So, tell me, did Simon Crean or Michael Organ write this?
(Personally, at this point, I’m really hoping that any WMD either 1) are still in Iraq, or 2) weren’t out there in the way intelligence said that they were, because if 3) they were there, and left the country, we’re in a really big pile of shit.)
Oh, I also want some stuffing, but no cranberry sauce, please.
What “evidence”. Using a old cite (June 27th) was the first clue that your Cite didn’t say what you claimed. Then there was this:
Hmm that “find” was neither a WMD nor a WMD program. And since then (June 27th) that “find” was never refered to again. Gee I wonder why? Nice try. I guess the spirit of december lives on with you. Although the article does show nicely expose the bogus trailer WMD claims that Bush tried to use- remember that one? Or is that your next Cite?
:dubious:
possible evidence.
of a plan to do something in the future.
Kinda like all those garden catalogs that I’ve got on my back porch are possible evidence that some time in the future I may attempt to start a garden.
as one of the nay sayers, I was not in a position (nor was anyone) to state categorically that SH did not have anything at all. However, what we did continue to assert was that the ‘proof’ given to us (aka shoveled) was insufficient in our eyes to conclude that there was an effective WOMD (with delivery means), especially insufficient to conclude that they were an imminent danger to the US citizens on US soil (hell, as facts turned out they-WOMD- weren’t even an imminent danger to US citizens on Iraqi soil). and we continued to beg, plead, admonish, cajole etc. the rest of the folk to step back, wait, see, allow the inspections to go on etc.
so, the red herring of 'even ya’ll seemed to be convinced that he had ‘em’ therefore why should be chastize Bush now, is just that, a puny red herring.
the world knew that he’d had them (at one point in time). the issue that was under discussion was did he have any now, have any reasonable method of delivery etc.
I recall at teh time speculating (when asked “why would he not just demonstrate that he doesn’t have 'em”) that since he had several serious enemies in the vicinity (Iran in particular) that to make a big show about ‘see, I don’t have anything specially serious here’ would have been to invite attack.
(by the way, the garden catelogs on my back porch are evidence only of mass marketings blind hope that at some day in the future I’ll garden)
Well Shodan, before the war Bush painted a pretty definite picture of what Saddam currently had in terms of weaponry. What Bush described was a few magnitudes greater than buried centrifuge pieces in somebody’s garden.
Do I detect the air of a flea leaping from a drowning dog? Scylla, and I mean this in a friendly way, you’d best harden your tone. Apologia will win no allies around here, especially when the “painter” you reference is a murderer.
I don’t think that’s fair, Mr. B. Scylla is allowed to revise his understanding of what’s happened, as new facts come in (or fail to come in). Surely the ability to do so is laudable, not insultable.
He doesn’t need to harden his tone for your sake; he doesn’t need to win any allies around here. He’s not apologizing for anyone. As long as he’s being intellectually honest, that’s all we can ask of him – or of ourselves.
Daniel
Most respectfully, DanielWithrow, I couldn’t possibly disagree with you more.
Far be it from me to claim to like or agree with Scylla’s politics, but his most recent post in this thread is, to me, quite commendable. I don’t think we need to be throwing sticks at him for finally coming out and saying the obvious. Rather, we should welcome this change of tack, and hope that MORE people from his side come to their senses about the war and its justification.
Whic part do you disagree with, Mr. B?
Do you disagree that he’s allowed to revise his understanding? Do you disagree that the ability to revise one’s understanding is laudable?
Do you think he DOES need to harden his tone for your sake? Do you think he DOES need to win allies around here?
Do you think the post we’re talking about constitutes apologia for someone? Do you think we can ask for more from him than intellectual honesty?
Do you think we can ask for more from ourselves?
I’m not sure which part of my post you disagreed with.
Daniel
Since I seem to have inspired the OP, all I expect from you come Thanksgiving is to stand up and admit that the Bush admin’s WMD claims were not “well-founded,” and that they were instead “deliberately fraudulent.”
Sure, I might ask a few follow-up questions, such as what those admissions mean to your future electoral and political support of the head con man. But that’s about it, really. No “I told you so” happy dance, no gloating, no rubbing your nose in it. Your belated acknowledgement that shit does indeed stink is all that I require.
I don’t think it’s disingenuous or flameworthy for Scylla to have taken the position before the war that he would trust Bush’s claims about WMDs for the time being while reserving the right (even expressing the intention) to reevaluate his faith in those claims pending a post-invasion search. I think it’s pretty rare for anyone of either political stripe to admit that “hey, I trusted the guy and I was wrong.” Scylla is at least willing to consider the possibility that he was lied to, and that, in itself, belies Desmostylus’ allegation that he is “incapable of independent thought.” There are idealogues on both sides who are far more deserving of that accusation than Scylla is (see Shodan’s rather weak apologetic attempt in this thread, for example).
Mr B:
You’re going to have to understand something, and I mean no insult because I’m having trouble with it myself.
What I would like to have is a reasonable well-founded, supportable opinion about Bush and WMDs and Iraq. I think it’s an important topic.
I am finding it sincerely difficult to have one.
We have a political evironment of baseless accusations and knee-jerk defense.
It is difficult to find the truth amidst all the specious rhetoric and accusations.
That’s not changing my mind. The centrifuge thing has been around for several months.
Nobody’s claiming the centrifuge in the garden was a smoking gun.
This is a good link on Iraq’s WMDs prior to the war. This is what needs to be supported:
http://www.cia.gov/search?NS-search-page=document&NS-rel-doc-name=/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm&NS-query=Weapons+of+Mass+Destruction&NS-search-type=NS-boolean-query&NS-collection=Entire%20Site&NS-docs-found=68&NS-doc-number=2
I’d suggest taking the time to read the whole thing through.
Thank you, Scylla. I misunderstood your previous post as handwringing. In all sincerity, your clarification – for my sake – has set an overarching example in our criticisms of the Bush Administration.
I was rebuking Revisionism. You have planted your flag in epiphany, and have in the process amplified your importance to this Forum.
Why yes, that is something that needs to be supported. That’s pretty much the entire fucking point, isn’t it?
Are we having waffles for Thanksgiving this year? Only time will tell.
Dear Scylla,
Holy fucking shit! There I was all shiny and happy and your CIA post slipped right on by! Are you joking? Please tell me you’re trying to stimulate our minds or something, but attaching the CIA analysis is simply amazing. I hope I’m taking it out of context.
Because if I’m not taking it out of context you, Scylla, despite your historical perspective and the voices of all your colleagues and friends, have been propping up Diem. Are you saying you’re getting religion before Tet, but still pointing to the indictment of Bao Dai?
Your CIA post calls into question the insight of Diogenes the Cynic and DanielWithrow, through whom I understood my response was too harsh. Now you’ve trodden on their words and their feelings, if I’m understanding you.
Or am I taking this out of context?
Yours,
B
Centrifuges to refine uranium to weapons-grade, and plans for nukes, aren’t part of a WMD program? What would be part of a WMD program? The scientists to produce them? We have those too.
I am not sure of the standards here. Earlier, liberals were complaining that the administration wouldn’t settle on one reason for the invasion. Now they are complaining because the one they picked isn’t working out.
[ul][li]The reason for the invasion was regime change.[/li][li]The reason for regime change was because Saddam was not cooperating with the inspection regime.[/li][li]The reason for the inspection regime was to prevent Saddam from developing WMD.[/li][li]Centrifuges and plans are, and mobile bio-labs can be, used to create WMDs. [/li][/ul]
And I have still not seen any reason to accuse Bush of lying. I repeat, what evidence do you have that he knew ahead of time that Saddam did not have fully functional WMD?
Bush thought Saddam had WMD. So did everyone else. Bush knew that Saddam had and used WMD in the past. So did everyone else. Bush said he thought Saddam was hiding WMD. So did everyone else. Bush invades Iraq, overthrows Saddam, and starts looking for WMD. None are found (to date). Everyone else says Bush was a liar.
:dubious:
Regards,
Shodan