Um Sam, what part of “that’s supposedly going to happen this week, and that’s going to make an awful lot of difference.” do you regard as a declaration by Schwarzkopf that Bush has provided a smoking gun ? If you want to debate the whole damned logic behind a preemptive attack fine, but don’t try to twist my post into such a broad perspective. The OP asked about smoking guns. I provided evidence that Schwarzkopf doesn’t think we’ve seen one yet. I agree.
Schwarzkopf’s other words may be important to those of you itching to validate an invasion without presenting any evidence of an actual threat, but frankly I don’t give a damn what a bunch of warmongers think is important. I prefer facts, and even many of the pro-war faction think we lack evidence of an imminent threat. How inconvenient. I guess you’ll have to make your case some other way, perhaps by accusing the other side of lying too ?
It’s this kind of ice-cold analysis that makes me trust the anti-war folks on foreign policy.
Schwartzkopf and Powell are hardly warmongers. They were heroes of the left a few days ago. Now Schwartzkopf is apparently coming around reluctantly on the basis of some evidence that the Bush Administration is going to make public.
Of course, even Adlai Stevenson had some satellite evidence open to interpretation. We may still be debating this after Feb. 5. Check that, “will be.”
WTF is a smoking gun anyway? I want to know what it looks like, so when I find it I’ll be sure to post it.
Iraq is not preemption, it is continuation. If, God forbid, Korea blows up, same. If Bush proposes war on Iran, I’ll go march on DC with you.
Oh, please. You specifically edited out portions of a paragraph that didn’t support the anti-war conclusion you wanted. You didn’t provide ellipses or any other indication that the paragraph was incomplete. The fragment chosen left an impression of an opinion almost diametrically-opposed to the real one.
It was dishonest, and you know it. I didn’t blame you specifically, because I didn’t know if it was you or the today show that chose to edit that paragraph. I just followed your link now, and I see that it was you that did that disingenuous editing. Shame on you.
You want to spin this as you only talking about a ‘smoking gun’, but your comments were clearly directed at the discussion between december and Hector the Barbarian over whether or not Schwartzkopf was now supporting the administration. He CLEARLY is, but your quote tried to make it seem that he was on the fence and waiting for the U.N. And the only way you could make it come out that way was to cut a couple of sentences out of the middle of a paragraph in order to twist the context and mislead this group.
And Schwartzkopf, although he said that he welcomes more information, made it clear that his decision is made already. He said that the evidence that was supposedly being presented this week would provide ONE MORE reason to eliminate Hussein, but that there were plenty of others that had already sealed the deal for him.
Love the ad hominems Sam. One quote from the only available source which happens to say something you don’t want to hear, and suddenly I’m Lying. I did NOT edit out portions of the paragraph that “did not support my antiwar conclusion”. I copied the entire chunk of the paragraph that contained information that I felt was relevant to the “smoking gun” discussion. If you’re going to brand people liars for not including irrelevant information, be sure to give yourself the same label for not emphasizing Schwarzkopf’s deep distrust of the Chickenhawks in charge of the pentagon.
Christ on a crutch man, the whole post you’re bitching about amounted to a sentence and a half wrapped around a corroborating link that no one else had yet been able to find. If I’d included more of the article, you’d have probably reported me to the Mods for copyright infringement. Can’t you find a better basis for your ridiculous accusations ?
I think this has gone on enough. I’ll let other people decide whether or not your quote was misleading. At the time you posted that quote, the discussion had morphed into whether or not Schwartzkopf was supporting the administration’s position. Your quote made it seem like he’s still on the fence waiting for a ‘smoking gun’. He’s not, as would have been clear if you had posted the entire paragraph instead of removing the parts before and after where he very clearly stated that he had already fully accepted the need to remove Saddam.
For the love of Mike, who cares? The only reason the Swartzkopf thing was such a big whoop was that he was just about one of the last guys you’d expect to jump ship. Man bites dog sort of thing.
OK, so now we find out his opinion is precisely as anybody would have predicted. Well, whoop-de-fucka-doo! Next we’ll be floored to find out that Dick Cheney is of a conservative political view. And the bear is Catholic, and the Pope shits in the woods.
So, Schwartzkopf’s opinion is only important when he was against military action? Because back then, you guys trotted his name out religiously. Now that he supports the administration, his opinion is irrelevant?
Contrary to your delusions, Sam there is no Central Committee. Opinions as to the importance of various opinions are subject to variance on the left. For instance, Diogenesthinks GeeDubya is an utter moron, where I think he is merely a mediocrity with delusions of Leadership. However, we both agree that “Anne of Green Geobbels” Coulter is a harpy with a face like an anorexic horse.
So, “you guys” refers entirely to your internal delusions.
Still pretending Schwarzkopf has no reservations in regard to the pentagon’s “junior generals”, ehh Sam ? How honest is that ? 
All right, you two. Knock it off! Don’t make me come back there…
Actually, what with Bush surrendering the choice of war or peace into Saddam’s hands, I was a little surprised that Schwarzkopf ever dared to mention that he had trouble with the lack of a smoking gun. That he publicly mentioned that doubt on at least 3 separate occasions was astonishing, or as Sam would have us believe, deceitful to even mention.
Okay, back to the subject.
Would any of you consider this to be a smoking gun?
It appears that a senior bodyguard of Saddam’s has escaped Iraq, and he’s making some pretty impressive claims:
The most worrisome thing about this, if it turns out to be true, is that it implicates both the Chinese and North Koreans in Saddam’s attempts to hide weapons of mass destruction.
I guess that would explain China’s reluctance to back an invasion…
So now the question is, assuming that this story is verified, is this enough for you anti-war folks to change your mind?
No. Simply put, no. When Iraq launches an agressive attack on us or one of our allies it will be enough. That has not happened and I have no reason to believe it will.
A passage through Israeli intelligence has a serious downside here. They’re probably even more pro-war than the administration, plus they’ve got a reputation for concocting stuff.
Now if we use this story to direct inspectors to the Scud assembly area near Ramadi, or the underground bunkers in Iraq’s Western Desert, and the inspectors find something that’s not just old rusted crap, then we’d likely have a smoking gun.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking they’ll do. That’s the verification I’m talking about.
If this stuff exists, Iraq already knows that we know about it. That means they are probably frantically moving the stuff now. Hopefully, that activity would be caught on satellite, and we wouldn’t even need the inspectors to verify it. If it isn’t moved, then I can’t see how they will allow the inspectors to go there. Refusal to allow those inspections would also be enough proof that there’s something going on there.
Can we agree that the only way this ISN’T a smoking gun is if inspectors go to these locations and find nothing, and no evidence of recent activity?
What upsets me is when people simultaneously argue the Smoking Gun and Scorched Earth arguments. We should not attack because Saddam has no weapons program, but if we do he’ll surely gas and disease our troops. Not that anyone here would do that.
Only three days. Colin Powell.
That depends on the precise circumstances. Remember the Bioweapons facility that turned out to be an active baby formula warehouse or some such ? High soil levels of sarin (eg), coupled with evidence of recent activity would likely do the trick.
Beagle, have you actually run across these people, or are you just imagining them ?
At least you were honest enough, this time, to put that qualifier in there. But it’s still too big an assumption to provide an answer to.
If the things this person has said are true, then they ought to be inspected, obviously, and then we can assess them. But doesn’t it give you pause that he went to the press first?
Pity, though, that you, like Bush, are still thrashing around looking for facts to prop up a decison you reached long ago, but aren’t able to admit wasn’t derived from facts. Still.
Beagle, you’re not describing the situation correctly. Either he has the stuff or he doesn’t. If he does, it would be folly to give him an inducement to use it. If he doesn’t, then he has no inducement not to show it.
The “Let’s (have the Americans) invade and kick his ass anyway” position is the inconsistent one, whether the facts are real or imagined - if he doesn’t have the stuff, there’s no threat and no need; if he does, then he’ll use it anyway. The only way to prop that one up is to dismiss Saddam as not just brutal but actually irrational (as Bush did in his last speech) - but that assessment is also not derived from facts.
Tee, I’m not denying that there’s a case to be made for Saddam’s forcible removal, only that it’s a misplaced priority and has been marketed to us dishonestly. Public Enemy Number One isn’t Saddam, it’s Osama and Al-Qaeda, and anything that isn’t focused on them is a distraction. There being no plausible basis that we have been shown for Saddam being behind Osama, that’s the conclusion one has to reach. If that changes, fine - but the string of statements made to that effect so far that have already been shown to be false makes credibility a problem.
That would certainlyexplain your choice to highlight, not that part, but the word “Democrat”.
Only three? You want credit for that?
It would certainly be enough to show even one example where you pointed out a flaw in my assessment and use of facts, or erroneous reasoning. For that matter, it would be satisfying if you could show even one of your own topics where someone who disagreed with you got away without being labeled with a word you intend as a slur. This isn’t one, btw.
Nor I.