First of all, when the opponent concedes a point, you’re supposed to smile and nod, not be a jerk about it.
There have, in fact, been some WMDs found in Iraq: Sarin, for example. (another link)
(emphasis mine)
Here is another, from before the war:
And here it is from a non-government source.
So don’t split semantic hairs when you don’t have your own facts straight.
I would submit that *no one * ever has their “facts” completely straight.
Yes, that’s exactly what I think. Liberals are a bunch of liars. It was right there in my post, plain as day. :rolleyes:
Unless you can show me where I even hinted that “liberals are liars” I expect you to take that back and apologize.
Anyone crying foul over this example of conservative debate tactics? Nobody? Beuler? I suggest that within the very thread that conservatives are expressing the greatest level of consternation about scurrilous debate tactics and piling on with useless commentary, there are plenty of examples already regarding the common practices of conservatives.
Shodan, showing another common strategy: I don’t like this debate. Let’s have a different one altogether. I assume that your tu quoque is an acknowledgement that it was unfair to characterize Kerry’s position as Sam did. Why don’t you be a bit more straightforward?
I wholeheartedly acknowledge that the speech you cite mentions many reasons for going to war with Iraq. I for one have never said that Bush never gave any other reasons. It seems to me that your cite is the one in which Bush gives the most attention he ever did to any other reasons. I have long contended that Bush argued most frequently, and in the course of all his statements on the matter, almost exclusively, that the reason we needed to act now was the threat of WMD. I cannot believe that the will of the American people for war would have been roused by any other justification.
Perhaps you could find some additional examples that human rights are given as much attention in a speech by Bush as they are in that speech to the UN. Perhaps you can explain the lack of proportional attention given to human rights in these other key discussions of the matter:
Bush calling Saddam out on the eve of the invasion
(see also Colin Powell’s UN presentation and the belief expressed in the Downing Street Memos that a war would not have been justified without tripping Hussein into a provocative act).
But let’s return to the matter at hand. I contend that Kerry’s position was that the war on terror required us to use many types of resources, including military action, human intelligence, surveillance and policing, and legal strategies. These intervention strategies would be applied as appropriate to a given situation.
Do you contend that his position was anything other than this, or are we in agreement? If you contend that his position differed from this, can you provide any evidence of that?
You know, after spelling out my understanding of Kerry’s position and thinking it through, it would only be logical, since you would constantly be engaging in surveillance (policing) and less frequently engagining in interdiction, arrest and prosecution, and then even less frequently engaging in military action, that this strategy could be seen as primarily doing things other than using the military, in the same way that a medical war on cancer would involve surgery less frequently than self-palpating, regular checkups with a physician, and interventions to reduce risk factors.
I may have been arguing a point left over from the elections; that Kerry would be weak on national defense.
So, if Shodan and Sam Stone were really saying that Kerry’s position is as I described it above, than I am erroneously arguing against them, and I withdraw my opposition and express my apology.
If they are, however, arguing otherwise, then matters remain to be debated. Why, for example, would you plan on using military intervention more frequently than surveillance, human intelligence, or arrest and prosecution?
Aw, fercrissake, John, if you never said it then I should not have read into it that implication. However you would then be an exception because for two years liberals have had to put up with you conservatives (and I don’t buy your “I am not a conservative” claim) concluding that, since Bush didn’t use the *specific * word, then any liberals who took what he said to mean “imminent” are liars. An attempt to derail the discussion into semantic nitpicking that is usually successful, like in this thread.
Eh, I got a bit snippier than I should have. But imagine it from my perspective… right or wrong, I have come to the conclusion that Bush is an absolutely terrible president who is doing many horrible things, which I don’t need to repeat here. I firmly believe this. I am very concerned about the future of our country. I also think many of these things are rather self-evident.
And, given how closely divided the country is right now, we need every ally we can get. To hear someone, who is presumably a voting American citizen, say “well, I just don’t know yet” is very frustrating, particularly as it smacks of some combination of “come back when there’s some difference between your parties” (what, the fact that the Republicans currently support BUSH isn’t a difference?) or “eh, I’m too lazy to have formed an opinion” (in THESE of all times?).
Anyhow, I hope you can sympathize with how easy it is for someone in my position to get worked up…
Well, risking descending into snippiness again, at some point you presumably chose either the Bloods or the Crips, presumably a day early in November of 2004?
Also, you don’t have to believe that Bush lied in order to think that he’s done a bad job. For that matter, you could well think that he did lie and still want to vote for him. I think you’re slightly overstating the level of division on this board.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You thought the thread wasn’t about Bush? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Ahh, I haven’t had a laugh like that in ages.
Noted, ma’am.
It’s hardly a semantic nitpick to be pretty damn upset when someone grossly misrepresents my post and puts that misrepresentation in quotes.
First of all, I have a beautiful, idealistic, dream, that someday I will write a long post into which I put a lot of effort, and someone will respond to ALL of it, not just little cherrypicked sections. Sigh. What a happy day that will be.
Anyhow…
I was about to angrily deny this, but… by “dirty tricks” do you mean “underhanded and unethical but legal political maneuvers” or “election fraud”? If the former, then yes, I believe there’s a consensus that such dirty tricks (particularly the Swift Boaters) played a large part. (Nor do I believe there is significant evidence to the contrary which we’re wilfully ignoring. It’s not a cut and dried issue. Heck, in an election that close, it would be hard to think that the Swift Boats did NOT matter.) If the latter, I think there might be a fringe who believe there was election fraud, and a larger group who entertained the idea at least for a while, but not a significant crowd who continues to believe that on an ongoing basis.
OK, fair enough, I withdraw my remark. (I hadn’t been reading that thread at all.)
Hang on, first of all, I never said such posts never happened, I said it was a bad thing when they did.
However, what is bad is not saying mean things to Bush-supporters. What is bad is saying mean things whose sole justification is that the person is a Bush-supporter. It’s perfectly all right (well, not really perfectly all right, but not a prima facie ridiculous and insulting and discourse-level-lowering thing) to violently and insultingly respond to something a Bush supporter actually said. That’s different than claiming that all Bush supporters are, by definition, X, Y or Z. (Which, of course, is just as bad as claiming that all liberals or Bush-bashers are X, Y or Z.)
For a concrete example, I haven’t really been following this discussion between Hentor and Sam Stone, but Hentor does not seem to be saying “All Bush supporters are dishonest”, he’s just saying “Sam Stone is dishonest”, and in fact is most likely saying “Sam Stone was being dishonest in this specific instance in this specific way”. Now, he might still be wrong. He might be wrong and an asshole. But he’s not doing the Bad Thing under discussion.
Hey! I am not wrong.
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 charter to hate Bush with every fiber of your being, you ending being called a partisan hack, or mindless Bush supporter.
Now, I’ll admit that that’s an exageration (don’t ask me for a cite), but that’s exactly how frustrating it can feel around here sometimes.
I don’t know enough about **Hentor **to put him the group I described in the first paragraph, but the "disagreement’ he and **Sam **had over the Kerry quote is very much along those lines. Sam’s paraphrase was so close to what Kerry said as to be indistinguishable, and yet he’s called dishonest for putting it that way. That, to me, is mind blowing. And I can understand why **Sam **would choose to just stay away.
Yes … absolutely conceded that Hentor is only talking about Sam.
But what about my alternate interpretation of Sam’s comments (slack given to Sam based on his use of “primarily”)?
Once more, with feeling.
John:
You’ve seen the quotes Hentor cited which plainly demonstrate that Bush and his administration did indeed insist they were 100% certain Iraq possessed “WMDs.” I just want to respond to the last sentence in the passage above.
I also think it’s reasonable to assume that Bush believed Iraq possessed “WMDs.” But his belief that something is true is not a justification for lying about it to bolster his argument. I might firmly believe elucidator to be the son of God, but does that give me the right to make up stories about all the miracles he’s accomplished? Bush might have believed that Iraq possessed “WMDs,” but did he really believe the Eastern Seaboard was threatened by antrax-spraying Iraqi robot drone planes, etc.?
(This gets us into a propaganda technique I would call something like “rhetorical ladder-climbing,” by the way. Bush may have truly believed in the big picture, but he lied (IMO) about specifics. To counter this problem his defenders “retreat,” as it were, into generalities. Sure: maybe Bush did believe Iraq possessed “WMDs.” Of course, “WMDs” is itself an acronym for a generality, and includes weapons that threaten the existence of entire cities, on the one hand, and battlefield munitions capable of killing maybe a hundred combatants, on the other. Nevertheless Bush and other members of administration made specific claims that, in hindsight, turned out to be false, and that, by any reasonable standard, they ought to have know were doubtful to begin with.)
Anyway, I submit that Bush was willing to lie so egregiously (or exaggerate, if you prefer) precisely because he believed that he would find something – virtually anything – that could retroactively justify the invasion. He even made a few desperate attempts afterwards: he claimed that the helium balloon trailers were “WMDs,” for example, and that a single vial of decades-old botulinium was proof that Saddam was “a threat to the world.” Anyway, my point is simply this: had Bush made his argument on the basis of the facts at hand, I would not hold him in such low regard.
Vaguely interesting personal anecdote: after the invasion was a fait accompli, and the “WMDs” proved to be non-existent, I was truly stunned to hear the Bush administration turn back and assure us that they had, in fact, never claimed Iraq to be an “imminent” threat. I went back and re-read all that old material, and sure enough, turns out they were right. Yet in the entire period during the run-up to the war I was quite sure they were claiming that we must invade Iraq precisely because it was an imminent threat to US security. It was a very disorienting experience, and to this day I wonder how they managed to convey the impression that they believed the Iraqi threat to be imminent without ever once using the word.
I would also submit that many conservatives on this board were of this misapprehension. What’s strange about the whole affair is that the legality of the invasion was justified on the basis of the fact that Iraq was an imminent threat. Although strictly speaking Article 51 of the UN Charter prohibits a pre-emptive strike, a long history of “case law” supports the rights of states to attack opponents who actually represent an imminent threat to their security. So the argument ran that since Iraq was an imminent threat, we had the right to defend ourselves with a pre-emptive invasion. It really wasn’t until after the war, when we failed to discover the “WMDs” that allegedly represented the imminent threat, that the pro-war side shifted gears and pointed out they had never claimed Iraq to be an imminent threat to begin with!
The fact that this reconstruction undermines their arguments for the war’s legality doesn’t seem to faze them in the least.
In my own defense, 1) I agree completely with you on this point, and 2) I actually had a long debate with Scylla on this exact topic, in which I laid out my reasons for opposing the policy.
Still, the two positions aren’t mutually exclusive; I can concede that Bush didn’t characterize the Iraqi threat as imminent, and agree that his NSS is very dangerous piece of work, and still despise him as a liar.
By the way, I’d like to submit the debate (well, discussion really) between John and myself, or the debate between John and Hentor, as an example of how people with differing political opinions can, actually, meet each other in a spirit of open and honest disagreement, without rancour or name-calling. And I would like to ask other members of the board what differentiates this discussion from, for example, the debate between Hentor and Shodan.
Finally, I would like to encourage Bricker, or anyone else out there, to pick up the gauntlet and respond to my post #130, page 3.
I’ll answer that post for myself.
What would it take to convince (me) of what, now? That Bush lied to start the war?
I am already convinced – I believe he lied about what he knew with certainty to facilitate the war effort.
RE: the sarin-filled artillery shells of Doom! Doom!
It just amazes me. The story was roundly crushed when it first raised its greasy head: the shell was a relic, probably posed more of a threat as hazardous waste than as offensive weaponry, couldn’t have been fired and probably wouldn’t have worked had it been fired. And then, or course, you have the problem of finding an artillery piece with a range of approximately 10,000 miles…
You seize it, chop of its head, stuff its mouth full of garlic, pound a wooden stake through its heart, and bury it at the crossroads with a silver dime, a black cat and some Johnny Conkeroo and yet, it rises at night to feed on the living!
What does it take to finallly kill a nugget of bullshit?
Unless we make it an unacceptable social behavior, like with being racist, we will always have bullshit filled apologists for the current regime, “America, Love It, Or Leave It” types.
On the subject of how the war was sold, how about Powell’s speech to the UN?
How many times is the word ‘liberate’ used? Zero.
How many times is the word ‘freedom’ used? Zero.
How many times is the word ‘humanitarian’ used? Zero.
How many times is the word ‘democratic’ used? Zero.
How many times is the word ‘torture’ used? Zero.
How many times is the word ‘oppression’ used? Zero.
How many times is the word ‘terrorism’ used? Seven.
How many times was the phrase ‘weapons of mass destruction’ used? Seventeen.
You know perfectly well that the semantic nitpick I was referring to was the use of “imminent threat” and the common use of it to derail debates. I have already apologized for putting words in your mouth. Since I am so accustomed to those words following your statement, “Bush didn’t say Iraq was an imminent threat,” I saw a hint that wasn’t there.
But “pretty damn upset?” Dude, it’s an internet message board, not the floor of the Senate.
Mr. Svinlesha, I’ll take a run at this.
1) The employment of the OSP to stovepipe previously discredited intelligence directly into the White House;
All this shows is a disagreement between different analysts as to what weight certain intelligence observations should be granted. This doesn’t show that the “previously discredited” intel was correctly discredited, or that the other intel was correctly credited.
Note that “correctly” doesn’t mean “turned out to be true”. “Correctly” means evaluated in a reasonable and prudent manner.
2) The infamous “yellowcake” statement in the SOU – intentionally included after specifically being stricken by Tenet from a previous speech;
That’s an odd summary. According to CNN, Tenet took responsibility for the error himself:
That indicates that Mr. Bush relied on the intel presented to him, and Mr. Tenet was in error to have presented it. That goes to incompetence of the administration, but not to Mr. Bush’s lying.
3) Assertions that Iraq was “six months away” from building a nuclear weapon, a claim based on a non-existent report;
From the Washington Post:
This was not true. I agree that the IAEA made no such report.
But is that the end of the story? Was there A report that said this, and Mr. Bush simply misattributed the source? If so, while I agree it’s an untruth, it’s more likely a mistake than a deliberate lie.
From the same article:
Removal of caveats or assertions of uncertainty doesn’t create a lie. It reflects the editorial choices that go into any public address by a president, on any subject.
Again, how does this prove a lie? It shows what we all already know: that the assertions of certainty were based on inaccurate and incompetent evaluation of the evidence. When that was made plain, the comment that intelligence is a murky business is absolutely true: its vaery murkiness precluded (or hindered) an accurate assessment in advance.
What statements, specifically, are those?
Total? Indeed?
The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), stated in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE):
Dr. Khidir Hamza, former Director General of the Iraqi Nuclear Weapon Program, testimony to the House Armed Services Committee:
[/quote]
The nuclear weapons program is now almost complete waiting for the enrichment sector, which makes 90% of the program to finish its job and put together a working production facility. The bottlenecks in the enrichment are already resolved. German sources provided Iraq with classified reports and a working unit in the centrifuge enrichment technology. This can reduce the time needed for research and development for a country like Iraq by at least ten years. The whole centrifuge technology was acquired for a little over a million dollars. This included state of the art carbon fiber cylinders. The recent announcement of interception of large orders for aluminum cylinders indicate that the process of putting together large enough units for full production is not complete yet. At the same time it also indicates that Iraq has already bypassed the initial testing and possibly pilot plant stage. Also Iraq always use duplicate sourcing of materials and supplies which may mean that it is already in possession of enough materials for a small scale production facility. My estimate is that Iraq may be in actual production in two years with enough accumulated product for two to three nuclear weapons in three years.
[/quote]
Rolf Ekeus, former chief U.N. arms inspector for Iraq (United Nations Special Commission on Iraq – UNSCOM) from 1991 until 1997, stated in an interview with News Perspective Quarterly: Global Viewpoint:
So the State Department had an assessment. DOD had a different assesment. Mr. Bush went with DOD. Why does that make him a liar?
Which prove what?
Irrelevant. The issue is whether Mr. Bush lied about what we knew going in – not what ultimately resulted.
Of a lie? Direct contradictory statements. Admission of a lie.