I'm beginning to doubt the intelligence of John Kerry, and I am pissed

[Princhester]

@Ogre

Actually, Princhester, you’re putting words in my mouth. I would not have said “except a small but significant and vocal minority of people in the US, the UK and Australia, notable dissenters from the intelligence community, and the UN weapons inspectors.”

They’re my words, but you didn’t disagree with them earlier, you just said the opinions of the people in question were “blah blah blah”.

Let’s try it out with your revisionist version:

“[Kerry] had no way of knowing that the WMD was a political snow-job… I know everybody (well, not everybody, but most) thought Iraqi WMD’s, given Hussein’s history, were an absolute clinch at the time.”

Loses a bit of oomph, doesn’t it?

[Ogre]

What you mean by “oomph,” I assume, is “dramatic flair.” Perhaps. But it loses no factuality.

I considered this prediction to be laughable, YMMV. Let’s compare outcomes in a few years.

M’kay brother?

Righteous.

[World_Eater]

@andros

World Eater, 'luce, I like you guys, really. But damn . . . shrill, much?

Yeah, I’ve been in a crabby mood today, I need a shot of Nyquil

[World_Eater]

@Ogre

What you mean by “oomph,” I assume, is “dramatic flair.” Perhaps. But it loses no factuality.

Righteous.

FWIW I hope you’re right.

[World_Eater]

*in regards to your utopian prediction.

[Ogre]

Ogre admits precisely that he does discount that segment of the population. His words were, if I recall correctly, “blah, blah blah”. You ought to read the posts of those you are defending more carefully.

Actually, you’re right about this, and I apologize. I posted in anger and haste.

I do, in fact, respect those who argue out of principle, especially when they turn out to be right. I too thought that there must be evidence for WMDs in Iraq if the White House said there was (not that it was, IMO, the primary reason to go to war.) It turns out there were no WMDs. Now, whether the Bush White House was actually lying about it is a matter that has not been settled, but the highly suspicious nature of the whole issue is among the reasons I won’t be voting for Bush this November.

Oh, and in point of fact, Kerry had no way of knowing, any more than any (and I use that generalization with clear conscience in this circumstance) of the rest of us did. The only ones who did know were Saddam and his regime. Not even Blix could be certain, given Hussein’s multiple naked lies, ejection of weapons-inspection teams, denial of permission to inspect certain structures, etc.

I say again: the idea that Saddam had WMDs and was hiding them, given his use of them in the past, and his dicey relationship with the UN and the UN inspection teams, was reasonable at the time.

[Princhester]

@Ogre

What you mean by “oomph,” I assume, is “dramatic flair.” Perhaps. But it loses no factuality.

No, I mean logical or persuasive force. It’s hard to maintain that Kerry had “no way” of knowing that something was a snow job when others thought and said it was precisely that.

[andros]

@Princhester

It’s hard to maintain that Kerry had “no way” of knowing that something was a snow job when others thought and said it was precisely that.

OTOH, it’s pretty easy to maintain that Kerry had no way of knowing that something was a “snow job” when others thought and said it was precisely that, but didn’t know either.

[Miller]

@Princhester

Bullshit. He said Kerry “had no way of knowing”. The only way that Ogre could support that particular bullshit statement was by making a further bullshit statement, namely that “everybody” thought there were WMDs.

Oh, for fuck’s sake. It’s obvious what he meant. He could have phrased it more precisely, but his failure to do so is hardly evidence of malicious intent. He’s just saying, “Yeah, a lot of people thought there were WMDs in Iraq. Kerry isn’t dishonest or stupid for being duped by the White House, and neither were the majority of the American population.” If he’d expected some hysterical asshole to come in and go over his posts with a scapel and microscope, I suspect he would have chosen his words more carefully.

This thread is about Kerry’s judgment. Kerry was not in a position where he had no way of knowing, no clues, no dissenting voices about WMD to listen to. Kerry had a way of knowing, he just got it wrong.

Well, fucking duh. The only person in this thread who thinks this was ever in question is you, you goddamned loon.

[elucidator]

@andros

World Eater, 'luce, I like you guys, really. But damn . . . shrill, much?

This troubles me, I have no desire to disturb the harmony of the undeserving. I have enlisted the assistance of the Hypno Toad. Gaze into his eyes…

Henceforth, when you see the username “ecucidator”, you will hear the post being read to you in a calm and lower register. That way, when I pound the keyboard with viens throbbing in my neck “The goddam Rightards suck the seeping sores on a donkey’s dick!!” you’ll hear it in the seductive tones of Barry White, “I’m rather miffed with these people, truth be told. Not the done thing.”

Gaze at the Hypno Toad…

[Beagle]

Saddam Hussein has not limited his unspeakable actions to use of
weapons of mass destruction. He and his loyalists have proven
themselves quite comfortable with old fashioned instruments and
techniques of torture–both physical and psychological. During the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Kuwaiti women were systematically raped and
otherwise assaulted. The accounts of the torture chambers in his
permanent and makeshift prisons and detention facilities are gruesome
by any measure.
Mr. President, Saddam Hussein’s actions in terrorizing his own people
and in using horrible weapons and means of torture against those who
oppose him, be they his own countrymen and women or citizens of other
nations, collectively comprise the definition of crimes against
humanity.
I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my
belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the
world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the
ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-
recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his
ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his
ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region
or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that
U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the
weapons inspection standoff–and I will say clearly that I cannot
conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point–we
must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses.

– John Kerry Version 1.0 (Democratic administration)

RESOLUTION (Kerry in support)

Whereas the United States has existing authority to defend
United States interests in the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Senate, the House
of Representatives concurring–
(1) Condemns in the strongest possible terms the continued
threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq’s
refusal to meet its international obligations and end its
weapons of mass destruction programs;
(2) Urges the President to take all necessary and
appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs; and
(3) Urges the President to work with Congress in furthering
a long-term policy aimed at definitively ending the threat to
international peace and security posed by the government of
Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs.

RESOLUTION (Kerry in support)

**Whereas officials such as former President George Bush,
Vice President Al Gore, General Norman Schwarzkopf and others
have labeled Saddam Hussein a war criminal and called for his
indictment; and
Whereas a failure to try and punish leaders and other
persons for crimes against international humanitarian law
establishes a dangerous precedent and negatively impacts the
value of deterrence to future illegal acts: Now, therefore,
be it

The preamble, as amended, was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 78), as amended, with its
preamble, as amended, was agreed to, as follows:

                        S. Con. Res. 78

   Whereas the International Military Tribunal at Nurenberg 
 was convened to try individuals for crimes against 
 international law committed during World War II;
   Whereas the Nuremberg tribunal provision which stated that 
 ``crimes against international law are committed by men, not 
 be abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who 
 commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be 
 enforced'' is as valid today as it was in 1946;
   Whereas, on August 2, 1990, without provocation, Iraq 
 initiated a war of aggression against the sovereign state of 
 Kuwait;
   Whereas the Charter of the United Nations imposes on its 
 members the obligations to ``refrain in their international 
 relations from the threat or use of force against the 
 territorial integrity or political independence of any 
 state'';
   Whereas the leaders of the Government of Iraq, a country 
 which is a member of the United Nations, did violate this 
 provision of the United Nations Charter;**

Silly me, I believed they were sincere at the time. You all thought I pulled this “Nuremberg Principle” I discussed out of my ass. Au contraire. International law that is not wholly dependent on “imminent threat” analysis.

“Imminent threat” needs a linguistic overhaul to deal with the reality of modern WMDs in the hands of Third World nutcases. The old terminology does not help when war can erupt in five minutes and result in tens of millions of casualites a few minutes later. Imminent threat analysis wasn’t even easy back when it meant hundreds of tanks. Somehow even tanks – not noted for stealth – used to show up where and when they were not expected.

Maybe the jihadists will start parsing “Shaheed,” “Kaffir,” and “jihad.” There is a peaceful meaning to “jihad.” Really. I know, it’s nearly impossible to believe.

[Princhester]

What you said was that he had no way of knowing of the snow-job. He did have ways of knowing about that. Not necessarily about the WMD’s in an absolute sense.

Personally, prior to the war I did not know whether there were WMD’s. I did however sense that there was a snow-job of mammoth proportions going on, and that lead me to the judgement (along with things I was hearing from the UN inspectors and from dissenting intelligence officials) that for the US government to need to engage in such a snow-job, there must be no real evidence for WMDs, because if there was, we would be given that instead of a snow-job.

I say this not to point out what a cleverdick I am but to point out that if some guy sitting in Brisbane reading a few newspapers can tell there is a snow-job going on, then an experienced Washington politician should have been able to tell that without breaking a sweat.

[Princhester]

“Kerry was not in a position where he had no way of knowing, no clues, no dissenting voices about WMD to listen to. Kerry had a way of knowing, he just got it wrong.”

@Miller

The only person in this thread who thinks this was ever in question is you, you goddamned loon.

Uh, huh. So Ogre wasn’t suggesting this was in question when he said “Kerry had no way of knowing there was a snow-job”?

What planet are you living on?

[Miller]

@Princhester

Uh, huh. So Ogre wasn’t suggesting this was in question when he said “Kerry had no way of knowing there was a snow-job”?

No, he wasn’t suggesting that at all.

What planet are you living on?

I call it “Planet Rational.” You should visit, sometime.

[Princhester]

Well they call this place “Earth” even though it mostly isn’t so I guess that sets the standard for planet naming.

If you can’t understand the plain meaning of “he had no way of knowing”, sorry, I can’t help you further.

[Ogre]

Nope, I wasn’t saying that at all. He had no way of knowing. He could have chosen to believe the vocal minority, but he didn’t. Most of us committed the same error. I’ll not condemn Kerry for a mistake I myself made.

[andros]

All . . .

hail . . .

hypnotoad . . .

[Miller]

So, I take it you are unfamiliar with the concepts of “context,” “subtext,” and “benefit of the doubt?”

In light of Ogre’s most recent post, are you still maintaining that he was deliberatly lying in his original statement, (and, by extension, his most recent post) and thus warranted the tone of your first response here?

If you don’t think Ogre’s last post was a lie, can you understand that if you had asked for a clarification, instead of demanded a retraction, this hijack would never have happened and this thread would only be a quarter as long? Can you see why this might be a good thing?

[Princhester]

I’ve already said he was engaged in hyperbole. Not a “tiny bit of hyperbole”, rather hyperbole to the extent of speaking bullshit, but hyperbole nonethess, not deliberate lying.

At the least, I thought his post probably evidenced a dismissiveness towards the dissenting voices on the issue of existence of WMD, and his subsequent posts showed I got that exactly right (blah blah, blah, remember?). I find being casually dismissed, even in a puff of hyperbole, quite annoying. If you don’t, good onya.

At the worst (and this is what I expressed in my first post) I suspect Ogre is pretty damn comfortable (to the point of head in the sand blindness) with hyperbole that glosses over the fact that there were dissenting voices on WMD (and credible ones at that)

And yes, my first post was not as cold, calm and un-inflammatory as it might have been. There was an element of pissed offness in it. So what, I was pissed off. This is the Pit. My behaviour was inappropriate how?

[Ogre]

It’s inappropriate because you not only missed the point of the thread, but you totally mischaracterized me, and continue to do so. I apologized for my hasty post.

I suspect Ogre is pretty damn comfortable (to the point of head in the sand blindness) with hyperbole that glosses over the fact that there were dissenting voices on WMD (and credible ones at that)

Then you’re incapable of reading what is right there in black and white infront of you. Allow me:

I do, in fact, respect those who argue out of principle, especially when they turn out to be right.

It turns out there were no WMDs. Now, whether the Bush White House was actually lying about it is a matter that has not been settled, but the highly suspicious nature of the whole issue is among the reasons I won’t be voting for Bush this November.

…WMD was a political snow-job…

That’s a bad thing, you see.

I know there were dissenting voices, numbskull. I could hardly have missed them, since at the very least, I peruse this board on a daily basis. I was eventually convinced that those dissenting voices were correct. What the fuck else do you want? What the fuck are you on about?