d like to say about al Qaeda and Iraq. > Q: Mr. Secretary, can we follow up on that just a little bit? Much of the criticism, congressional and others, domestically and overseas, is that neither you nor the president have proven the case, so to speak, about a possible attack on Iraq. Do you know something that we don’t know, that perhaps you’re not willing to share with us – but do you know possibly – > Rumsfeld: I hope so! (Laughter.) > Q: We hope so, too. But do you know of direct linkage between Saddam Hussein and the use of weapons of mass destruction – (inaudible) – elsewhere? And further than what you just told us, do you know of any direct linkage between him and the al Qaeda you’re not able to share with us? > Rumsfeld: Look, the – I think it’s very important for people to think what’s taking place right now in the Congress. […]And the task we have is to try to take all of these pieces of information and draw conclusions that are in the interests of the American people and the people of the world.[…]Our goal is not to go into a court of law and try to prove something to somebody. **Prime Minister Blair put out a white paper on this issue. The president of the United States went to the United Nations. Members of the House and Senate have been briefed extensively on this set of issues. And in every case, it is a puzzle. It is the task of taking these disparate pieces and putting them together so that people can make their own judgment, not for us to prove anything.** What they have to do is they have to say what does a reasonable person conclude are the risks from this? Are the risks greater of the U.N., for example, trying to enforce their resolution, or are the risks greater of not doing that? Always there are risks on both sides. […] > Q: Mr. Secretary, is the information that you have told us about this morning new? **And why is the administration, in a very orchestrated pattern, putting this out now?** > Rumsfeld: I’ve been out of town and I don’t know anything about an orchestrated pattern. All I know is I was asked questions when I walked in here, so I responded. If that’s an orchestra, it’s a funny orchestra – > **Q: Condi Rice said it last night, Ari Fleischer said it a few minutes ago, and you were using almost exactly the same words. So there’s –** > Rumsfeld: Yeah. Well, the way that happens – first of all, with respect to the first part of your question, much of the information is not new. Some is, some isn’t. It is cumulative. It keeps coming along as interrogations take place. > And second, before I left town to do the briefing in Europe, I asked what portions of these things that we know might be appropriate to declassify and would no longer cause any harm to anybody if they were made public. And the words that I’ve used are basically the response I got to my request, and which I used with our NATO allies on an unclassified basis. > **Q: The words are very carefully chosen, and I wonder if we can go over some of them. You said that there was – […] You said there was one report, a single source, of unspecified training by al Qaeda of some kind of chemical weapons training.** > Rumsfeld: Yeah. […] > Q: You’re laying out what you say are specifics, but it’s very, very vague. Is there more specific intelligence to back up – > Rumsfeld: Well, sure. > Q: – a single source of unspecified type of training? > Rumsfeld: Well, sure. I know who the source is. > Q: Do you know what the specific kind of training is without telling us? > Rumsfeld: That I’m not – I don’t have high confidence in, because – > **Q: Do you have more than one source that indicates this, that you can’t reveal to us? > Rumsfeld: On that particular matter – (pauses) – yes.** > Q: And on one of your other issues, you say there’s credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven, the issue of safe haven. > Rumsfeld: Right. > Q: Is Iraq providing al Qaeda safe haven? > Rumsfeld: I guess that’s a question of semantics. I – > Q: Just to talk about it doesn’t mean you do it, I guess. > \*\*Rumsfeld: That’s possible, although we know there are al Qaeda in the country, and we know they’ve discussed with Iraq safe haven. Now whether the ones that are in the country are there under some sort of grant of safe haven or not is – happens to be a piece of intelligence that either we don’t have or we don’t want to talk about. \*\* > Q: You also said, Mr. Secretary – > Rumsfeld: Do you follow me? Wait a second – > \*\*Q: Yeah, I follow you. I mean, it’s – what you’re creating is an innuendo by this, rather than flatly – > Rumsfeld: No, no, what we’re doing is we’re – we’re saying is, in response to questions and an enormous appetite on this subject, we’re trying to be very, very careful about saying what we think we can say that is useful to the public, not inaccurate, precisely phrased and defendable, without compromising sources or methods. > Now that’s not something people just get up and blurt out a bunch of words about. \*\* > […]Q: So you currently believe there are al Qaeda in Saddam Hussein-controlled areas. > Rumsfeld: I thought I said it precisely the way I wanted to. I can’t know whether, as we sit here talking, the information that was accurate when we got it is still accurate today. > Q: Understood – > **Rumsfeld: But if you’re asking, is it current, in the last period of days or weeks, the answer is yes.** > Q: Okay. That is what I was asking. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. So it’s not 10 years old. As you say, some of your information goes back – > […]Q: Yes. You said earlier, we certainly have evidence of senior al Qaeda in Baghdad. Can you identify for us today who those senior al Qaeda in Baghdad may be, if they’re still there? > Rumsfeld: I could, but I won’t. > Q: Are they sufficiently senior, to the level of Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri? Are they in the top 10? Top 15? When you say senior, how do you – > Rumsfeld: Oh, gosh. I don’t – clearly, it’s not Osama bin Laden, if that’s what you’re asking. > Q: Are they in the top 10? The top what? > Rumsfeld: Oh, I don’t know. I’d have to go back and get the latest list. They’re people of interest. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/186 "2005-02-18T16:08:41Z")
Further, **Shodan** , I think part of the point that you keep missing is what the purpose of the statement was. From the remainder of the speech made by Hillary, with an actual link to the actual speech, and not simply a collection of snips on some not Freeper website. [http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq\_101002.html](http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html) > [@](#): > > Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform. > > This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom. > > However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak. > > If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? > > So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. […] > > While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.[…] > > My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose – all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world. > > Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections. ---
**Author:** ![Rufus\_Xavier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@Rufus\_Xavier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rufus_Xavier)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/187 "2005-02-18T16:32:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sure you are. I compared Bush to all Presidents since Reagan (and later to the two before him). You are the one trying to say “they don’t count, since they weren’t re-elected”. They do count, if we are discussing who has the better claim to a mandate, and/or who is bucking a trend of the last thirty years or so. Only Bush and Reagan buck that trend, both by being re-elected and by doing so with an absolute majority of the popular vote. My point is that the phrase “all the Presidents since Reagan” really means Bush the elder and Clinton. Two Presidents. Comparing one President to two others is not a particularly large sample size, and any point you make in the comparison is not nearly impressive as you seem to think it is. Wow, Bush the younger had a better showing in his re-election bid than Clinton and Bush the elder. He also did better than Carter and Ford. Well, I guess compared to all the Presidents who have run for re-election since 1972 (which is 5 Presidents), he’s had the second-best showing. Out of six. And he’s better than the third-best by a very slim margin. Well, I’m in awe. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/188 "2005-02-18T19:11:27Z")
Jesus, where to start? Originally posted by **Shodan** : > [@](#): > > - > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* Originally Posted by John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003 > > Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein…He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation…So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."\*\* > > Same here - see if you can guess the author: > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Quada members.\*\* > > Darn that Bush for telling all those nasty lies about Iraq’s links to al-Queda! > > Regards, > Shodan \* To which Hentor replies: > [@](#): > > - **Shodan** I can guess the source, but let me thank you for providing yet another example of the slimy, dirty, misleading techniques that the right employs so deftly. I mean, here we are discussing the right’s use of such tactics, and you come in to prove us right. > > **Here’s the fuller version of Kerry’s remarks:** \* …and quotes Kerry’s statements in full, without the oh-so-conveniently placed ellipses in **Shodan’s** original citation. **Shodan** then responds: > [@](#): > > - Nope, you guessed wrong. > > Second quote was from that bastion of truth and virture [sic], Hilary Clinton.\* …and later continues: > [@](#): > > - Since I provided a link earlier that gave both the author and occasion of the quotes, and you still guessed Kerry when it was really Hilary, you obviously did not click on the link I provided.\* …finally bleating hysterically: > [@](#): > > - And, since he cannot, or does not choose to, read the cite, he is making all kinds of guesses as to what I am saying - that the source of the second quote was Kerry (which it was not), or that I got it from [FreeRepublic.com](http://FreeRepublic.com), which I did not, or that they are inaccurate, which they are not, or in some other way attempting to cling to his denial.\* So…let’s take this very slowly, now. 1. In the post to which **Hentor** originally responded (#118), there were no links. **Hentor** was clearly unaware that you had linked to the quotes earlier in the thread, since he asked quite politely for a link in post #127. He even wrote the magic word, “please.” 2. **Hentor** never guessed that the second quote from your post was from John Kerry. 3. **Hentor** guessed you got the quote from [FreeRepublic.com](http://FreeRepublic.com), which was horribly, horribly wrong (AHA!), because you actually got the quote from some other, essentially equivalent, right-wing waste of a blograg. 4. **Hentor** has never claimed that the quotes were “inaccurate.” He has argued, quite effectively, that you have taken them completely out of their context, and by doing so, misrepresented their import. It is rather unbecoming of you to froth on about this so much, especially considering how totally, obviously, gobsmackingly wrong you are. Now, regarding this: > [@](#): > > - But yes, I have proven my point. Kerry and Clinton made **exactly the same claims** as those you object to from Bush. > > Sauce for the goose, as usual, is never sauce for the liberal gander.\* What bullshit. It’s not a matter of Democrats being bastions of honor and integrity while Republicans are lying swine. _You_ are the one inserting partisanship into this discussion. Nevertheless, the point is that you do not have any examples of Kerry, Gore, or the Clintons making the same sort of sweeping, categorical assertions of fact that you find emanating from Team Bush. **Hentor** has already pointed this out, but allow me to reiterate. If you can find any statement by anyone in which it is claimed that: > [@](#): > > \*\*“The aluminum tubes are really only suitable for use as uranium centrifuges;” > > “We know for a fact that Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear program;” > > “We know that Iraq has recently attempted to purchase yellowcake from an African nation” (despite being specifically warned that that claim was unsubstantiated); > > “Iraq is six months away from developing a nuclear weapon;” > > “A single vial of botulin proves that Saddam was a ‘threat to the world;’” > > “Mobile trailers designed for the production of helium are ‘WMDs;’” > > “Iraqi forces have deployed chemical weapons in and around Tikrit;” > > or > > “Intelligence gathered by this and other nations leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to hide and produce some of the most lethal weapons ever devised by man”\*\* – Then I will cheerfully label that person a “liar,” regardless of their party affiliation. Just remember, in your own words, the statements must be **”exactly the same”**. Finally, for the edification of other posters in this thread vainly struggling to reason with **Shodan** , please allow me to remind you that you are arguing with a man who, prior to the war, posted rubbish such as: > [@](#): > > - I suspect several earlier posters were correct - we could publish an authenticated picture of Saddam Hussein pointing to an ICBM full of plutonium, and some people would say “There’s no indication that he is going to aim it at the US - let’s let the inspectors do their work.” > > I am accusing the hard left in the US and across the world of being strategically short-sighted, isolationist, reflexively anti-American and pro-appeasement, and almost breath-takingly stupid.\* …and, in particular, this: > [@](#): > > _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._ A view, I hasten to add, that he has never publicly recanted. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/189 "2005-02-18T20:05:52Z")
Nice to see you 'round these parts Mr. Svin ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/190 "2005-02-18T20:12:11Z")
Putting **Shodan’s** dodges aside (tip o’ the hat to **Mr. Svinlesha** there), my take of events is that while Clinton was well-aware of the problem _Al Qaeda_ posed (some would say [“obsessed”](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/21/eveningnews/main625205.shtml)), the lack fo concrete evidence tying Iraq to them limited his options there. On the other hand, he didn’t want to just sit on his hands and wait for the evidence to arrive, so he split the difference and took some limited moves. Like the aspirin factory bit – if he guessed right, he’d have nipped a problem in the bud; if not, it’d be a minor international incident to apologize for. Bush, on the other hand, handled the issue by bypassing the matter all together. He didn’t give two toots about terrorism and _Al Qaeda_ (just ask [Richard Clarke](http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/02/12/a8.nat.memo.0212.html)); he just wanted to go stormin’ into Iraq, on whatever pretext possible. I suspect he felt like a lottery winner when Osama Bin Laden gave him a ready-made excuse on 9/11 – he sure [didn’t waste any time](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html) milking that cow… ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/191 "2005-02-18T23:17:21Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **Hentor** has never claimed that the quotes were “inaccurate.” He has argued, quite effectively, that you have taken them completely out of their context, and by doing so, misrepresented their import. No, he said they were slimy, dirty and misleading, and posting them was an intentionally deceptive hack job. I imagine this is another example of how words abruptly change meaning, depending on the politics of the speaker. At least in the minds of some. I won’t bother with the rest of your bullshit, because it is, well, bullshit. > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Nevertheless, the point is that you do not have any examples of Kerry, Gore, or the Clintons making the same sort of sweeping, categorical assertions of fact that you find emanating from Team Bush. Well, I have already posted one from Hilary, but you don’t apparently care to recognize the reality of things that displease you, so I won’t bother to continue. > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Just remember, in your own words, the statements must be **”exactly the same”**. Right, but since the meaning of statements changes abruptly depending on who makes them, it would not be possible to find such statements. We have already seen that “Iraq has links to terrorism” is false when Bush says it and true when Hilary says it. > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Finally, for the edification of other posters in this thread vainly struggling to reason with **Shodan** , please allow me to remind you that you are arguing with a man who, prior to the war, posted rubbish such as:…and, in particular, this:A view, I hasten to add, that he has never publicly recanted. I actually bothered to check that I had actually posted this, since you have been known to post direct lies in the past, so I actually found the post. Amazingly enough, you have quoted it correctly. Notice the date on the [post.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2950672&highlight=authenticated+plutonium#post2950672) Notice also that it was posted a few days after Hans Blix had testified that he had found violations of the inspection regime, and all the weapons I mentioned were still unaccounted for, and that Iraq had still failed to fulfill the requirements of Resolution 1441. \*\*[HEY HENTOR! HERE’S A CITE!!! SEE! CLICK HERE AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO READ WHAT IT SAYS!!!IT’S A CITE! MAYBE IF YOU CLICK ON IT, YOU CAN TELL IT IS NOT FROM FreeRepublic!!!](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.excerpts/) \*\* Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/192 "2005-02-19T02:34:25Z")
Yes, thank you. It is helpful when you put a link in the post in which you refer to the contents of that cite, rather than just assuming that people will know you are getting material from some link you posted well before. Now, if you could only link to a point. That would be very helpful. Let me know if you find one. **xtisme** I am wondering if you find the statements from Donald Rumsfeld that I posted above to be sufficiently deceitful to call them a lie. And **rjung**? No props for me? It took me a while to search for the Rumsfeld quote. C’mon, where’s the love? ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/193 "2005-02-19T03:08:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And of course, once he was about to leave office forever, he could act on the only real motives he ever had, and sell pardons for money and let his staff trash the White House and so forth. He had nothing to lose. > Regards, > Shodan Did you ever once stop to wonder why no picture has ever surfaced that documented the so-called “trashing” of the White House when Clinton left? I didn’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/194 "2005-02-19T03:13:36Z")
> [@Rufus Xavier](#): > > Wow, Bush the younger had a better showing in his re-election bid than Clinton and Bush the elder. Clinton’s margin of victory in his re-election (both popular vote and electoral vote) was much greater than Bush the lesser. Doesn’t that grant him a larger mandate than a man who barely squeaked out a 3% victory? ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/195 "2005-02-19T04:31:50Z")
Thanks for the backstory, **Abe** (and **Hentor** , for the DOD cite). > [@Abe](#): > > I strongly disagree with distracting from the real issues by attempting to get a “you too” fallacy airborne, as if somehow the Bush and Clinton cases were so identical as to require the genetic fallacy to distinguish them. Clinton, whatever his faults in general and in the Sudan/Iraq/AQ debacle in particular, did not steamroll over evidence that didn’t directly support his agenda, and did not drag his country into a foolhardy war on such poor justification. Sorry if I contributed to the distraction, but it always seems to come up in these arguments, and I needed more info on the Clinton era intel. ---
**Author:** ![Rufus\_Xavier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@Rufus\_Xavier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rufus_Xavier)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/196 "2005-02-19T05:01:59Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > Clinton’s margin of victory in his re-election (both popular vote and electoral vote) was much greater than Bush the lesser. Doesn’t that grant him a larger mandate than a man who barely squeaked out a 3% victory? In all fairness, I would no more argue in favor of your point than I would **Shodan** ’s. Both are views filtered through a very narrow field of vision. In the big picture, Clinton’s margin of victory (8+ points) is probably due to the fact that a lot of people who had voted in '92 decided not to vote at all in '96. In the really big picture, if you examine the true meaning of the word “mandate,” one person cannot have more of a mandate than someone else who held the same office. A mandate is, literally, the “authorization to act given to a representative.” One representative cannot have more authorization than another in the same position. Anyone who wins an election is thereby authorized to act within the scope of the powers granted to their office. Clinton’s authorization was exactly equal to Bush’s, according to the letter of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/197 "2005-02-19T07:47:47Z")
**Shodan** : Originally posted by Shodan (and quoted now for the second time): > [@](#): > > - And, since he cannot, or does not choose to, read the cite, he is making all kinds of guesses as to what I am saying - that the source of the second quote was Kerry (which it was not), or that I got it from [FreeRepublic.com](http://FreeRepublic.com), which I did not, \*\* or that they are inaccurate\*\*, which they are not, or in some other way attempting to cling to his denial.\* To which I replied, in part: > [@](#): > > \*\*\* Hentor\*\* has never claimed that the quotes were “inaccurate.” He has argued, quite effectively, that you have taken them completely out of their context, and by doing so, misrepresented their import.\* _Now_ you write: > [@](#): > > - No, he said they were slimy, dirty and misleading, and posting them was an intentionally deceptive hack job.\* So which is it, then? But yes, of course, **Hentor** did indeed accuse you of making a slimy, dirty, intentionally misleading post. He also provide the full quote made by Kerry, in its context, in order to demonstrate the way in which the snippets you posted, lifted from their context, were intentionally misleading. And as I pointed out earlier, this demonstration was quite effective, but really, that’s not saying that much when it comes to you, I’m afraid. We call this sort of thing _”debating.”_ It involves making a supposition and then supporting it with examples and evidence, while in a dialogue with someone of a different opinion. You should try it sometime. Note as well, dear readers, how friend **Shodan** simply ignores the other three points of my rebuttal as if they weren’t even there. He cannot even so much as offer **Hentor** an apology for having accused him of guessing incorrectly. > [@](#): > > - I imagine this is another example of how words abruptly change meaning, depending on the politics of the speaker.\* No, it is not. It is _“yet another example of the slimy, dirty, misleading techniques that the right employs so deftly,”_ as someone once wrote so eloquently. And yes, this does mean that I am accusing you of being intentionally misleading. > [@](#): > > - I won’t bother with the rest of your bullshit, because it is, well, bullshit.\* Translation: you’re right, and I’m wrong, so I won’t bother to refute it: I’ll just call it “bullshit.” Yeah, that should work. That is not debating. It is frothing. > [@](#): > > - Well, I have already posted one from Hilary, but you don’t apparently care to recognize the reality of things that displease you, so I won’t bother to continue.\* You’ve posted one quote, taken out of context, in which Hilary says that Saddam harbored agents of al-Qaida. One quote. Now: if she knew that the intelligence upon which this claim was based to be false, or uncertain, then she would be lying. All you have to do now is demonstrate that. > [@](#): > > - Right, but since the meaning of statements changes abruptly depending on who makes them, it would not be possible to find such statements. We have already seen that “Iraq has links to terrorism” is false when Bush says it and true when Hilary says it.\* No one in this thread has claimed that Hillary’s statement is true, except for you, **Shodan**. No one. Not even me. Hussein’s regime had no connection to al-Qaida, and Hillary is wrong to claim otherwise. But was she _lying_, or was she _misinformed?_ If you wish to argue that she was lying, you need to demonstrate that she had access to other sources of information in that time frame that cast doubt on the administration’s claims. You know, as far as that goes, I agree with you that the Democrats were yellow-bellied and allowed Bush to steamroll over them. They should never have given him authorization to use force against Iraq, if that’s your point. > [@](#): > > - I actually bothered to check that I had actually posted this, since you have been known to post direct lies in the past, so I actually found the post. Amazingly enough, you have quoted it correctly.\* Why **Shodan**. You know, if I had even a modicum of respect for you I’d be insulted. But please feel free to point to any such “direct lie” I’ve posted, if you feel so inclined. So as not to continue hijacking this thread, you might want to take to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/198 "2005-02-19T13:42:52Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Thanks for the backstory, **Abe** (and **Hentor** , for the DOD cite). I had a memory of watching Rumsfeld say such things when I was at a conference in New York City, so I only needed to remember when that was and search for the date. I actually thought I remembered him saying something about an al Qaeda member being in Iraq within the past so and so hours, but that doesn’t seem to be included in this transcript, so I could be incorrect in that he said it or when he said something like that. The transcript turns out to have been more helpful than I realized. One, because it predated the quote from Hillary Clinton that **Shodan** is so hot about by only about two weeks, illustrating the purpose and effect of the misinformation campaign on the part of the administration. (Remember that the quote he cut and pasted came from her speech about authorization of force in Iraq). Secondly, I was impressed to see that one intrepid reporter was not unduly cowed, and asked questions about the “innuendo,” about the “orchestrated pattern” and about Rice, Fleischer and Rumsfeld using almost the same words over a two day period about this false link between al Qaeda and Iraq. I want to second **Mr. Svinlesha’s** point about the Democratic capitulation at that time. It was sad and pathetic, and appeared to give far more credence to Bush administration claims than even a few moderately intelligent posters on some internet message board did. I can only hope that they learned from it, and that Howard Dean keeps providing the spine that they need so badly. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/199 "2005-02-19T14:41:19Z")
That whole cut and past of the Rumsfeld “interview” looks to me like it was a complete whitewash job. He (Rumsfeld) never actually SAID anything concrete, he just hinted and danced around. A lot of it was variations on the them of “I don’t know”. The beauty part was when he said was all a matter of “semantics”. To me, semantics means you are playing word games to lie without being “busted”. In short, by just making hints and veiled threats without actually saying anything definite, he can make any connections he wants, he can draw any conclusions he wants, and his defenders will always jump to his aid and say “find me a quote or cite where he said it”. He really didn’t say a damn thing. In my experience, when a person KNOWS something to be true, when a person BELIEVES what he is saying, he will speak plainly and directly. When he is full of shit, he will rely on “semantics”. If nobody in the administration ever ever said anything, as Shodan seems to be claiming, then how on earth did they convince the country to go to war? What Clinton (either Bill or Hillary) said is irrelevant. They didn’t go to war. What Bush said (or didn’t say?) is relevant. He went to war. He is responsible. If it becomes a glorious victory for freedom and justice he gets the credit. If it becomes an even bigger disaster, he gets the blame. The man at the top made the decision, he is responsible. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/200 "2005-02-19T15:48:14Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > That whole cut and past of the Rumsfeld “interview” looks to me like it was a complete whitewash job. He (Rumsfeld) never actually SAID anything concrete, he just hinted and danced around. A lot of it was variations on the them of “I don’t know”. The beauty part was when he said was all a matter of “semantics”. To me, semantics means you are playing word games to lie without being “busted”. In short, by just making hints and veiled threats without actually saying anything definite, he can make any connections he wants, he can draw any conclusions he wants, and his defenders will always jump to his aid and say “find me a quote or cite where he said it”. He really didn’t say a damn thing. > > In my experience, when a person KNOWS something to be true, when a person BELIEVES what he is saying, he will speak plainly and directly. When he is full of shit, he will rely on “semantics”. > > If nobody in the administration ever ever said anything, as Shodan seems to be claiming, then how on earth did they convince the country to go to war? What Clinton (either Bill or Hillary) said is irrelevant. They didn’t go to war. What Bush said (or didn’t say?) is relevant. He went to war. He is responsible. If it becomes a glorious victory for freedom and justice he gets the credit. If it becomes an even bigger disaster, he gets the blame. The man at the top made the decision, he is responsible. Welocome to the not-lie- a variation on the negative pregnant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445.md?page=11)