What exactly is it about the tools and papers found by the weapons inspectors which you do not find empirical.
But they did produce such things.
Go back and look at the statment by Spavined Gelding in post #55"…Mr Keye’s conclusion that Saddam had no WMDs, the apparent coming conclusion from the Arms Search guys that Saddam had no stockpiles but had facilities that were capable of producing small quantities of chemicals and biologicals and had ambitions of having nuclear weapons as soon as the world quit watching him…"
This is what started the whole thing. SimonX and I got into a brief exchange about what these sorts of things might be evidence of. Into this exchange sevastopol stepped claiming that there was no evidence or that it was not empirical. I’m still not sure which because of the snide way he chose to make his point. The discussion got somewhat twisted around by myself and elucidator by the sidetrack of whether or not the sanctions were prefferable to war and the snide way we both decided to discuss that.
But the fact remains that sevastapol keeps saying something about my argument which is not true and keeps trying to make a point about the upcoming Keyes report (which I confused with the 9-11 commission report, my bad). Specifically that it contains not evidence or that the evidence is nor empirical.
I really hope so. Please explain it to me.
I am simply driving at the point that support for the war, and President Bush is not necessarily irrational. There are valid reasons for both. My only purpose in these discussion has become one of reducing the vitriol. I’m not trying to trick you or convince you that Bush is right. Merely that demonizing the other side of the debate is not necessary or even desireable.
vibrotronica: Right, they are not idiots just duped. Big difference. Thank you. Just so you know there is another possibility that you may have missed.
BraingluttonThis particular digression/hijack concerns whether the intelligence report/analysis is bad news or merely an overly negative spin on the (expectedly) difficult task of bringing freedom, democracy, and puppies to the Iraqi people. My vague memories was of promised Iraqi democracy free, bloodless, and yesterday. *Pervert remembers preparation for hardship at a Churchillian level.
Pervert: Rereading through your Rice/Bush/Blair quotes it seems to me that Rice at least is referring to the “major combat operations” part of the war, not what we now refer to as the occupation. Bush at the “MIssion Accomplished” speech is certainly referring to the post-combat phase expected after May 2003, the reconstruction.
With regards to my 30k fetish. It is certainly the optimistic figure. But the pessimistic figure I have found is 60k troops at around the same time frame. Can you find a more reasonable (in hindsight) median or worst case troop levels from an administration source prior to March 2003?
The other half of the issue is money. Wolfowitz did bound the military effort’s price and the administration did specify an upper limit to amount of US taxpayers dollars to be spent on reconstruction. Just the most recent bucket of reconstruction funds is ten times what the prewar maximum specified, and if the total military expenditure ends up at less than two and a half to three times Wolfowitz’s maximum we will either have been lucky or bugged out of Iraq. We are already comfortably over his maximum now.
The reason I find the budgeting practices deceptive is that refusing to speculate on how much it may cost for the day after tomorrow does not allow anyone, including that branch of government constitutionally mandated with oversight of such things to make any sort of rational decision. Every vote comes down to “If you don’t pass this bill right now our troops won’t have food, gas, or bullets and will probably die horribly and it will be all your fault. We refuse to speculate irresponsibly on how much we may need next year. A lot can happen in a year.” Further more, not including at least ballpark predictions in say, deficit prognostications renderst that number meaningless.
Wrt the national guard/reserve thing. I think the idea was to make it impossible to deploy the military in a large, enduring way without being up front about the costs and impacts, to make sure that a debate will happen. To avoid being backdoored into a war started on false premises or a small quick conflict that escalates without further opportunity for discussion. A lovely idea, though obviously not totally effective.
Well, please don’t accuse me of comparing Bush to Churchill. I am defending the administration’s position in here, but I am not trying to sactify it.
That’s correct. That is because of the time frame and the fact that I chose to link ot remarks by those people. The shooting war was what they were talking about at the time.
I would have had trouble. But luckilly, Abe found a reference for me. Here. “Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, “wildly off the mark.” Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war’s duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.”
I agree entirely. Unfortunately, I also think that publishing every internal memo with an estimate confuses the issue in the same way. INHO congress should ask a few departments, not individuals, but departments to estimate thier spending needs and work with that. I agree that the administration keeping the needs secret is not useful. But I also think that using select internal estimates as proof of deception is not useful either.
Quite right. Teddy Roosevelt originated this political strategy. It has worked ever since. Congress needs a new tool to combat it.
I don’t think that was the case at all. I don’t think structuring the military with a dependance on the National Guard was anything more than a cost issue. After the fall of the Soviets, the pressure to produce a “peace dividend” became intense. The closure of military bases and reduction in the size of the standing army simply required that any large undertaking rely on significant numbers of the National Guard. This policy has been well understood by the public since the first Gulf War. It is certainly arguable that the public was mislead concerning the duration of this war. But I don’t think one can make the argument that nobody thought the National Guard would be used in Iraq.
I am pretty sure that the force restructuring which put large quantities of logistical and support structures in the reserves/national guard, rather than having the reserves and national guard being additional semi-ready combat forces for emergency uses was post Vietnam, not post Cold war.
Seriously, you may have a point. This may certainly be one of the advantages cited at one time for structuring the military the way it is. I had never heard that argument though. I am not, however, an expert, so it could just be my ignorance.
What is to explain? The poster was asking for REAL evidence, not speculations of intent or revisionist accounts, but real documented information as opposed to more bla-bla and spin-apologies such as we have got from our leaders to date.
It’s not irrational, but it is either uninformed OR it relies on other issues in spite of the information (conservatism, Republicanism, abortion, tax cuts, whatever).
No, to be precise there are some valid reasons for one side, and a host of reasons on the other side the validity of which have been shredded time and time again. You keep choosing specific little topics to nitpick and equivocate over, and I think most of us are getting a bit frustrated with the process.
What vitriol? What demonization? I’ve asked you this in another thread and you admitted to a wrong impression. Your manifest purpose in these discussions (as far as I can see) has been to nibble at the edges of the documented reasoning provided in support of the arguments that the administration tried to mislead everyone on this war (chiefly on its necessity, but also cost and requirements), that several serious errors were made in the process, that an administration exists that operates chiefly on propaganda and manipulated intelligence, etc.
I don’t see anyone going ape-shit at the administration as you imply, but given the position you are building for yourself with these constant attempts to confuse the issues, I am beginning to suspect the reason you can’t leave honest criticisms alone. Hopefully I am wrong.
By the way, wouldn’t you agree that it appears that General Shinseki and others were right regarding the troop requirements for war and occupation? After a lot of equivocation, I don’t know if you have accepted the several cites provided so far, nor have you commented on the way Rumsfeld repressed criticisms and alternate suggestions (from his own generals to the State Department’s 14 volume recommendations on Iraq).
I didn’t miss the other possibility. I weighed the available evidence and determined that the “other possibility”–that the war was justified because Iraqi weapons of mass destruction posed an immenent threat–was based on lies.
Well, then you missed the argument since the begining of the year. Also you do not seem to have listened carefully to the president’s speeches or to the resolution passed by congress nor, regretfully, the 9-11 commission report.
But the reasoning that supports this characterization is blown out of purportion to its significance.
Shinseki made an off the cuff remark that the Iraq occupation would require several hundred thousand troops. The administration castigated him and said the number was closer to 100,000. Dispite the fact that they were both talking about American troops and not counting allies or Iraqis, the currently 130,000 Americans is routinely added to the 30,000 allies and 100,000 or so Iraqis to say that Shinseki was right and the administration was wrong. And to say further that the administration should have taken Shinseki’s off the cuff remark more seriously.
An economic advisor named Lindsey speaking about the resiliancy of the economy makes another off the cuff remark that the economy could withstand it even if the Iraq war cost 2% of GDP or $100 to $200 billion dollars. The administration castigated him and said comparing it with the first gulf war, it was more likely to cost $60 billion. They were both talking about the buildup and first month of the shooting war. But Lindsey’s comments constantly get repeated as if they were a serious analysis which was ignored by the administration. Again, to show that the administration has been trying to con Americans about the possible cost of the war.
The claim that the administration has misled America about the difficulty of the upcoming war is simply a lie. Every speech or statement I have seen from an administration official has included wording to the opposite effect. This is all dismissed as “blah blah blah”.
There are serious and important criticisms about the way this government is handling the war in Iraq. They do not amount to fraud, incompetence, or malfesance. The continued claim that they do drowns out the serious discussion and makes it impossible to get any sort of reform which could prevent this in the future.
I know you don’t. I really don’t expect you to. You see the equivocations and accusations as true, so you do not see them as over the top. I was only able to see my similar (not the same but similar) attempts to demonize Clinton for what they were years afterward.
No. General Shinseki’s original number was indeed quite high. I don’t know of any serious estimate that thinks that we need 300,000 American troops in addition to our allies and the Iraqis. Kerry is certainly not claiming that.
I have not looked into the state department’s recomendation and its dismisal. I remember one cite which mentioned it, but whick did so perfunctorialy. That is the General said he was told to ignore the report. But it was not clear from the context if he was told to ignore the report in its entirety or if he was merely told to ignore the provisions about de Bathifying the Iraqi army.
Again, I agree that a criticism can be made that disbanding the entire army was a mistake. But there is an equally good point to be made that removing the Bathists from authority and rebuilding the Iraqi army from scratch has its advantages. As I recall, the interim government did not like the Bathist general put back in power by the CPA to handle Fallujah.
My point is that this issue is not as simple as some of the cites and some of the posters would like. It would be nice if our political opponents were almost exclusively evil. It would be even nicer if our political friends were even mostly good. But in practice it does not work that way. And concentrating on the idea that Bush lied and covered up, and mishandled the war does not allow us to expend effort on fixing the system which caused the things which legitimately did go wrong.
Why should I listen closely to the President’s speeches? He’s a proven liar. He said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that threatened our existence. He lied. Why should I believe anything that comes out of his lying mouth?
Yes, pervert, this is vitrol. A lot of people are getting killed, and a whole lot more are going to get killed because of this lie. Don’t play the put-upon conservative martyr and don’t try to drag Clinton into this. This is much too serious. George W. Bush lied to start a war, then he fucked up the war. You sully yourself trying to defend this abomination. Wake up. Grow a conscience.
Sigh. I know I shouldn’t, but I am powerless before your rhetoric.
A lot of people are getting killed because of terrorism.
I am not playing the put upon anything. I have never accused anyone of demonizing me.
I am not dragging clinton into this. I am pointing out that your last post has been seen before almost word for word. It was trite sophistry then. It still is.
Your right this issue is much too serious to allow it to be derailed by rhetoric as empty and baseless as yours.
George Bush may have overplayed intelligence for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying.
The war may have become difficult. But it is far from fucked up.
I am quite awake, and I have a fully functioning conscience.
Fear not. I will not trouble you further. Rave on and I will discuss the issues with people who can.
I tell you what, though. Prove me to be the raving loonatic. Simply link to a past post of yours where you provided evidence for your rant. In this thread would be preferable, but anywhere else in GD would do. It has to be a calm examination of the facts, and it has to present some sort of link (not necessarily an encoded link, it could be a mention of the book, study, or news article) to that evidence.
A whiney ‘but Clinton…’ is pretty much the final fallback position of any Righty (or someone for some reason defending the current ‘administration’) defending a hopeless position.
1600+ posts and you haven’t noticed, yet?
-Joe, looking forward to many more years of mental contortions
Not quite. You demand “fairness”, which you apparently define as giving your position every concievable benefit of any doubt. When our leaders suggest the war will be a long hard slog, then clearly they are speaking with entire candor. When they suggest such things as “cakewalk” and “greeted as liberators”, we are advised to treat such with bemusement. Similarly, when a military leader suggests something you find disagreeable, you advise us that he is speaking informally, an “off the cuff” remark to be batted aside. These are rhetorical devices, acceptable in polite company, but little more than that.
But this one:
simply won’t wash. If GeeDubya was indulging himself in bit of political horseshit in support of a highway maintenance bill, that would be one thing. But he was talking about war. No other question carries as much gravity and demands the same level of candor. You may satisfy yourself that a strict definition of “liar” need not apply. But it still falls woefully short of the mark.
I’ve said before: I am reluctant to be led into war, but I’m damned if I’ll stand for being bullshitted into war. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
I have never once defined fairness this way. You made that up.
I have never addressed a situation when any of our leaders used the terms cakewalk or even the infamous “greeted as liberators”. Thus I have never said we should treat them with bemusement.
No, the rhetorical device is quoting Lindsey or Shinseki years after the fact as if thier numbers were detailed analyses of the situation and saying any criticism given them at the time proves malfesance of some sort. I merely pointed out that the comments were not as they were being characterized.
[QUOTEBut this one:[QUOTE=pervert]
…5) George Bush may have overplayed intelligence for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying…
[/QUOTE]
simply won’t wash.
[/QUOTE]
I am quite aware of the arguments in favor of calling the claim of WMDs a lie. I agree that the subject matter is more important that lying about a blow job. I don’t think you have ever heard me argue otherwise. And just for the record, I was not comparing Bush’s lie to Clintons lie. I was comparing the rhetoric surrounding both. Clinton’s supporters were correct that lying about a blow job is not really our business and not very important anyway. Bush’s supporters are correct that Bush’s statements may have been incorrect, but they were not lies. My only point is that by demonizing either side you reduce debate to incoherant babbling. You don’t have to give either side a pass. but you do have to give both sides the benifit of the doubt. And you have to accept simpler explanations when they are offered.
There seems to be some hope here. What did you mean by this. I did not apply a label to what George Bush did, so I’m not sure in what way my label could have fallen short.
Again, just to underline the point. I was not drawing any parallels between Bush’s prevarications and Clinton’s. I was trying to draw a parallel between the rhetoric about them. Can you honestly read vibrotronica’s post and tell me you have not heard the exact same sentiment from republicans about Clinton? Please do not lump me in with the rightys you seem to be familiar with. I am not one of them.
My rhetoric is not empty and baseless. I’m calling a spade a spade. George Bush lied to start a war. Period. No amount of hand waving and equivocation will make it go away. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The facts have been examined in calm manner for two years. The debate is over. Here are the results of that examination: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. George Bush lied to start a war, and then he fucked up the war he lied to start. You want to call for a cite? Find me some nuclear weapons in Iraq.
I’ve been far too nice for too long on this issue. I’ve been civil in entertaining rediculous arguments and conspiracy theories from the war’s supporters for too long. I don’t know why this thread finally broke me, but it did.
…and on preview, I see elucidator has called you out on the issue of your point number 5. “He just said things that weren’t true! That’s not the same as lying!” Hogwash. How do you live with yourself?
vib - I’ve found the “Ignore” feature to be a wonderfully useful thing. There are a number of intelligent and informed conservatives in these forums who are capable of making very cogent, enlightening arguments, and I find sparring with them to be an edifying experience. They do piss me off sometimes, but in a good way. Fighting ignorance is certainly not about always hearing what you want to hear.
Then there’s the idiots. Sparring with these idiots is a gigantic waste of time, as they do not seek spirited and thoughful debate, but rather to commit acts of dialectical vandalism as a means of disrupting the dissemination of information contrary to their world-view, or sometimes merely to be a nuisance. Inevitably, the conversation degenerates into brainlessly reflexive gainsaying, “yeah, but Clinton” deflections, refusal to acknowledge facts that disagree with ideological nonsense, or, most frustratingly, the use of “Cite!” as a means of rhetorical harassment and distraction, when cites are superfluous, or the information needed could easily be obtained through ubiquetous sources.
I can’t use a certain word for fear of censure, but you know what I’m talking about. Again, the best course of action is to IGNORE. Engagement only encourages the vandalism and perpetuates it.
The use of “Cite!” isn’t simply an inconvenience. It’s something used to either get the other guy put forward effort in reponse to a five-character request.
Really, people like that aren’t interested in facts, they’re just trying for a war of attrition. I’m actually pretty amazed by (and feel pity for) the people who actually make the effort to provide those cites again and again.
Maybe it’s optimism or something, but I can’t see why they do it over and over again. It’s not like they’re actually going to change the minds of those people who are acting that way…
