“Again”, you say. Were you referring to some other first time Iraq brought something to us? Or is that another example of your eagerness to swallow whatever the current day’s version of reality from Bush and Rush happens to be, and never acknowledging ever having thought otherwise? Note that you made that claim just before they admitted otherwise. That approach may keep Ashcroft and the Ministry of Truth away from your door, but here it simply makes you look like a silly wanker.
As for your puppy-dog-loyal, but silly, claim that Bush did not attribute 9/11 to Saddam, there’s the very letter he sent to Congress asking for the war resolution. No equivocation, no qualifiers, no subjunctives. The very letter. You might toss in every time he’s said the words “terror” or “9/11” in the same breath as “Saddam” or “Iraq”. Nobody still believes that bullshit except the most gullible, which apparently includes you.
Spavined Gelding and, well, hell, everyone else here: We do seem to be wasting our time on this “good German”. If Rush Limbaugh didn’t say so, it ain’t so, in his cramped little fantasy world.
Well, no, I’m not ready to give up yet. I’m use to people who zealously advocate dubious propositions. Also, I’m not willing to accept that at some level we are not all friend here, although there is a level of personal abuse in this and other post that make me question that “liberal” view of these boards.
I would like to know just what our friend Scylla’s position is. If it is some sort of generalized idea that it is always reprehensible to criticize a decision to go to war or to question the conduct of the war, while the war is on going, I can accept that, as wrong headed and anti-democratic as it may be. If the position is that people who question the pretext for the war and the objectives of the war are factually wrong then there is something we can talk about. Which is it Scylla? Generalized lockstep patriotism or a factual and philosophical dispute? Just come out and tell us. This constant guessing game is growing tedious.
In terms of personal abuse, your comment that I am HOPING that the young men and women who were my comrades and who followed me in the units deployed to the Middle East died for a lie is as close to reprehensible as I have seen around here. I am of a generation that gave some fifty-eight thousand to die for a mistake. I resent their deaths and the maiming of thousands and thousands of others. I do not take lightly your representation, rhetorical or not, that I wish the same thing on that generation’s children. For old guys who have lived through this nation’s occasional bouts of irrationality, I think you owe me and all of us a clear statement of your position and argument about the present unpleasantness in Iraq and a clear statement of your apparent position that I and we owe some duty of unquestioning allegiance to the present President and his policies.
If you are just waiving the bloody shirt and proclaiming that every dead soldier boy in blue was shot by a Democrat, just come out and say so. that way we will know if there is a fair argument here of just partisan gamesmanship.
Would a judicial enquiry which produces Government documentation be helpful to you?
Here in the UK, we have the Hutton enquiry.
So far we have established that when Blair told Parliament that Saddam was threatening British bases (in Cyprus) with WMD’s (which would be ready at 45 minutes notice) plus was developing a nuclear weapon using African supplies and also there was a risk that Saddam would sell weapons to terrorists, there were in fact one or two points of interest:
Saddam only had battlefield shells, which couldn’t reach Cyprus
there was no evidence Saddam still had effective WMD’s, let alone have them ready in 45 minutes
the evidence of the African nuke was forged
Saddam wouldn’t use any such weapons unless attacked by the US (!)
if Saddam was overthrown, the risk of terrorism would increase
I suppose one could assume that if Blair knew all this before the war, that Bush did too. But I expect you’ll want more proof than this?
Scylla Bush et al can continue to claim the same shit about the WMD forever. You see, they’ve already laid out some possabilities about ‘where they are’ (buried in some stretch of the desert, ne’er to be found by anyone but those who buried them, sold to the nearest terrorist, smuggled to the nearest stronghold), as well as the fact that they’ve also lowered the bar quite substantially wrt what they’ll accept as ‘proof’. Remember, of course that the claims were tons of materials for WMD, etc etc etc, instead of tons of papers for WMD programs.
And this new wrinkle (“why would they continue to lie about it if they know they’ll get caught”) begs yet another issue - at what point in time will the true believers give up?. Last March, the risk was so imminent that several weeks more of weapons inspections was too risky. Invasion had to come right then. they were THATCLOSE to using them.
except they didn’t.
even when we conviently brought US targets right to their doorway.
and we still, months later, have nada to demonstrate what we ‘knew’ was true.
You stated before that Thanksgiving (about) was your line, that if they didn’t come up with the goods by then, you’d buy that it was at best a wholesale exaggeration, at worst, a fabrication. (or something like that).
you seem to be backing off that now with this new line of reasoning. Taking it to the limit - at what point would you cave then? they still don’t find shit by 2005? 2010?? when?
Well gee, thank you for being so magnanimous and offering me an either /or position.
Do you still beat your wife, or are you in denial? Which is it?
Tell me. I would like to know.
Criticism and examination of our government, leaders, and their actions is perfectly appropriate.
“Bush is a liar. They were deliberate lies. There are no WMDs. There never were any.” are statements of unfounded stupidity deserving of contempt.
“Bush acted hastily on dubious evidence,” is a debatable proposition and arguably a valid criticism.
In all cases, not just in government, criticisms and complaints must be well-defined and consistent.
I take argument with unfounded knee-jerk assertions.
That’s nice, but I spoke precisely. My first comment was directed at Elvis. My subsequent comment to you was phrased as an if then statement, not a positive assertion.
I stand by it. If you hope that our soldiers died for nothing, I have contempt for you.
I am not qualifying you with that statement. It’s up to you to qualify yourself.
And I resent defending myself from things I didn’t say.
Follow the chain of logic:
Do you hope that they never find convincing of evidence or WMDs in Iraq? Bear in mind, that if they don’t, if the assertion that they don’t exist and never did and are just a fabrication, is true than those who died for a lie.
If you are hoping that nothing is found, than you are hoping for an outcome that will damage us severely as a nation. You are hoping for an outcome that will demonstrate that our soldiers died for nothing.
If you hope that, I find it reprehensible.
I sincerely hope we acted properly and are vindicated.
A simple analogy is in order: You beleive your foolish friend has gotten into a car with an electrical issue that will cause the car to explode.
You warn your foolish friend, and he laughs at you and makes fun of you for your stupidity as he drives off.
If you sit there and hope the car will explode proving you right, than you’re an asshole.
Hopefully, I’ve just done that.
Wishing doom to vindicate prior statements is sucky behavior.
I’ve said nothing of the kind.
A fair argument would have had you answering the questions I asked you previously and reminded you of.
That probably would have saved us both some trouble.
No problem. I wasn’t sure if it was a misspelling or some attempt at an insult. Glad to hear it was the former.
I’m not switching gears here on the WMD question and the original time frame. I’m pretty eager to see what this report has to say.
Before the war, the burden of proof was on Saddam to prove he didn’t have the WMDs since he’d kicked the inspectors out.
Because of the depth of the assertions made by Bush the burden of proof is now on Bush to justify his actions with evidence.
I’m still sticking with Thanksgiving. I suspect that this coming report will make that moot. If the early indications are to be believed it will show no WMDs have been found, no convincing evidence that they existed, and no compelling reason to beleive they will be.
The problem is that the car’s already exploded. And my foolish friend was ordered by the manufacturer to drive the car. Some people hope the evidence shows the manufacturer was negligent.
So you believe that George W. Bush is a gambler and worthy of scorn! Not surprising, I suppose. The man DID make premature assumptions about the presence of WMDs in Iraq. So the description certainly fits.
But it’s interesting to see you say so. Thought you was a Bush fan…
Scylla, you have twice now said that I have failed to answer your questions. For the life of me I don’t know what questions you have asked me. I suggested that a sign of maturity is accepting it with good grace when you are wrong. To that you demanded to know on what point you were wrong (which sort of confirms my point). I also suggested it is childish to launch a personal attack on people who point it out when your assumptions are mistaken. To that you demanded that I tell you which of your assumptions were mistaken. While I took these as rhetorical questions and that your error had been adequately demonstrated, I took a stab at it in my post of 9:55 on 9/28. Your response was that I had misrepresented your position and generally had taken a big swing but missed. I then tried to give you a chance to clarify your position but you declined to do so with any precision, or at least in a form I could understand as anything but glittering generalities.
Now, if you have asked me questions that I have failed to answer or failed to answer to your satisfaction, please repeat the question in a form that I can understand – assume that I am some what simple minded–speak clearly and slowly. Use short words, if you please.
Words fail. “Reprehensible” is too mild, “vile” as well. I fear, as well, that this is but a preview of the coming election season. Will the Pubbies stoop to anything in order to keep thier grip on the levers of power? Is the bear Catholic? Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Scylla, I don’t think I or anyone is hoping that Bush is a liar. A lot of us believe the evidence that he’s a liar is very strong; what we’re hoping is that he’s EXPOSED for a liar.
We’re not hoping that the soldiers and the Iraqis died for a lie. We’re hoping that, by exposing Bush as a liar, we can prevent anyone ELSE from dying for the lie.
I really wish you’d be a little bit less cavalier with the accusations in this thread. Everyone else should be less cavalier, too, but you’re being pretty over-the-top, by suggesting we’re hoping for our country’s embarrassment and failure.
We’re not hoping for that. That’s already happened. We’re hoping for an END to the embarrassment and failure.
Whatever, Debaser. Note that Scylla is making pretty nasty accusations about people, stating that they’re hoping for their country’s failure and embarrassment, on awful little evidence. Don’t make nasty unfounded accusations about people, and you don’t have to watch them get in a tizzy. It’s pretty simple.
(Not that Scylla wasn’t goaded – he was – but that’s no reason to lash back so harshly)
Do you want to back that one up, Big Boy, or shall we just leave it hanging in the air like an unacknowledged fart?
If there has been a shift to a position critical of the invasion of Iraq and of the occupation and of the so called war on terrorism it is not because the retired actuary from New Jersey is no longer with us, but because a fair number of the people who fervently supported the Administration’s actions have either clamed up or modified their positions. Whether because they have evaluated the available information or because they have been beaten into submission by the evil liberal jugernaught I cannot tell. Even our friend Scylla has acknowledged that if solid evidence of WMDs is not uncovered by Turkey Day he will adopt Senator Kennedy’s position that the Administration’s promotion campaign for the war was a fraud.
If you have something to ad here, do it. If you are simply going to crouch in the weeds and make noises you might as well keep it to yourself.