And fuck the actual WMD’s, isn’t it about time for the SOB’s to show us where all those massive weapons programs labs are? You know, the ones that were allegedly designed to produce large quantities of Bad Shit? Those trailers ain’t gonna cut it.
You are not the only one to respond with this slippery illogic, but you write better than most, so I’ll respond here. The question is:*What were Bush’s motives were for going to war?[/] His critics say his only motive was WMDs. His supporters say he had several motives, which they prove from numerous statements made by Bush and his administration. One of his stated motives was Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions.
Now, you change the subject by claiming that this motive isn’t good enough in your opinion.. Tricky. We weren’t discussing whether Bush’s stated motives met your standards. We were discussing whether he had any other motives, and he did.
BTW from a legalistic viewpoint, I agree that a violation of UN resolutions should be punished by UN action, not US action. However, from a real world POV, I disagree. I believe the security of many countries depended on Saddam fulfilling his obligations. I believe France was always going to veto UN action. Action by the Coalition was better for the world than no action at all IMHO.
december criticizing someone because of “slippery logic”… now that’s funny!
Off the hook, december… simply off the hook.
You may believe that you are clarovoyant and can predict in advance what France would and would not have done. I suggest that you are best advised to leave this sort of thing to Ms. Cleo.
As to Fearless Misleader’s motives, your guess is as good as mine. Be that as it may, his justification was the presumed threat posed by Saddam’s dreaded WMD’s. That he made passing reference to other justifications can be demonstrated by cites, and you are welcome to present such. But has been noted above, the overwhelming preponderance of the chimerical threat of WMD’s can be demonstrated with great ease.
I have no need of slippery logic, december, I have the facts.
“A Blogger named billmon came up with an early version of direct quotes from Bush and other Admin officials that are pretty hard to explain as anything other than brazen lies at this point.”
Does the phrase “out of context” ring any bells?
France . . . wasn’t that the country that promised to send troops and generally blast the shit out of Iraq if they used chemical weapons?
Sounds like a goddamned good ally to me. Personally, I don’t want allies that reflexively kowtow to every stupid thing we say. But I damn well want allies who will put their asses on the line when the shit hits the fan.
Remind me to buy some French wine this weekend in thanks. You guys are pretty okay.
(Lance is still gonna kick your asses, however.)
All you need do is place them in context and prove that they say something different.
And jolly good luck to you.
Scylla, December and others: Dammit – I really find this waffling and shuffling about Bush’s motives for war pathetic and very much lacking in balls. Surely if he had been motivated remotely by a concern for the terroristic acts of the regime, that would be reflected in the final declaration to Hussein and to the world. This link gives the text of the speech Bush made giving Hussein 48 hours to get out.
Here are the first first 2 sentences:
Note to the thick: DISARM.
Out of 1769 words, fully 40% go by before he even alludes to anything other than WMD and threats to other nations, and that is being generous, because at that point he simply mentions Saddam’s “cruelty.” That is nearly half the declaration of war before he even hints at any other reason for war than WMD.
He also says this:
“So that disarmament can proceed.” Not “So that his reign of terror can be brought to an end and disarmament can proceed.” Not “So that he can be brought to trial for crimes against humanity.”
One of the few other references to cruelty and murder is found here:
Note that executions of dissidents, torture chambers and rape rooms come secondary to wars of aggression and poison factories – and this is while he is speaking directly to the Iraqi people. Surely their well-being would be the first thing you would highlight to the people directly, if that was remotely close to your priority.
One can hardly find references to anything but the threat that his weapons programs present. The rest is clearly a footnote. I invite you to analyze this speech to present any argument otherwise. This was a carefully prepared and planned speech. This was the final declaration for the purposes of taking this country to war. Make your argument here that this demonstrates anything other than that the rationale for war was very much first and foremost WMDs possessed by Hussein.
Nope. If you bothered to check the page I linked to, you would know that each quote is backed up by a link to the full context.
Knock yourself out trying to prove that these aren’t really lies.
I dare 'ya.
Wring:
Don’t have time for a major catchup right now for which I apologize, but you are correct. Bush stated unequivocably that Iraq had weapons presently on several occasions, usually in smaller sound bite type speeches. In longer detailed speeches he tended to talk about accounting for his weapons.
Svin:
The cognitive dissonance works both ways again. There is nothing to lose, nothing to fear by me waiting till the facts come out, and giving Bush a fair chance to turn up what he can turn up. If we’re still in the current boat by November I will change my song. You can hold me to that, if you like.
Actually December’s point was a fair one. The ad hominem attack against December is a popular one always sure to win points, but it’s not merited here.
And this is where I stop reading and dismiss your post entirely. Nobody’s been offensive to you, why attack personally.
Generally I make the assumption that if you’re going to start off by being a dick and attacking people personally, then you don’t have a fucking point, and don’t deserve any consideration.
If you have a reasonable point, you don’t have to be an ass.
Yup. He’s got till Thanksgiving as far as I’m concerned.
I did just that. You obviously do not understand “out of context”. You might want to backtrack the shit yourself,but some of the “exact quotes” are pretty butchered up. One is missing(maybe Yahoo pulled it down) and the Vanity Fair bit would have been out of an article that was admittedly out of context so why bother.
And then what will you do?
Sorry, Scylla, but here we disagree. december’s been using “slippery logic” in his Bush apologism throughout this thread and others all over the board for a month now. As a matter of fact, his response to elucidator was, itself, a good example of “slippery logic.” Him trying to call someone else out for that, in that way, is beyond the pale. Pointing out december’s hypocrisy is not only merited here, I’d say it’s mandated.
You may consider it ad hominem… I consider it calling it like it is. When december stops employing slimy, slippery tactics himself, perhaps others like me will give him a miss if he criticizes someone else for doing the same. Until then, he can forget it.
I’ll be interested to see where we are in a few months with this, and if december’s tune changes at all.
I understand why you would do that. They were harsh words. The challenge in addressing the rationale presented in the call to war would be even harder, I would imagine, if I were you. I find this head in the sand, “everyone agreed,” Bush was concerned about the welfare of the people line of argument to be utterly offensive. Yes, weak, lily-livered, panty-waisted, gutless, yellow, and a host of other strong words. You may be a fine person. Your argument, as you have presented it, is not. If my words about it make me an ass, your employment of such an offensive line of bullshit does the same. You may choose to answer it or run away, shouting that my pit language hurt your feelings. Of course, the whole argument you have put forth is merely an effort to flee as well, so there is little difference.
Do you ever post anything other then drive-by whines? Ever make any well cited arguments? Because I haven’t seen it.
Hentor:
If I may paraphrase: “You suck and your arguments suck, and I find them offensive,” is not a super enlightening stance. It’s not really something that a constructive discussion can be founded on.
Pretty much all that’s left to me is to say: “You only think my argument because you suck.”
Obviously we can get more creative than that, but that’s the basic gist.
Even in the pit, I think you need more.
You have demonstrated intelligence in the past, and I would like to think that I have as well.
Our difference of opinion in this matter will largely be colored by our interpretation of facts.
This interpretation will be colored by our beleifs which will be in part founded by preference, logic, upbringing, context, and faith (not biblical faith but the faith of things we choose to believe when we could go either way.)
Saying that my arguments suck or they are offensive does not challenge them on any of these levels or underlying principles.
In fact, for me it enforces my beleifs and arguments, that my opponent can only challenge on a personal basis as you have.
If my arguments and beleifs are so stupid and offensive then they should be easily refuted on one of the levels I’ve described.
You haven’t done so. You’ve just said they sucked. They’re weak. Their offensive. Whatever.
Even in the pit, more is required.
Don’t tell me. Show me.
Fair enough.
thanks to minty, Tejote and Hentor for coming up with the specific quotes (I had this fear that if I did a newline search of “Bush WoMD” I’d be wading through stuff till the next century)
So, back to the main point. The claim was indeed made by Bush et al, that there were current levels of such quantity that it justified our military intervention. You may wish to give 'em til Thanksgiving, but frankly IMHO, that’s overly generous. If they existed at a level that would justify war, it shouldn’t be at all difficult to find 'em. A wreck of a trailer after several months search is more than pathetic. It’s an obscene version of Maxwell Smart “He has tons of chemical/biological and nuculear weapons ready to take out D.C. in a moments notice… would you believe some vats of chemicals and a case of dynamite? How about a wrecked out trailer and a jug of bleach?”