SimonX wrote:
“I can’t help but wonder if the delay in finding the CBW is a Rovian tactic to get the loyal opposition to play its cards prematurely.”
That would be the biggest can of worms this side of eternity; to begin with, if there are WMD and they haven´t been found still that´s as big a nightmare as you could possibly have; alleged WMD on the loose in the ME for two months!? So much for “we´ve got to invade to keep the terrorist from getting WMD”.
And, if GWB is keeping the finding of those WMD to himself to ruin the anti-war party… honestly, do you want such childish behaviours in the White House? Do you think ANYONE would tolerate that kind of games?
Sorry, but Dec is correct on that one.
He certainly is the more correct of the two of you, but not the most correct.
december is more right than anyone. 
SimonX
What was exact wording of that promise?
It’s not like there’s anybody else in the race for America’s stupidest and least ethical person.
TR
To advocate the use of force once all diplomatic options had been played out.
The objections listed by Chirac centered around the fact that the threat of US forces enabled the UN inspectors to do their jobs. UN inspectors were able to do their jobs. While they were doing their jobs there was no need for the use of force, (even though the threat of ofrce was necessary). If the UN inspectors had said,
I never called it a promise. I called it an offer.
Well, if I was Bush, and concerned about Hussein’s treatment of his people, I wouldn’t trump up evidence or lie about WMDs.
If invading was so completely justified by humatarian reasons, why not simply invade on those reasons? Why not use that to sell the world on the idea? Why keep harping on the WMDs when even if there was pretty good evidence of them existing, they could be hidden or moved?
After looking at the intelligence, nearly the entire Senate voted to authorize the use of force. Are they lying bastards, too?
And someone is not lying just because you say they are. The mere fact that we haven’t found WMD yet doesn’t mean 1) that there are no WMD in Iraq; 2) that there never were WMD in Iraq; or 3) that Bush knew there never were WMD in Iraq.
And even if there never were WMD in Iraq, and that was our only justification for going to war, isn’t it possible – just possible – that Bush honestly believed that there were WMD in Iraq? Or can we rule that out because you didn’t vote for him?
Apparently, no accusation against Bush is too ridiculous for this crowd.
Not an accusation. Just conjecture and pure speculation.
Sometimes in politics things do get Byzantine.
I still believe that Hussein had prohibited weapons. I’m not sure why the US would pull out its two main search teams so early w/o results, (unless they already know that there aren’t results to be had. Which I doubt because I still believe that Hussein had prohibited weapons). The new team that we have going to Iraq is, IIRC, is mainly an analytical team to go over documents and testimonies, not a searching team.
So IF the weapons are there somewhere, and the Bush admin has a vested interest in finding them and we’re going to stop our physical search…
…it smells funny.
Age Quod Agis, you are correct. There is nothing that the left-wing anti-Bush crowd will not say. They rant and rave about “Where’s the proof?!?!?!” all the while calling Bush et al liars and evil men, and despots, and comparing them to Hitler, never a care about the fact that they have no proof he did lie. Or even proof that he purposely mislead anyone.
I have already said many times that IF Bush lied, and IF he mislead the people, then I will agree that he needs to be (severely) punished. However, I am not so self righteous as to assume that he did with no proof. There is nothing that has come out in the press that would lead me to believe that Bush did not honestly beleive that the WMD’s existed. I cannot say the same for others (Rummy, Powell, Blitzer, etc.), but no one has any proof that Bush lied, yet they have no problem proclaiming it as loud as they can.
As to Simonsx’s comments, I may be wrong about this, but I think that the idea is that there isn’t a lot of confidence that physical searches will turn up anything (regardless of wether it exists or not) because we need to be talking to the people who actually did the hiding. talk to the locals and see what they know. then if something turns up, we can send a military unit to the location given.
I could be wrong though.
The Democrats are so politically dumb that they have put themselves into a trap all by themselves. The only question is just how badly hurt they will be by their flap over the missing WMDs.
On the one hand, if WMDs are never found, the Democrats cannot hurt Bush very much. They won’t be able to show that Bush lied, because just about everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs. Bush will have plenty of intelligence info justifying his statements.
But these attacks have cost the Dems politically.[ul][]They’re backward-looking. Bush is dealing with Korea and Iran, which the Dems are whining about a done deal.[]It makes the Dems look less concerned with protecting Americans. With the memory of 9/11, I think the majority of Americans want the government to err on the side of caution[]In order to make their attacks effective, the Dems need to argue that the lack of WMDs means that the war did more harm than good. To make that point, they have to minimize Saddam’s many horrendous cruelties. That’s not a politically popular position.[]The Dems are swimming against the tide. Bush tells the American public that we are heroes. We have rid the world of a cruel, dangerous tyrant. The Dems tell us that we are goats, who have needlessly killed thousands. Most of us would rather believe the former.[/ul]OTOH, WMDs may well be found. Then the Dems get no upside at all, and the downsides are stronger. Furthermore, they will have blown their credibility. Too many attacks have already mis-fired. They attacking Bush on the unwinnable war “quagmire”, the spreading of the war throughout the middle east, the uprising in the Arab street, and the hyped museum looting. They will look terrible if their WMD accusation also doesn’t pan out. Fewer and fewer people will believe their next attack ads.
But at the same time, they can play up to the current (and growing) wave of dissenters that are saying the war is ujustified and that we basically killed all these people for nothing. If they can achieve that, and the economy doesn’t get any better they can play on that as well. The second tactic worked extremely well on the first Bush, so may work on the 2nd as well.
Aluminum tubes, Uranium from Niger, al Qaida connection
These are instances of misleading. The only question remains is as to how deliberate they were. If not deliberate, then they are examples of incompetence.
Dave, Age, just where the hell did you learn the ethics of truthtelling? Is your concept of burden of proof the same as december’s, that it’s always the other guys’ problem? Hint: The stuff ain’t gonna be found, because they’ve already stopped looking - they’ve run out of places to look. The burden of proof issue is already settled.
Let me help you out: If a person asserts something to be flatly true that he doesn’t know to be true, that’s lying. If he actually knows it isn’t true, it’s a worse lie. If people die because of it, that’s the worst possible lie. Well, Bush lied, and so did several of his staffers, and in the worst possible way. Those who still choose to believe him are therefore fools and/or hypocrites. That includes you at the moment.
december, do you have any evidence, polls or anecdotal or otherwise, that says the political damage is occurring to anyone but the Bush Administration itself? Or are you wishing so hard for a visit from the Vindication Fairy that you’ve convinced yourself it’s true?
Given only those two choices, I guess it’s the latter.
The Fairy of Vindication
Has forecast the situation:
Republican jubilation,
And, liberal-left frustration.
Can I have a cite where it shows someone actually did say this?
Remember, december thinks everything hurts the Democratic Party.
I’m not convinced that there is any political damage forthcoming to Rove, GW Bush et al.