The Great Pro-War Massacree Thread (and General Meltdown)

The BBQ Pit
141

Sigh,

Another “high-fiving of the prophets” thread.

Please tell me, as an unlightened member of society, how was I to know that the information that the rest of the world used to guage the severity of the WMD programs in Iraq was in fact false.

Those of you that claim that you “knew” that GWB was lying, that the info was all wrong, please tell me how you arrived at that conclusion.

I have a hunch.

I think you were accidentily correct.

I think that it is entirely possible that it was politically motivated.

Taking the opposite view of the current POTUS because he is not in your political corner has finally paid off.

142

Cos the non-party political UNSCOM Inspectors had been on the ground in Iraq for *seven whole years *finding and destroying everything Saddam ever had, before Clinton withdrew them so he could attack and distract attention away from his Impeachment hearing.

The UNSCOM reports are well documented, as are the subsequent opinions of the more vocal of the UNSCOM Inspectors.

And then they put in place systems for detecting the whatevers in the atmosphere and for tracking the few experts remaining in Iraq capable of actually doing any quality work.

Everything he ever had was either found and destroyed (in terms of infrastructure) or had gone way beyond its (usually) five year shelf life – it was sludge, already.

The threads are there to read; this was discussed and debated in abundance.

And then the UN Inspectors went back in prior to this war of aggression and found nothing and were, again, withdrawn by a US president because he wanted to attack.

Again, the threads are there.

143

In small words, so whuckfistle can follow along:

George W. Bush: “We’ve got proof that Saddam has a zillion WMDs!”
Rest of the world: “That’s not what we’ve heard.”
George W. Bush: “We know Saddam’s got remote-controlled drones!”
Rest of the world: “That’s not what we’ve heard.”
George W. Bush: “We know he’s gonna attack any day now!”
Rest of the world: “That’s not what we’ve heard.”
George W. Bush: “That’s because you don’t have the secret information we have!”
Rest of the world: “Really? Let’s see it, then.”
George W. Bush: “No! It’s super-secret data! You can’t see it!”
Rest of the world: “So how do we know you’re right?”
George W. Bush: “Trust me!”
Rest of the world: “No.”

George W. Bush couldn’t sell the Iraqi war to the SDMB, much less to the United Nations. Saying the skeptics “got lucky” is to grossly distort the facts.

144

whuckfistle:

Well, speaking for myself, I never claimed that I knew, for a fact, that GWB was lying, or that the pre-war info was wrong. I only suspected, albeit strongly, that the info coming out of the White House was highly exaggerated, and that some of it was bullshit.

The list of reasons underlying my suspicions is tediously long, and I’m not going to rehash it all here. I’ll just give you a couple of quick examples:

For the approximately one-millionth time now – in Bush’s SOTU, he claimed that Iraq had attempted to acquire yellowcake from Africa. To date, the only known basis for this claim are a set of forged papers. The papers were known to be forgeries before Bush’s SOTU; Bush had been forced to remove a similar claim from a speech in Cincinnati; he had been informed in writing by Tenet that the CIA found the evidence for the alleged purchase attempt to be dubious. He, or at least some of his handlers, knew that this was one issue wherein the US intelligence community disagreed with its British counterpart. Bush chose to include it in his SOTU anyway. I simply cannot find a way to explain that set of events as anything other than a conscious attempt on the part of the POTUS (or, at the very least, people close to him) to purposefully mislead the American public – folks like you and me.

There were numerous stories in the media during the run-up to the war in which intelligence officers claimed that they were being pressured to produce reports that coincided with, or supported, the administration’s war plans. Sam Stone and I had a long discussion about the politicization of the claims surrounding the “aluminum tubes,” for example, and administration’s refusal to accept the expert judgement of the DoE, which ran counter to the official view of the matter.

Back in 2001, Collin Powell said:

I take these statements to represent a summary of what the US intelligence community honestly believed about Iraq in early 2001. Now: by their own admission, the neither the administration nor any US intelligence agency had received new, reliable information about Iraq’s “WMD” programs between 1998 (when the UN inspectors were withdrawn) and 2003, when a new group of inspectors were allowed back into the country. Testifying before Congress, for example, Rumsfeld stated that the changed attitude of the US towards Iraq was “not based on any new evidence.” So how are we to explain this sudden reversal in the US intelligence estimate of Iraq? Iraq was “contained” before 9/11, but it was a looming threat to world peace after, and on the basis of no new evidence whatsoever ”? Something doesn’t add up.

If you inspect the two linked threads in the OP, you will find many examples of what I thought and why. It seems to me that one would have to be willfully ignorant if, at this point, one is completely unaware of the very many reasons given by the anti-war faction for its resistance to the Iraqi invasion.

This is a tiresome canard. I tried to make my decision based on reasoned consideration of the facts as I knew them. Turns out, I was right.

And I’m sick to death of being accused of partisanship simply because I was being rational.

145

The first hint was how different countries and organizations like the UN as well as myriad think tanks and political analysis centers ranked Iraq’s capabilities differently. The months of debate when France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and dozens of other countries dug in their heels in opposition to authorizing war against Iraq. The fact that world opinion was not pegged on the “Iraq is a threat which must be dealt with by pre-emptive war” level on the guage. The fact that only the US and UK seemed to have them there and that both of them were unwilling to share the basis of this claim.

In the storm of uncertainty about exactly what the situation on the ground in Iraq actually was, most countries seemed to prefer the reasonably safe route of continued and expanded inspections. Backed up with threat of military action if inspectors were blocked or otherwise impeeded.

I think I read hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of reports and estimates on Iraq’s weapons in the wake of the first gulf war. I think I read that the vast majority(90%+) of them were destroyed by inspectors or Iraqis working on orders from inspectors and the rest may well have been destroyed but the documentation was missing. I recall reading speculation about what MIGHT have been happening with a covert program which was flying under the radar of inspections, but there was little to no hard evidence that such a program existed. Claims came from Bush and Blair that, if true, should have been borne out by corraborative evidence in public documentation. I recall being told there were top secret reports which had definite evidence which was not disclosed in the previous intelligence releases. I stated that I was unwilling to have people killed in my name based on what had been released so far and that I would be unwilling to have people ordered to be killed until such definite evidence was presented. Any time some subset of these “smoking gun” reports were published, they turned out to be either exaggerated, erronous, or fabricated.

I was, at the time, called “naieve” and “unpatriotic”. Now I’m being called “accidentally correct.”

I did my homework pre-war. I had as realistic and informed a viewpoint as any citizen of the US could possibly be expected to have. I found enough evidence to support continuing sanctions and inspections, but absolutely nothing which would warrant pre-emptive war. Now all those hundreds of hours I have spent analyzing and critically thinking about the issue are being dismissed as guesswork or accidental.

Fuck you.

YOU may have been operating on guesswork. YOU may not have done your homework and the situation on the ground in Iraq is a major shock to YOU, but to pretend no one had a decent handle on this issue and everyone was guessing is simply bullshit.

Enjoy,
Steven

146

, like many others, did my research prior to the Iraq war to form my own opinion. The bottom line was that there was to much conflicting information from every angle. Everyone had something to say, pro or con. If anyone “claims” to have overwhelming evidence one way or the other, they are deluding themselves.

You may have found enough information to convince you to agree with a position you were heading for already. But to look at all the information available and say you KNEW anything is crap.

What tipped me to the pro-war side was, perhaps, naivety. I just could not imagine the leaders of the US and UK lying, plain and simple. I couldn’t see how the governments of these two leaders also could be so easily deceived. I mean Bush/Blair had supporters in their own governments…something had to convince them!! Something!! How could people who spend their entire adult lives serving THE people so easily set aside everything they know to be right and just out and out LIE about WMD’s??

Could Bush/Blair be so callous and cold to send thousands of soldiers to their potential deaths…for nothing?? A lie? Perhaps they would, but something in me just refuses to believe it. I don’t know what happened to the WMD’s, or what the real reason for the war was, but I have to believe it was for something.

147

In the same way Vietnam was “for something” ?

It’s about empire, the hardest hard ball game of all time. And this is a capitalist empire so it’s about obtaining and maintaining markets, being seen to protect markets and key resources.

That’s what we do, the USA and, usually the UK. And that’s why we’re rich and the gap between ‘us’ and ‘them’ has never been bigger.
Or is it that shining beacon of democracy thing . . .

148

::applause::

To both Mr. Svinlesha and Mtgman!

Dob:

If you think Bush served the people the entire of his adult life, you already swallowed one lie too many.

The thing that made me doubt the pro Iraq war arguments was that much of the pro war info was shot down almost as quickly as it appeared, and other allied countries were acting as if their intelligence departments were not finding the same. Contrast this with Afghanistan: the same did not happen on the way to the intervention there, the obvious difference: the intelligence groups of those nations did see evidence against Osama and the Taliban.

And so, Germany, France and “other future new enemies” helped with even soldiers to aid the USA against terror, some of them are still there in Afghanistan!

Another of the reasons why I opposed the Iraq war: because there was already documentation, as London_Calling and others found, that there were indeed other reasons for the Iraq invasion. Unfortunately, many of them had diddlysquat to do with the security of the USA, only with economical interests, specially the ones of the administration’s cronies.

149

It isn’t strictly necessary to attribute it all to villainy. In the beginning, they simply saw what they expected to see and fervently wanted to see. All too human. And in that beginning they had broad support, so they weren’t pressed to be strictly sure, nobody was in a position powerful enough to keep them honest. They didn’t care, they didn’t have to care.

The minute the nuclear case fell under suspicion they started on the defensive, and began to assert their certainty in stronger and stronger terms, culminating in Colin Powell’s disgraceful performance at the UN. At this point, the epithet “liar” takes on validity. They proclaimed ambiguous evidence as irrefutable, in order not to have to abandon thier position. (A pity Barbara Tuchman isn’t alive in order to add a chapter to her March of Folly…)

GeeDubya sees himself as a Leader of Men, a man competent to make grave historical decisions. He is mistaken, it is his undoing, hopefully, it won’t be ours as well.

As I’ve said, I think GeeDubya would make an exemplary Commissioner of Baseball. We should all bend our efforts to the day when he can set aside the burdens of his current office and hurry to his true calling.

150

As long as we’re splitting hairs on the atomic level. You may have found enough information to convince you to agree with a position that the sky is blue, but to look at all the information available and say you KNEW anything is crap. The sky is blue under certain conditions and with certain assumptions. If a particular organism is incapable of seeing the “blue” portions of what humans call visible light, then the sky is most certainly not blue from their vantage point. This exact same sky, under the light from a different type of star, would be a different color even if all else remained static.

Come now man. It is always possible to poke holes in claims that someone “KNOWS” something. Absolute evidence, strictu senso is most likely not possible in the real world. This should not paralyze us(the extreme of inaction in response to stimulus), nor should it galvanize us(the extreme of leaping to action in response to stimulus). There is a middle ground which was perfectly appropriate to the Iraqi situation. In the face of uncertainty what is the best course of action? Caution or bravado? Sending in the troops or sending in the inspectors? I did not favor doing nothing, nor did most of the world. Most of the world did not favor pre-emptive war.

Enjoy,
Steven

151

I have somewhat of a hard time reconciling two sets of statements. First, those I frequently heard before invading Iraq, urging me to “wait for the evidence,” that “all will be revealed in due time (by smiling David, for one),” or that there was simply “evidence that is too secret to be shared.” Second, the current claims that “everybody had concurred that SH had these weapons.” If everyone had been on the same page about what was known, what would the need have been to have ever referred to secret evidence, or even to wait for the eventual display of evidence? Why would secret evidence be necessary to convince everyone of what they already believed?

If everyone had believed, why would Bush have suffered the embarrassment of promising to go back to the Security Council for a vote, only to slink away like a gutless coward?

Perhaps it is simply that the set of people referring to the existence of secret information was wholly distinct from the set of people now saying that everyone said Hussein had weapons, and there is thus no inconsistency. Unlikely.

I tend to think it more likely that this is a desperate effort by some to resolve the painful truth that they were completely gullible, that they did not exercise the reason and intellect they believe that they possess and would never fail to apply to such an important decision. “I shouldn’t be faulted for having believed, right? I mean, I only thought what everyone else thought, right?”

For some others, it is simply a matter of being cunts.

Like Billy, who joined the National Front, and always was a little runt.

152

For anyone who cares any more, here http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=225212&page=7&pp=50 is Scylla’s first enunciation and subsequent expansion of the “Big Dawg” theory of the overseas projection of American power. The whole thing starts at entry 308 on page 8, carries over to entry 317 and entry 324, all on November 27 of last year. I think the posts speak for themselves and adequately explain our friends apoplexy attack farther up this thread. No words were put in out friend’s mouth and no appology will be forthcoming from me unless our friend comes up with a new definition of fair comment that is any place close to persuasive.

153

I don’t really care about your apology, I simply resent when an asshole mischaracterizes me. Similarly, I don’t give a shit about your requirements for an apology (that I should be persuasive or somesuch) Fuck you. You’re wrong. You dragged my ass in here with you’re snide little mischaracterization. It should be intrinsically obvious to any given idiot, and that includes you.

Stop playing games and face reality.

You said:

And you know it’s a total lie. No convoluted gymnastics make it not a lie.

As I laboriously explained (twice) the entire reason for existence and necessity of the strategy is self-defense. The whole fucking point is to make terrorism unviolable and prevent future attacks.

It is not an exercise in power for power’s sake as you flat out contend.

Your suggestion otherwise is a straight up lie. I never said nor implied anything of the kind.

So go stick your apology up your ass. Don’t mischaracterize my arguments. If you must refer to them do me the basic courtesy of quoting me instead of making up shit and putting my name on it.

154

I’m pretty sure this doesn’t parse quite the way you intended. As sig inspiration, however, its a peach!

155

Trying to keep in the spirit of open-mindedness that Avalonian and Mr. Svinlesha were kind enough to notice (my thanks go to both of you for your commendations), these are my thoughts. They are not meant to be partisan arguments backed by cites and facts, just gut level observations…

As a political matter, the failure to find WMDs in Iraq has obvious consequences. Notice how the stock of Dick Cheney has fallen drastically (cite is a recent poll in the NY Times, too lazy to look up right now [my wife is calling on me to hurry up with this post and come to bed]). Apparently it is left to Cheney to fall on his sword (deservedly, IMO) by keeping up a brave front of the possibility of a surprise discovery (an October surprise? Yeah, right.) and consequently looking like the troglodyte ideologue that he is. I doubt he much cares about how disliked he is; personally, I think he takes a certain pride in it. But his persistence in believing Chalabi and staking his reputation on such a charlatan has bruised him, perhaps fatally. Good riddance, if you ask me.

Rumsfeld’s personal stock is somewhat better, probably because he’s got such a joie de vivre about his core ruthlessness that so many find endearing. His acerbic persona notwithstanding, Rumsfeld’s Q rating lies in how well he exploits his foes’ pressure points (“Old Europe,” anyone?) and his willingness to pursue the reformation of the Armed Forces to address the threats of the new century. He is to be applauded for his plan to redeploy forces off the DMZ, and his realization that the political costs of some bases located in certain countries (Germany and Saudi Arabia, anyone?) outweighed their military benefits. It’s unfortunate that he became the symbol of American diplomacy, because his talents, when properly channeled, are formidable.

Powell, I suspect, will bail after the first term; the damage to his credibility is considerable after the UN speech. This is an utter tragedy given his symbolism, credentials, and former stature internationally. Rice is still a relative unknown to the masses, but has maintained her standing and will assume Powell’s role if Bush wins a second term.

The consequences of the WMD fiasco are also geopolitical. The doctrine of pre-emptive war lies in ruins as a result of the WMD failure, or at least Bush’s ability to carry it out. Successfully making high-level intensity war still requires the consent of US citizens; Iraq proved there is no force in the world that can stop the American government - when it has the capability to impose its will - except its people. But the people require a sound reason for war, and the main one Bush gave last time was WMDs. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me will be the mantra if Bush attempts another pre-emptive war under similar circumstances. This means that US strategic options are reduced, but still other options remain.

From an anti-Bush perspective, though, the central character in the drama remains treading water, not comfortably, but not drowning like some of his lieutenants. Or would it be more appropriate to call it a Praetorian Guard?

Apparently, at least right now (maybe not necessarily when it counts in November), support for Bush is still a solid slim majority. His approval rating appears to hold at a slim majority. The support for him is steady - he’s slipped below 50% at times but has never had any sort of catastrophic drop that would forecast the imminent fall of his administration.

The lesson seems to be that the American people will tolerate its leader deliberately lying (as opposed to saying something was not true) if the untruth serves a deeper purpose. I’ll leave it to you readers to decide what that says about the American people.

The American people tolerated Kennedy telling a blatant lie - that the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba had no relationship with the US withdrawal of obsolete missiles from Turkey - because the lie was necessary to preserve the peace. But if the untruth (or lie) does not serve a deeper purpose, the emperor has no clothes. Whether Bush has his dick flapping in the wind because of this WMD issue remains to be seen.

Support for the war itself is still steady at around 65%, but with the Iraqi political situation in doubt, troops still dying, fears of a civil war breaking out, joblessness, and parts of the nation in a state of general instability (though it’s important to point out that certainly not ALL; the Kurdish and Shiite regions have been - relatively speaking - stable), America’s freedom of overt action in the theater of conflict is somewhat limited.

But as I previously said, options are not limited to overt war. This Jerusalem Post article (URL = http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074745158639) cites a Jane’s Intelligence Digest report (therefore pretty credible) talking about the U.S. deploying special forces to the Bekaa Valley, thus putting them in confrontation with Syrian occupiers and Hezbollah jihadists. The War on Terror continues.

I am not one of those who thinks all is doom and gloom in Iraq. The war has not spread beyond the Sunni regions. Few if any of the catastrophes forecast by the anti-war side materialized; the Arab Street didn’t explode, the oil wells weren’t torched, refugees didn’t flee. When compared to guerrilla wars in Vietnam (vs. France & U.S.) or Afghanistan (vs. Soviet Union), the insurgency left much to be desired. Its significance was enhanced by Bush’s ineptitude in managing how the masses perceived the war, in part because of his mediocre (to be charitable) rhetorical ability, a rather annoying preference for secrecy, and a general dismissal of the importance of establishing a narrative.

I do think that as a military matter, the insurgency is all but crushed, unless it can somehow alter the strategic paradigm (doubtful when its symbol was pulled out of a hole begging for his life on TV). The insurgency appears to be retreating after its burst in November, as illustrated in the dramatic decrease in attacks since Saddam was caught. The insurgency is still dangerous on a tactical level, but America seems inured to the steady drip of casualties. Foreign fighters must resort to killing Muslims more than Americans, limiting their popularity among Iraqi citizens.

In the absence of a spectacular attack or catastrophic deterioration in security, the 65% figure will probably hold. The major problem now is the political situation, and obviously questions surrounding the transfer of power. IMHO, the fact that Sistani is flexing his muscles is an indication that the Sunni-fueled insurgency is severely beaten.

The political matter is serious and tense, and if the UN really wants to make a comeback in the eyes of America, it has the opportunity to do so by acting as a broker between Bremer and Sistani, while reassuring the Kurds and Sunnis. If the UN finds the courage to go back into Iraq and the wisdom to help, Democrats can finally legitimize their calls for internationalization and point out how much more well positioned they will be to get diplomatic support than Bush is - a potentially compelling rationale for moderate voters in 2004, IMHO.

War supporters can plausibly argue that America’s strategic situation in the theater of conflict has improved dramatically as a result of the war. If special forces are deployed in the Bekaa Valley to confront the Syrian army and Hezbollah, Syria is surrounded these special forces, the Israelis on the Golan Heights, Turkey, and American forces in Iraq. This may have Syria wondering about a change of policy, as recent rumors of a possible limited rapproachment with Israel have been floated. With any luck, Arafat will die soon, but if special forces actually deploy to the Bekaa Valley, the Palestinian Authority is put in an even more strategically untenable position than it already is.

Libya is an obvious good news story. Iran’s political crisis is slowly coming to a boil, and it recently agreed to limited IAEA inspections. The House of Saud has been brought into direct low-level conflict with jihadists, and are paying a heavy price.

The failure to find WMDs and its resulting consequences also must be weighed against the benefits of what we actually have learned as a result of the war. Yes, the war has proven that U.S. intelligence apparently sucks, and furthermore may well have been cherry-picked by certain ideologically driven members of the administration as well as the C-in-C.

But without the war, I contend, we would have no idea of the nature of the threat facing the U.S. Obviously this is a YMMV premise, but I really have a hard time believing Gadhafi, no matter how much of a good boy he seems like he was trying to be, would let American inspectors prance into his country and take everything he’s got to Knoxville, and grant access to shitpiles of documentation that tells a disconcerting tale about the open market in components, material, and know-how. The bulk of the credit on the Libya deal should go to Blair, the good cop to Bush’s bad cop, with the UN being the obvious loser because the agreement did not come within its auspices.

Apparently, what we have found so far in Libya, and according to accounts about that Pakistani rogue physicist from Musharraf, suggests that various facets of weapons (components, funding, designs, material, technology, physicists, etc.) are dispersed, thereby preventing a “smoking gun” in any one country. If this is the case, this is very bad, and it indicates that while pre-emptive war is not a panacea to WMD proliferation, we can certainly no longer put our fate in the hands of treaties whose frameworks can not adequately address the threat, nor multilateral institutions whose resolutions can’t be implemented without threat of force, which can only really supplied by the U.S. What was it that Clauswitz (I think) said? “Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.” Pithy, and correct.

As for me personally, I admit I’m conflicted. Bush resonates with me because he at least recognizes the situation in the MENA was untenable in the long term, and he had the guts (or hubris, YMMV) to confront a failed status quo. I have no doubt that the war probably caused a great deal of anger in the Arab world, but this anger - so far - has not translated into actual political ramifications. The political behavior of Arab states has been to move closer to the US position.

But my complaints about Bush are growing. His most unforgivable flaw is that he can only articulate what America is against, not what it is for (at least not effectively). Under his watch, he has not prepped the political ground for a future president by avoiding the explicit acknowledgment that our addiction to cheap oil has played a significant role in our current situation in the MENA region. I disagree with almost all of his domestic stances.

And finally, as a war supporter, I am forced to hold him ultimately responsible as C-in-C for the WMD failure. All the blame should not be heaped on the intelligence community; it was obvious after 9/11 that heads should have rolled, and they did not. Bush, one way or another, must be held accountable.

156

Scylla:

Rewind and rethink. This is what Spavined wrote:

Now, first off, judging from what you’ve written on this subject, dispensing with the “niceties” is a central tenet of your approach:

One may or may not wonder if this policy really exemplifies the concept “self-defense,” but you sure seem to want to skip the “niceties,” anyway. Further on, you seem to acknowledge that the approach has risks, and can even potentially spill over into unprovoked aggression:

**…but you advocate it nevertheless.

Secondly, regarding the phrase, “like the gym teacher who slaps the biggest kid in the class around to silence the rest,” well, I can’t really see what you’re objecting to. You argue that even if Hussein didn’t possess “WMDs,” the war was justified on the basis of making him an “example”:

I’m too lazy (and it’s too early here) to look more examples, but you’ve made very similar arguments to me: Saddam had “declared himself an enemy,” and that justified the US in its decision to make an example of him.

Perhaps you object to Spavined’s characterization of your argument, but you might also take a step back and realize that for many of us who have been involved in these debates, that is precisely what you seem to advocate. The US is the toughest kid on the block, and therefore he has the right to make everyone else toe the line. As a matter of perceived self defense, he can make an example out of an innocent (just to forestall, not that Hussein was innocent, just that he was never a serious threat to the US), and he’s got the right to lie and cheat in the pursuit of that goal.

That’s one of the more interesting tidbits of your views, by the way; apparently, lying to the American public for the sake of the “Big Dawg” is a perfectly justifiable act:

This passages demonstrates to me that your moral compass is completely awry, but, oh well, YMMV.

If we assume Scylla employs “Big Dawg” as a principle of his relations here at the SDMB as well, it might be interesting to judge the results of the approach. Let’s make a comparison, shall we?

November 2003:

Spavined: What you tell me Scylia is reprehensible. The policy of our government, a government that boasts of being a nation of law, that boasts of representative democracy, is might makes right and the end justifies the means. If what you say is true then we have just become what we have hated and feared all our national existence–a predator nation that seeks world domination. We have become Regency England, impressing neutral seaman and imposing continental blockades. You tell us that this is a good and moral stance for our nation…. I do, however, appreciate your candor.

Scylla: It’s my pleasure. I enjoy the exchange of ideas, and you’ve helped me articulate something I’ve had trouble doing. Thanks for making it a pleasure. The kind of discussion you’ve offered me is why I’m here.
Januari 2004:

Spavined: A few of the advocates for the Administration, notably Scylia and Brutus, have both dispensed with the niceties of self-defense and barefaced contend that the war was an exercise in American dominance, like the gym teacher who slaps the biggest kid in the class around to silence the rest (the Big Dawg approach)….

Scylla: *I really fucking hate it when some asshole makes up shit and pretends I said it. What you didn’t make up you misrepresented. Dipshit….

I don’t really care about your apology, I simply resent when an asshole mischaracterizes me. Similarly, I don’t give a shit about your requirements for an apology (that I should be persuasive or somesuch) Fuck you. You’re wrong. You dragged my ass in here with you’re snide little mischaracterization. It should be intrinsically obvious to any given idiot, and that includes you.*

My conclusion: Big Dawg doesn’t seem to lead to good neighborly relations, and appears a bit counter-productive – perhaps not surprisingly.

YM, naturally, MV.

157

**Hentor the Barbarian ** — Interesting handle. Its significance? You a Robert E. Howard fan?

158

Maybe, but there is no way you, or anyone else, knew for sure what happened to the WMD program. We knew they had the stuff, they didn`t provide the proper documents as to where it went, if it went.
I put much of the blame on Iraq for not satisfying the UN resolutions requirements to properly dispose of and document the WMD material that they had.

If it was that easy to lie to the American people about the lack of WMDs they could have also just as easily had a plan in place to forge, overstate, plant, what-have-you, any proof to back up the lies. The early stages of the war would have been the ideal time to do this.

Mtgman, well good for you. You did your homework and you came to a conclusion. Just as others have done and came to a different conclusion.

Every political, religious, environmental, humanitarian debate has countless faces. Every one of these types of issues has many, many “facts” associated with them. It is entirely logical to me that, depending on your bias, you could find information that, in your mind, completely backs up your views.
Also, unbiased persons could plow through all the same info and come to different conclusions.
In the end, the info you accessed could have strongly led you to lean in one direction, however, I suspect you were still holding your breath.

Mr. Svinlesha, thanks for the honest response. I appreciate the time.
I wasn`t about to do a “search for posts” and go through all the previous threads.

159

Huh. Maybe, then, it was cynicism that tipped me to the anti-war side. Our political leaders consistently distort the truth during (and right before) times of war. Look at Reagan and the Contras, information about smart bombs in the first Gulf War, and Clinton’s bombing of medicine factories for examples from the three previous presidents.

I didn’t automatically disbelieve WMD claims because they were coming from the White House; however, given the office’s history, I placed no particular credence in them, either. My one surprise has been that nothing remotely like WMDs has shown up, or rather that none of the claims of WMDs have stood up to media scrutiny. I was convinced that even if there were no actual WMDs, the WH would point to an empty warhead that had sat in an agricultural warehouse and gotten contaminated with pesticides and call it a smoking gun, and that the media would report the claim without examining it.

Inasmuch as that hasn’t happened, I’ve been pleasantly surprised.

And Scylla, you really ought to lay off calling people liars for how they characterize your views. You did it to me before, you’re doing it to Spavined now, and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you do it to others. Your trigger-happy liar-calling impulse no longer calls anyone’s credibility into question besides your own. Even if you’re convinced someone is mischaracterizing your views, calling them a liar is an assholish thing to do; instead, assume that you didn’t communicate your views properly and rephrase them.

Daniel

160

How does one argue with post-modernism? If you are so certain that my investigations were nothing more than a search for justification of a pre-existing bias and that objective truth simply isn’t possible, then no amount of arguing will convince you otherwise. You say unbiased persons may plow through the same info and reach different conclusions. Clearly you believe I am not an unbiased person and as such my views may be discounted. I have yet to see you provide any evidence for such aspersions on my intellectual integrity or analytical skills, but that rarely seems to stop anyone anymore.

Fine. Write me off. Write off all the thousands of people worldwide who also viewed the evidence and found no compelling reason for pre-emptive war. The millions who marched in anti-war demonstrations. We’re all idealogues. We’re all motivated by bias and we’re all cherry picking evidence just because we hate Bush or because we love Saddam Hussein. Not a single freaking one of us is coming to the table with an honest unbiased viewpoint. Not a single freaking one of us would just like to see some actual EVIDENCE before we start mother-fucking KILLING PEOPLE. Those intelligence agents who told Bush not to mention the African uranium thing in the SOTU because they couldn’t verify it and believed it false. Biased assholes. Latching onto some petty thing like the document being forged because they just want to see America fail.

Physician, fuck thyself.

Enjoy,
Steven