# SDMB - Fair and Balanced ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353 "2005-06-29T13:25:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/241 "2005-07-01T00:32:49Z")
**Bricker** , vis-a-vis claims of a connection between AQ and Saddam? Here’s a couple to get you started: > [@](#): > > You can’t distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam – [President Bush, 9/25/02](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html) > [@](#): > > Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda [President Bush, 1/28/03](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html) > [@](#): > > There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties –[President Bush, 9/17/03](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html) > [@](#): > > There’s overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there – Vice President Cheney, National Public Radio, “Morning Edition,” 1/22/04 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/242 "2005-07-01T01:02:00Z")
Before I respond in detail… Would someone please define, specifically, what proposition they believe I am supposed to be proving? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/243 "2005-07-01T01:11:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Before I respond in detail… > > Would someone please define, specifically, what proposition they believe I am supposed to be proving? > > Thanks. Could it the claims of direct linkage between Saddam and AQ? Just a wild guess, since that’s exactly the contention **Mr S** made and you asked for cites to. Yep, I’m a wild and crazy guy after all! Hope that helps. Well, the first part anyway. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/244 "2005-07-01T02:30:28Z")
See, here’s the thing, **Bricker**. You are intent on focusing the argument on acquiting the President of the charge of lying. To this end, you ask us to present you with certain proofs, and then proceed to parse the meanings, to bring to bear whatever semantic arguments can be made to appear relevent. These are rational arguments, no denying it. But they are not _reasonable_ arguments, they are lawyerly arguments. We both know that the odds of flipping a coin and having it land heads each of 1,000 tries are astronomical. But each and every of the trials it is perfectly reasonable to expect a result of “heads”. I am assured by the mathematically inclined amongst us that this is perfectly sensible, and I take their word for it. As in the IAEA incident above, you posit a scenario not in evidence: perhaps he was talking about something else, maybe he simply mispoke about some other report. Well, maybe he did. That is not irrational. But given the great flood of untruth, half-truth, and shaded truth that has passed through the lips of the Bushivik team, as they begin to pile up, one atop another atop another… Each and every one might be defended, each one might be seen to be, possibly, “heads”. But it is not reasonable that so many non-truths could pass through them without any awareness on their part, such innocence strains credulity, it boggles the mind and buggers all understanding. It is a rational argument, composed of premises, conjectures, and semantic shadings, it is intelligent, in its way. It almost winks at us in recognition of its own cleverness, the bright intelligence it warps to its purpose. It is a display, a mental peacock strutting its feathers. It is a relentlessly, mercilessly rational argument. But it is not a _reasonable_ argument. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/245 "2005-07-01T02:35:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Before I respond in detail… > > Would someone please define, specifically, what proposition they believe I am supposed to be proving? > > Thanks. Ooh, yeah. Sorry, man. I realize this one is a particular bear to defend. Go ahead, though. Give it a shot. I bet you can do it! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/246 "2005-07-01T03:23:47Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > The entire transcript is worth a read, because you really can see the game playing with the truth that Rumsfeld was doing. > [http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2002/t09262002\_t0926sd.html](http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2002/t09262002_t0926sd.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. It is time again for: [super cynical mode] On the Torture thread I said I was going with my gut feeling and said that I suspected the torture interrogations gave the administration what it wanted: connections to TWAT to Iraq. It was an educated guess, it was a cinical guess, finding information that supports that gut feeling still feels like a puch to the same. I do feel now more than ever that a factor on why very little was investigated regarding the information obtained by the torture of the prisioners is because many torturerers and enablers that where “effective” on finding the now proven false evidence are typically promoted by this administration. (hello Mr. Alberto Gonzales!) [/super cynical mode] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/247 "2005-07-01T11:30:22Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Could it the claims of direct linkage between Saddam and AQ? > > Just a wild guess, since that’s exactly the contention **Mr S** made and you asked for cites to. > > Yep, I’m a wild and crazy guy after all! > > Hope that helps. Well, the first part anyway. I’d say ‘no’. That’s one area that **Mr. S** mentioned, and it’s one I asked for more detail on, but surely you agree that even if I were to conclusively show that Mr. Bush never made a claim of direct linkage between Saddam and A-Q, my task would not be over… right? I’m trying to show that there’s a rational argument to be made that exclude Mr. Bush’s deliberate lying… that it’s more likely that the problems raised above are the result of incompetence in the administration rather than deliberate lying. Does everyone agree that THAT is what I’m supposed to be showing? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/248 "2005-07-01T11:37:59Z")
No, not in the way you mean. You seem to define “rational” not in the way people mean it, but in a lawyerly way, that is to say, an argument made to convince those who already want to be convinced, and want rationalization to pass a law ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/249 "2005-07-01T12:35:08Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think you understand me now. Making blanket negative statements about Bush supporters (ie, “all Bush supporters are idiots”) is both false and harmful. Which is not to say it never happens. Thanks. Again, my apologies for my misunderstanding you. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > So it’s human rights violations in the context of WMD research. Yes, certainly - the Powell speech was primarily about Iraqi WMD programs, and Iraqi attempts to hide them. But even there, Powell made a passing reference to Saddam’s torture and murders. So it would not be accurate to say that even that speech was solely about WMDs. > [@John Mace](#): > > **Shodan** : WMDs may not have been the only reason, but they absolutely were the sine qua non for the justification for war. That’s what has many folks more than a little upset about the justification leading up to the war. Personally, I wouldn’t have favored the war even if we did have 100% certainty of WMDs in Iraq. I would like to respond to this, but I don’t really have time (the unfortunate necessity of earning a living), and part of the reason for my misunderstanding **MaxTheVool** above was that I didn’t have time to read carefully. So I will just drop this in, and check back later. Do you recognize a distinction between “Iraq has WMD”, and “Iraq has not lived up to her commitments to prove she has no WMD”? Because I see a lot of references to violations of the inspection regime in most of the cites provided. In fact, I would say this was much of the justification for the invasion. And a lot more of it was the idea that we needed to invade Iraq **before** she got WMD. You mentioned earlier that you believed that Iraq was not part of the global war on terror before the invasion. I don’t believe this is true, based on the “axis of evil” speech, as well as the differing ways that Iraq, and Libya, Iran, and North Korea have been treated. North Korea, for instance, is being treated differently than Iraq, largely because NK has nukes. (This may also be part of the reason that Pakistan, who you mentioned as well, is being treated differently than, say, Libya.) Shoot, gotta go. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/250 "2005-07-01T13:32:48Z")
> [@](#): > > …Do you recognize a distinction between “Iraq has WMD”, and “Iraq has not lived up to her commitments to prove she has no WMD”?.. I do. Do you, as well, recognize a distinction between “United States of America” and “United Nations”? Iraq had a committment to the UN, not the US. I know its only a silly little letter, but those twits at the UN seem bent on insisting that they are not merely an arm of the US Government. That the US does not have the right to make and enforce judgements on obligations to the UN. Where do they get such bizarre notions? That dog won’t hunt. That dog is dead. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/251 "2005-07-01T13:50:00Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > I tell you, “ **Bricker** , I am absolutely, completely, 100% certain there’s a white alligator in your backyard pool.” Half a dozen experts jump up from behind your couch and say things like, “Well, you know, there’s no such thing as a white alligator,” or “In fact, alligators are tropical creatures, and your pool is in a temperate zone.” I respond, “No. They are wrong. There can, in fact, be absolutely **no room for doubt** about the existence of this crocodile.” > > You go and look in the pool. No alligator. You return to me. I say, “Well, ahem…of course, alligator detection has always been a ‘murky business.’” > > Might it be reasonable to conclude that, in fact, I was actually lying about the alligator in your pool?I doubt I can produce the latter. For examples of the former, see above. Again, I’d like to draw **Bricker’s** attention to the phrase “reckless disregard for the truth,” which, in defamation law at least, is treated as the equivalent of an intentional lie. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/252 "2005-07-01T14:28:10Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Here’s what I see is a big part of the “the problem”, and I think I can speak for many of the posters here, like **Xtisme** or **Airman Doors** and others, who didn’t vote for Bush in this last election, or did so reluctantly: It seems that disavowing Bush is not enough for many of the anti-Bush crowd here. Unless you are willing to swear on the [MoveOn.Org](http://MoveOn.Org) charter to hate Bush with every fiber of your being, you ending being called a partisan hack, or mindless Bush supporter. I’ve never been called either of those, or anything similar as far as I know, by any of the anti-Bush crowd. I don’t hate Bush with every fiber of my being. IIRC the only comment I’ve ever made about [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) or any of their “positions”(which I’ve only seen referenced in SDMB threads, having only visited the site once to see a couple of the election ads a year or so ago) was that I thought the “Your kids will be paying for Bush’s tax cuts” ad was clever. I think Bush is wrong. I think he’s deeply misguided and playing the game of politics, which certainly includes lying and being deceptive, towards what he sees as the best outcome for the most people, especially US citizens. I have seen enough flaws in the way the Admin is being run and how they are handling things to believe they are aiming for a goal which is unattainable and will burn through large amounts of bodies and money before learning this goal is unrealistic. Plus I think the goal of sheperding the world, or even the ME, towards democracy is not the legitimate province of the US. If I had to draw an analogy I would compare Bush and most of his top associates to the Bolshiveks. Noble intentions, unrealistic goal, shitty execution. I just hope it doesn’t take as long and incur the kind of costs for the US to learn the lesson as it did for the USSR. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/253 "2005-07-01T15:03:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > But even there, Powell made a passing reference to Saddam’s torture and murders. So it would not be accurate to say that even that speech was solely about WMDs. Well, you and I would disagree on that point then. It’s like saying “He’s got WMD ,oh, and, WMD, and some more WMD, and he’s even testing WMD on prisoners in order to make better WMD.” Torture/murder was never mentioned on its own as a justification, only in the context of showing how ruthless he was with his WMD program. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/254 "2005-07-01T16:15:10Z")
lekatt, I would like to point out something. Earlier in this thread, you said the following. > [@lekatt](#): > > Read our posts carefully before you start tearing them apart. > Actually read our links to controlled studies so reasonable comments on them can be exchanged. > Don’t spin our words to your meanings, take what is said at face value. > Don’t assume you know what we are thinking, unless you are a card carrying psychic. > Understand and respect there will be differing opinions on every subject. > Never, never post an angry, snarky, insulting cheap shot because you think it’s funny. > Never call anyone a name other than his/her real one. > Remember that respect is the cornerstone of all debates. > Never assume at attitude of superiority, or indicate your opponent is ignorant. > Debates are basically an exchange of opposing ideas designed to impart knowledge to all participates. All those sound like nice ideas. However, if you are wondering why people don’t follow them in regards to you, it is because you have violated most of those points, and also because many of your posts are in fact easy to judge at face value. Also, often your “case studies” are nothing of the kind. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/255 "2005-07-01T16:23:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You mentioned earlier that you believed that Iraq was not part of the global war on terror before the invasion. I don’t believe this is true, based on the “axis of evil” speech, as well as the differing ways that Iraq, and Libya, Iran, and North Korea have been treated. North Korea, for instance, is being treated differently than Iraq, largely because NK has nukes. (This may also be part of the reason that Pakistan, who you mentioned as well, is being treated differently than, say, Libya.) Perhaps it was the haste that you wrote the above quote with, perhaps it’s my own inability to parse it, but I am having a hard time figuring out what you tried to convey. You appear to be saying that Iraq was a part of TWAT simply because Bush said so despite all available evidence – then and specially now – to the contrary. How in the world can you justify said belief? And I don’t even mean to anyone else, but to yourself, seeing as you have on this MB, copious evidence to the contrary. Of course, with such a faulty premise to begin with, I can see how we have little to nothing in common in this whole clusterfuck. Not that your second line is any more encouraging, because, once again in my interpretation, all you seem to be saying is that you chose to invade Iraq because it was the path of least resistance and well, simply because you _could_. IOW, nothing more, or less, than the simplistic yet deadly Big Dog approach other Bush backers favor. Lesson learned? Best hurry up and get your WMDs less the Big Dog comes to our house. You comfortable with that? Or did I misread you completely? Sure hope so. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/256 "2005-07-01T16:28:04Z")
**Bricker** : > [@](#): > > - Before I respond in detail… > > Would someone please define, specifically, what proposition they believe I am supposed to be proving? > > Thanks.\* Well, speaking for myself (since I was the one who got you into this mess), I don’t really expect you to prove any particular proposition. I was just curious about your point of view regarding the list of evidence I presented on page 3. To my mind no one piece of that evidence, arguably, is damning when taken in isolation – although some pieces are pretty strong. Rather, it’s when we look at all of them as a whole that the conclusion begins to appear inescapable. All of them point in the same direction: we see a so-called “consilience of inductions.” > [@](#): > > - I’m trying to show that there’s a rational argument to be made that exclude Mr. Bush’s deliberate lying… that it’s more likely that the problems raised above are the result of incompetence in the administration rather than deliberate lying. > > Does everyone agree that THAT is what I’m supposed to be showing?\* Well, I for one can say that I’d be very interested in hearing an argument of that sort. If you could convince me then I’d even be a bit relieved, because I am truly worried by the depths to which the US seems to have sunk. However, to be clear, Bush is only one actor on this stage. Occasionally I use “Bush” as short-hand for the clumsier “Bush administration,” since I feel in the final analysis that Bush is responsible for his administration. If someone under him lied in order to instigate a war I’d expect Bush to prosecute that person to the fullest extent of the law, for example. Since nothing of the kind has happened, Bush is in my view at least partially responsible for the lies other members of his administration have perpetrated as well as his own. Perhaps I should be more clear about this point, but you may have noticed my list included items that did not directly issue from the presidential pie-hole, but for which I hold that pie-hole accountable. In addition, I’d like to point out that there’s a significant difference between a “rational” argument and a “convincing” argument. Rational arguments can be constructed to support all sorts of preposterous assertions. Construction of a rational but fundamentally unconvincing argument to support your view will almost certainly prove to be an exercise in futility here, so if that’s your intent, I’d advise you not to waste your time. Finally, I’d like to rise in support of a point made gentletexan from Minnesota, **Big Luci** : I find his coin-toss analogy particularly apt. Intelligence gathering may be a “murky business,” but in the case of Iraq our administration would have us believe it to be a totally opaque one. _Not one_ of the pre-war claims about Saddam Hussein’s “WMDs,” or his ties to al-Qaeda or other organizations of international terrorism, has panned out. Not a single one. Think about that. It’s not a matter of 25% of the claims being incorrect, and 75% being accurate. This would be a lousy accuracy rating, but given it I guess I would be more predisposed to believe the incorrect 25% could simply be honest error. It’s not a matter of 50% being incorrect, and 50% being correct. At that level I would expect even true believers might start scratching their heads a bit (although I’m clearly an optimist with that expectation). It’s not a matter 75% being incorrect and 25% being correct, such as might allow us to argue that intelligence gathering is an _extremely_ murky business. No: we’re looking at a situation in which 99.5% of the claims were incorrect, and .5% correct, if that. That’s not murk; it’s total blackout. It is very hard for me to believe that this ratio could be the result of mere incompetence on the part of the administration. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/257 "2005-07-01T16:39:21Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > In addition, I’d like to point out that there’s a significant difference between a “rational” argument and a “convincing” argument. It’s virtually impossible, so far as I know, to convince someone away from a position of which that someone is already convinced. Another way to look at it – the listener can _choose_ to be unconvinced, regadless of what’s presented. And no one would be the wiser. Can’t argue against “I’m not convinced”. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/258 "2005-07-01T16:56:06Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > You appear to be saying that Iraq was a part of TWAT simply because Bush said so despite all available evidence – then and specially now – to the contrary. How in the world can you justify said belief? Can’t speak for **Shodan** , but I do agree with him that the war in Iraq is a front in the “War on Terror” (actually a “War of Neoconservative Brinkmanship and of Weakening Terror”, because the terrorists aren’t just going to disappear into nothing). But note – “War on Terror” is not the same as “War to Avenge 9-11”. At this point, 9-11 is not all that relevant. There is a lot, lot more going on than “avenging” 9-11. > [@](#): > > Not that your second line is any more encouraging, because, once again in my interpretation, all you seem to be saying is that you chose to invade Iraq because it was the path of least resistance and well, simply because you _could_. IOW, nothing more, or less, than the simplistic yet deadly Big Dog approach other Bush backers favor. Come now – just because the U.S. could? There are in fact concrete goals in mind concerning the “War on Terror”. Are you well versed on neoconservative policy? There’s an idea shared among many neoconservative policy makers that pre-emptive violence may sometimes be necessary to bolster American security – admittedly, and pragmatically, at the (hopefully short-term) expense of the security of some other nations. The estimate of the cost of this violence – in dollars and in lives – has been measured and found acceptable. How can you debate the morality of was when there is fundamental disagreement on the value of the lives lost (again … not speaking for **Shodan** )? Neoconservative policy may be appalling, insidious, and heinous … but there it is. How best to deal with it? > [@](#): > > Lesson learned? Best hurry up and get your WMDs less the Big Dog comes to our house. This isn’t the worst thing that could come of the War on Terror, IMHO. The Cold War arms race between the USSR and US actually served indirectly to promote peace (by making all-out war too risky) and eventually foster detente. This seems to be the case with North Korea already – abject as the regime is, there are no bullets flying right now. > [@](#): > > You comfortable with that? I wish we could do better, but in the meantime – yes. \*\*Shodan \*\* may answer for himself. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/259 "2005-07-01T16:58:31Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > I’ve never been called either of those, or anything similar as far as I know, by any of the anti-Bush crowd. I don’t hate Bush with every fiber of my being. Hang on… you DON’T hate Bush with every fiber of your being, and yet the SDMB Liberal Usual Suspect Deadly Viper Assassination Squad has NOT called you lots of nasty words? Why, it’s almost like there’s a meme floating around that is widely trumpeted by some board conservatives\* but (as we see from this counterexample) provably false. Huh. \*Note my use of the word “some”. There are some who don’t lower themselves to that kind of generalizing, which is much appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/260 "2005-07-01T17:00:51Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > It is very hard for me to believe that this ratio could be the result of mere incompetence on the part of the administration. I think the only reasonable question is whether it was due to deliberate deceit of others, or inadvertent self-deceit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=14)