Oh, sure it is, Scylla. One need not be a saint to recognize the sins of others. Of course, one needs to be a hypocrite to pretend he does not share them.
By the way, did you find the time to compile that list of “perfidy” type lies you were going to share with us? You remember, don’t you? I can remind you again, if need be.
Yep, admirable foreign policy. In fact, visionary Murray N Robarth made a great case for it in his piece “Invade The World” back in 1994:
There you go – nothing but the truth for The True Believers.
Erm…that’s Murray N. Rothbard.
With my apologies to the now defunct gentleman.
Just for grins, I went back and did a GD search on “Scylla Iraq,” more than six months old. Nothing really mind-blowing popped up, but it did remind me of how many times The Usual Weasel professes deep personal hurt and declines to further discussion when other posters call him on his bullshit.
Courtesy, it seems, is a highly convenient excuse to withdraw from discussions in which the weaseling has become too much for even Scylla to rationalize.
You lied. You misrepresented my arguments. You’ve devolved to childish name-calling when you don’t get your way, and you do not return good faith or courtesy.
That’s not a vantage point from which we can have a substantive discussion.
You need to acknowledge and rectify this, and assure me it won’t continue before we can go on.
We’ve already done the ten page trainwreck thing. Namecalling and insults across the internet are useless. There’s nothing behind them. No weight or responsibility. It’s just anonymous strangers being mean.
It’s only worth doing with good faith.
I’m not going to waste my time considering your ideas or trying to explain mine without it.
It’s not an excuse. I’ve tried before. It doesn’t work.
I’ve shown good faith. I’ve been polite and courteous. I didn’t misrepresent your arguments or call you names. I’ve stood behind my words and acknowledged my errors.
It’s gotta be a two way street, if it’s gonna work, and you’re not holding up your end.
So you didn’t lie about saying the antiwar types were engaging in “lies and perfidy” and so forth? That was “polite and courteous”, not “misrepresentation”? It’s about a damn war. People are still getting killed over it, and you’re defending your imagined courtesy? Hell, even december was usually given credit for that much.
Aw, forget it, you’ve once again proven you’re not worth it. minty and elucidator, there are far more important and useful activities to engage in. Cutting your toenails, for example.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Please name one legitimate reason why we “had” to go to Iraq or why we are “right” to be there. Please stick to legal reasons only. Legal reasons include self-defense and…well…that’s pretty much it. So what are we defending ourselves against exactly?
Originally posted by minty green
**
Whoa, wrongo. Time out.
Can we all back for a little perspective already? Scylla defined the specific issue and time limit himself. IMO that shows a considerable degree of open mindness and personal responsiblity right there. He–and many others–honestly believed something. Scylla openly promised to reconsider that belief in light of data after a self-imposed amount of time. Changing his mind about the specific–imminent threat of WoMD–didn’t imply an obligation to swing 180.
Look, extremist rantings on any side don’t HELP. “Your liberal did this.” “Your neocon did that.” Blah, blah, cant, idiocies, packaged vomit.
Forgive me for being a pragmatic fool, but right now I don’t think we can afford fingerpointing. History will sort out the blame but right now our responsibility is figuring out how and who to salvage the most lasting good from the mess.
I don’t expect anything from any voter–neocon, green, progressive, libertarian–beyond a gritty, thoughtful expectation for real solutions. IMO the only contemptible ones are those who put party and theoretical constructs above sense. I hold Bush fully accountable for staggering ineptness, at the most charitable view, not because he’s a Republican but because of his performance in office.
I don’t expect Scylla or any other pro-war person of any stripe to automatically rebound to another viewpoint. Continuing to think, consider and weigh is integrity enough.
Then again, I consider partisan politics to be nothing short of lunacy. Stay fluid and keep 'em all worried–and accountable.
You know, Veb, if Scylla had simply chosen to defend the pre-war intel, to make an argument for a handful of erroneous statements and overenthusiasm for kicking Saddam’s ass, I wouldn’t be bitching about his complete lack of integrity.
What pissed me right the fuck off is that when he finally addressed the issue of fraudulent intent–the very issue he promised us lo these many months ago would be decided by Thanksgiving–he conceded that, yes indeed, the motherfuckers deliberately deceived us. You may recall the precise words: “It was fraudulent. It was obfuscated. It was deliberately so.”
Hooray for the facts! Hooray for intellectual honesty!
Um, no. 'Fraid not, as it turns out. Instead, The Usual Weasel immediately returned to defending the dignity and honor of the lying motherfuckers without any further acknowledgment of their deliberate decepit. Instead of intentional fraud, Scylla reverted to such weasely concepts as going “fast and loose with the facts,” “Bush defraud[ing] himself,” and being “negligent with information.”
As I said above, thery’re either a pack of reprehensible liars, or they were honestly mistaken in their conclusions. You can’t have it both ways. Unless you’re Scylla.
The point I’m making is that there’s plenty of room among “us” and “them”. My contempt is reserved for party absolutists who can’t or won’t look beyond the label. Just the act of looking is commendable.
Look, lots of people were quite honestly confused but willing to believe the claim the claim about WoMD. Heck, it drew us into war. Thinking or believing otherwise is damned scary. I couldn’t muster belief but sure as hell wanted to be wrong because the stakes were so ungodly high.
Being proven wrong even on one crucial point really doesn’t require instant, wholesale conversion to a polar opposite viewpoint. Expecting that is unrealistic, not to mention counterproductive. People who believed Bush aren’t reprehensible liars if they don’t rebound wholesale to the opposite view.
I’m not a political partisan. I hold 'em all responsible to me as a citizen. Fuck party posing. The farthest I’ll go is holding political partisans responsible for policing their own parties: their voting blocks and labels, their responsiblity. It allows them to choose candidates who can lead best according to their core values.
I may be misreading your point–and if so, apologies–but you seem to expect Scylla et. al. to rebound to the liberal viewpoint over the WoMD fiasco. I just put the onus on them to winnow through what’s worth keeping, then to choose whomever is most likely to get it done.
A process rather than black and white extremes.
No, I don’t expect Scylla or anyone else to suddenly see the light and denouce Dear Leader for the feckless fraud that he is.
I just want Scylla to concede that the motherfuckers deliberately, intentionally, and with malice aforethough lied about Iraq’s WMDs, and to have that concession stick for more than one damn post. That is, after all, what he promised us way back when.
This unseemly–but thoroughly typical–weaseling on his own deadline/prognostication stands in marked contrast to Scylla’s reaction when samclem early on took the stand that There AIN’T any WMD, you stupid shits. Anyone else remember The Usual Weasel’s reaction to that declaration? “I admire the courageous way in which you walk up to the chopping block and place your balls on it.”
Big talker there, Scylla. Put your testicles where your mouth is.
Feh. I wandered away from my point.
It’s unrealistic to extrapolate even reluctant, belated agreement on a specific issue beyond that issue to a common conclusion.
Heaven knows is it’s broad, murky and troublesome enough on its own. Try it on from the other side. Seems to be at least some consensus that the war was started on a faulty premise. Incompetence or deliberate lying? Lotsa leeway right there. Worthy goal goal despite the false beginning? Even broader murky leeway.
Right now it seems to me that this war has been divisive and bitter enough. It hasn’t gotten to Viet Nam levels but it sure holds the potential. The crucial thing is figure out how and who to salvage the most for the future. We were rushed into war. Finding commonality of purpose to handle the consequences is a lot more important than breaking apart into sides.
** minty, ** your persistence, fortitude and tolerance are astonishing.
Just one thing I wanted to say here:
It’s driving me crazy the way some of you are puffing up your chests and talking about how perfectly horrid it is that you were…gasp… * lied to * by the fella in the Oval Office, and leaving it like that. As I have had occasion to say to some participants in this thread recently: Of COURSE you were lied to, we are ALWAYS lied to by policians. It is coded in their DNA. In fact, the succesful running of national government absolutely requires that we be lied to, not to mention the successful getting elected to office.
So, the important questions to ask are:
About what?
Why?
What are the consequences?
Obviously, the answers in this case are truly abhorrant, unacceptable and cause for outrage, at the absolute minimum.
That rational people of good intention could see it as anything less may call into question the very idea that they are rational people of good intention.
Do you have me confused with someone else, perhaps? 
Must be me. Easy mistake to make, those being qualities common to Texans.
And I did. And I do again. I beleive Bush chose to lie about the WMDs.
Your suggestion that I’m stating otherwise is another misrepresentation.
You lied. You misrepresented my arguments. You’ve devolved to childish name-calling when you didn’t get your way, and you do not return good faith or courtesy.
The “perfidy”, Scylla? Anytime soon? Those awful lies the war opponents were tellling?
I’m ever so interested!
Why do you want me to stick to “legal” reasons? I’m not a lawyer.
Lots of things are legal that are wrong, and illegal that are right. I’m no athority on legality and my opinion on the legality of international affairs is a poor one. The legal context is not the context for the legitimacy I described on the previous page.
Awwww, Scylla…are you sulking?
You say the opponents of this war told perfidious lies, but won’t say what they are. Now, I’m kind of at a loss, see, because to my mind, telling lies that gets folks killed is really way high on the list. Which he did. And you agree that he did.
What’s worse than telling lies that get people killed?
Nyahh, I’m just not taking you seriously.
Are you telling me that you doubt an opponent of the war has told a lie , and that you need a cite?
And I’m to beleive that you’re repeated requests are a legitimate desire for information?
Tell me why you want an example of perfidy in an opponent of the war. What will it mean to you and what will you do with it, that I should go get it for you.
Will you promise to renounce all Democrats and join me in support of the war, because you can’t countenance the perfidy within your own ranks?
That would be worth my time.