you got CT in my politics, no you got politics in my CT split from :Foxed out

[pomeroo]

split from here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3227308 I'm happy to consider a better thread title, if anyone has any reasonable suggestions...

I'm no sheeple.

I'm also not willing to take down Bush with a lie because that is how HE operates. (And because it never pays to lie.)

We have to be *better* than he is at all times and in all respects or we are no alternative at all.


It's amazing that the left managed to tag a guy who really doesn't lie much at all as a liar. Politics, as they say, ain't beanbag, but it's unhealthy for a democracy to allow myths to flourish. The word "liar" was very useful for describing people who say things they know to be untrue--people such as the LBJ, Nixon, and the Clintons. That a noun with a precise meaning has degenerated into a vague, all-purpose insult is unfortunate.

[D'rok]

It's amazing that the left managed to tag a guy who really doesn't lie much at all as a liar. Politics, as they say, ain't beanbag, but it's unhealthy for a democracy to allow myths to flourish. The word "liar" was very useful for describing people who say things they know to be untrue--people such as the LBJ, Nixon, and the Clintons. That a noun with a precise meaning has degenerated into a vague, all-purpose insult is unfortunate.

What, then, is your preferred descriptor for the mis-directions and dishonesties of President Bush and for the man himself when he engages in those tactics?

[BenBurch]

What, then, is your preferred descriptor for the mis-directions and dishonesties of President Bush and for the man himself when he engages in those tactics?

And remember when we were told that the Iraq War would be over in months, and that it would pay for itself in war reparations in the form of cheap oil?

And remember when we told everybody that this would be a trap for us, and that we would throw trillions at the cesspool that is Iraq? (And we know what things turn into, when chucked into a cesspool, right? I don't want to violate [Rule 10].) And remember when we were told that we were just "Bush Haters" and that we would see shortly both the end of the war and the proof of Saddam's HUGE stockpiles of WMDs? (And all we ever found were some decaying mustard gas and nerve gas shells which would no longer have been useable, and which the Iraqis themselves had probably lost track of in the Gulf War??)

[BenBurch]

Incompetence.

Usually. But in fairness that is a trait of most American governments to date.

[pomeroo]

What, then, is your preferred descriptor for the mis-directions and dishonesties of President Bush and for the man himself when he engages in those tactics?


My description of the people who pretend that Bush lied to or misled the American people is that they are ideologized frauds peddling a Big Lie.

[D'rok]

Incompetence.

I'm not sure which is worse.

[pomeroo]

And remember when we were told that the Iraq War would be over in months, and that it would pay for itself in war reparations in the form of cheap oil?

And remember when we told everybody that this would be a trap for us, and that we would throw trillions at the cesspool that is Iraq? (And we know what things turn into, when chucked into a cesspool, right? I don't want to violate [Rule 10].) And remember when we were told that we were just "Bush Haters" and that we would see shortly both the end of the war and the proof of Saddam's HUGE stockpiles of WMDs? (And all we ever found were some decaying mustard gas and nerve gas shells which would no longer have been useable, and which the Iraqis themselves had probably lost track of in the Gulf War??)


The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein was over in a few months. Nobody claimed that the war would pay for itself--another leftist canard.

Nobody on the left claimed that Saddam had no WMD. Tell us again what Bill Clinton bombed for four days in 1998.

[D'rok]

My description of the people who pretend that Bush lied to or mislead the American people is that they are ideologized frauds peddling a Big Lie.

Dodge noted.

But...for example...

When Bush says that America doesn't torture, is he simply honestly mistaken? Or do you consider a legal definition of torture from the DOJ that re-defines the word to exclude the torture techniques used by American interrogators to render the previous statement truthful? Or is it more accurate to say that there is a fundamental dishonesty at play there?

[ConspiRaider]

It's amazing that the left managed to tag a guy who really doesn't lie much at all as a liar. Politics, as they say, ain't beanbag, but it's unhealthy for a democracy to allow myths to flourish. The word "liar" was very useful for describing people who say things they know to be untrue--people such as the LBJ, Nixon, and the Clintons. That a noun with a precise meaning has degenerated into a vague, all-purpose insult is unfortunate.
It's a way of life for Bush - this art of lying. You don't see that, Ron, but that's because you are a radical right winger. You're told not to look, and you obey.

The actual danger of Bush lying as much as he does - is that after a time, it's expected. It raises few hackles. Take his latest lying about the NIE report, claiming he just found out about it in late November 2007. HA! LIAR! He knew of it months before, and most likely even a YEAR or more before late November, 2007.

But it is now what we expect of the "president". So we look at our calendars and project ourselves a year into the future - when he is OUT. And when we can start trusting our Executive Branch - at least a little.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein was over in a few months. Nobody claimed that the war would pay for itself--another leftist canard.

Nobody on the left claimed that Saddam had no WMD. Tell us again what Bill Clinton bombed for four days in 1998.

Oh yeah... this ain't gonna be pretty.

[tomwaits]

*shrugs*

that's politics for ya.

I and the rest of congress supported the war. I don't need a scapegoat to blame when the war turns bad. We should have seen it coming. I blame myself for supporting it. But it doesn't matter anymore. Bush will be gone soon and we need to figure out what to do about Iraq NOW, not what we should have done 5 years ago.

[ConspiRaider]

The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein was over in a few months. Nobody claimed that the war would pay for itself--another leftist canard.

Nobody on the left claimed that Saddam had no WMD. Tell us again what Bill Clinton bombed for four days in 1998.
The top 5 strategies of the radical right wing (of which you, Ron, are a member):

1. Blame it on Bill Clinton!
2. Blame it on Bill Clinton!
3. Blame it on Bill Clinton!
4. Blame it on Bill Clinton!
5. Blame it on Bill Clinton!

[A W Smith]

on no not Politics AGAIN!!

[pomeroo]

It's a way of life for Bush - this art of lying. You don't see that, Ron, but that's because you are a radical right winger. You're told not to look, and you obey.

The actual danger of Bush lying as much as he does - is that after a time, it's expected. It raises few hackles. Take his latest lying about the NIE report, claiming he just found out about it in late November 2007. HA! LIAR! He knew of it months before, and most likely even a YEAR or more before late November, 2007.

But it is now what we expect of the "president". So we look at our calendars and project ourselves a year into the future - when he is OUT. And when we can start trusting our Executive Branch - at least a little.


Dave, you have policy differences with Bush. He wants to fight the jihadists; you don't. That doesn't mean he's lying. The Dems and their media lapdogs did their damnedest to sell the myth that Bush was somehow personally responsible for FEMA's sluggish performance post-Katrina. Setting aside the fact that FEMA performed better after Katrina than it did after Andrew, the voters of Louisiana showed exactly what they thought of the trumped-up charges. Governor Blanco, the principal culprit along with the unbeatable Ray Nagin, saw the writing on the wall and declined to run for re-election. The Republican Bobby Jindal was elected overwhelmingly, piling up 53% of the vote in a crowded field.

The NIE report is, as usual, being distorted for partisan purposes. I posted a link to Dershowitz's essay on the subject, but the best argument was made a Senator whose name I can't recall at the moment. He commented that if you assemble all the ingredients for a particular soup, but don't actually start cooking, you can claim that you're not making soup. Soup is less dangerous than nuclear bombs.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=DFA7A7FC-E9F4-4CBE-B05C-F4A9B0B7C58A

Incidentally, Bubba claimed he bombed Republican Guard barracks and WMD facilities in 1998. How did he know where to send all those cruise missiles and why did you approve?

[Drudgewire]

on no not Politics AGAIN!!
Kinda makes you wish we had a forum for it, huh? ;)

[pomeroo]

The top 5 strategies of the radical right wing (of which you, Ron, are a member):

1. Blame it on Bill Clinton!
2. Blame it on Bill Clinton!
3. Blame it on Bill Clinton!
4. Blame it on Bill Clinton!
5. Blame it on Bill Clinton!


Sorry, Dave, but I approved of Clinton's actions in 1998 and regretted only that he lost his nerve. Are you claiming that Bill bombed nothing? What did Carville and Begala mean in 2003 when they attempted to account for our inability to find WMD stockpiles by saying, "Maybe we got it all." All what?

[pomeroo]

*shrugs*

that's politics for ya.

I and the rest of congress supported the war. I don't need a scapegoat to blame when the war turns bad. We should have seen it coming. I blame myself for supporting it. But it doesn't matter anymore. Bush will be gone soon and we need to figure out what to do about Iraq NOW, not what we should have done 5 years ago.


The war is being won. Possibly even the most determined efforts of the hyper-partisan Democrats won't be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But, they'll try--oh, they'll try!

[D'rok]

The war is being won. Possibly even the most determined efforts of the hyper-partisan Democrats won't be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But, they'll try--oh, they'll try!

Freedom will be ringing any day now. We (i.e., you) just need to do some more surging.

[Elizabeth I]

The OP was obviously written by someone who doesn't understand how TV works.

*shrugs*

that's politics for ya.

I and the rest of congress supported the war. I don't need a scapegoat to blame when the war turns bad. We should have seen it coming. I blame myself for supporting it. But it doesn't matter anymore. Bush will be gone soon and we need to figure out what to do about Iraq NOW, not what we should have done 5 years ago.

[bolding mine] "The rest of congress"? Are you a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate? If so, won't you get in trouble with your handlers when they find out you have been posting on teh interwebs?

[pomeroo]

Dodge noted.

But...for example...

When Bush says that America doesn't torture, is he simply honestly mistaken? Or do you consider a legal definition of torture from the DOJ that re-defines the word to exclude the torture techniques used by American interrogators to render the previous statement truthful? Or is it more accurate to say that there is a fundamental dishonesty at play there?


You could not have noted a dodge because there was none. The myth that Bush lied about Iraq's WMD is the left's Big Lie.

When Bush says that America doesn't sanction torture, he is speaking the truth. Our record compares extremely well to, say, France's--a nation I suspect you admire. If you want to define as torture harsh techniques that inflict no permanent injury, such as waterboarding, be my guest. I have no particular desire to treat murderous barbarians who seek to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians with gentleness.

[D'rok]

Kinda makes you wish we had a forum for it, huh? ;)

We're hi-jacking a no-planer thread. You should thank us. :p

[pomeroo]

Freedom will be ringing any day now. We (i.e., you) just need to do some more surging.



Doesn't it ever strike you as bizarre that you're rooting for Baathist fascists and jihadists to defeat a liberal democracy? Nick Cohen, a British leftist, has written a book about this phenomenon.

[pomeroo]

We're hi-jacking a no-planer thread. You should thank us. :p


I kind of think that "Xena" would have at least as much trouble dealing with the multitude of eyewitnesses as the deranged Morgan Reynolds had.

[tomwaits]

[bolding mine] "The rest of congress"? Are you a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate? If so, won't you get in trouble with your handlers when they find out you have been posting on teh interwebs?

lol...ok, i meant "congress".

[D'rok]

You could not have noted a dodge because there was none. The myth that Bush lied about Iraq's WMD is the left's Big Lie.

So he was just honestly mistaken about that? Kind of like the torture?

When Bush says that America doesn't sanction torture, he is speaking the truth. Our record compares extremely well to, say, France's--a nation I suspect you admire. If you want to define as torture harsh techniques that inflict no permanent injury, such as waterboarding, be my guest. I have no particular desire to treat murderous barbarians who seek to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians with gentleness.

Well, at least you answered honestly about your revenge fantasies. So torture is only torture if permanent injury occurs. That was something like the legal definition procured from the DOJ.

I too can redefine well-understood words, use them in the context of their actual definitions, and then claim to be honest. But really, I'd just be lying if I did that.

[D'rok]

Doesn't it ever strike you as bizarre that you're rooting for Baathist fascists and jihadists to defeat a liberal democracy? Nick Cohen, a British leftist, has written a book about this phenomenon.

Well that's a strawman if I've ever seen one.

[ConspiRaider]

Dave, you have policy differences with Bush. He wants to fight the jihadists; you don't. That doesn't mean he's lying. The Dems and their media lapdogs did their damnedest to sell the myth that Bush was somehow personally responsible for FEMA's sluggish performance post-Katrina. Setting aside the fact that FEMA performed better after Katrina than it did after Andrew, the voters of Louisiana showed exactly what they thought of the trumped-up charges. Governor Blanco, the principal culprit along with the unbeatable Ray Nagin, saw the writing on the wall and declined to run for re-election. The Republican Bobby Jindal was elected overwhelmingly, piling up 53% of the vote in a crowded field.

The NIE report is, as usual, being distorted for partisan purposes. I posted a link to Dershowitz's essay on the subject, but the best argument was made a Senator whose name I can't recall at the moment. He commented that if you assemble all the ingredients for a particular soup, but don't actually start cooking, you can claim that you're not making soup. Soup is less dangerous than nuclear bombs.

Incidentally, Bubba claimed he bombed Republican Guard barracks and WMD facilities in 1998. How did he know where to send all those cruise missiles and why did you approve?
If Bush wants to "fight the jihadists" (what a stupid phrase), then why hasn't he bagged the Jumbo Jihadist after more than SIX YEARS following the 9/11 attacks? See Ron - I WANT TO BAG THE JUMBO JIHADIST. But I don't think Bush does. The Jumbo Jihadist might talk if he's bagged, and that might not be so good for DoofieCorps.

On Katrina: STOP with your Doofie-defending on this one. The death toll from that is about 1,600. SIXTEEN HUNDRED lives (best estimate) were lost in this disaster and federal folly. Katrina, and our response, would have been - as an ancillary benefit - a perfect way to show the world the result of a caring, fast-responding, technologically advanced nation as it draws together to save its citizenry from the after effects of a predicted national disaster. In such a crisis? The federal government is ALWAYS going to be expected to bigfoot the management of that crisis. And why? Because they have the resources!

While Katrina was in the Gulf, gathering itself for the assault on New Orleans and Mississippi, little old John Q. Nobody me was looking at the satellite image - still days away from landfall - and envisioning an armada of U.S. Naval vessels behind it, following it northwards. As a sailor, who has been out there in a warship, dodging hurricanes, I knew that any of our naval warships could out-maneuver this storm. And so I was envisioning a task force of at least a big carrier (preferably 2) with a dozen or so other vessels (helicopter carriers, amphibious ships to land men and machines, supply ships, etc.) following the storm from a safe distance south of it. Just SO obvious. Why? Why does a J. Q. Nobody such as me see that so plainly - but not the Feddies?

Do you know what Fox "News" would have done to the rep of Bill Clinton if they had footage of him, onstage, strumming a guitar while black people were breathing in water in their attics in New Orleans? They'd have called for a public lynching! You would be seeing that image EVERY DAY on Fox "News", driving home the point that Billy fiddled while the Big Easy drowned.

But the job of Fox "News" is to shape everything so that it favors the radical right wing now in the Executive, and in various other parts of our Federal government. That is Murdoch's decree, and his employees obey without questioning the master.

[BenBurch]

The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein was over in a few months. Nobody claimed that the war would pay for itself--another leftist canard.

Nope, I know what I heard, but thanks for playing. And this was exactly the morass we warned you folks of; Not Saddam, but ISLAM.

Nobody on the left claimed that Saddam had no WMD. Tell us again what Bill Clinton bombed for four days in 1998.

Bingo! And that is why we supported 100% continued bombing of any site inspectors were not given full access to! (Or were you not paying attention?) And what's more, we had succeeded very, very well with that. And it was bloody inexpensive, and made great force training. The left also never claimed that Saddam had vast stockpiles - that was the claim from the Bushistas (I do not call them the right, they are not Conservatives) and it was 100% verifiably pure by assay hokum.

[pomeroo]

So he was just honestly mistaken about that? Kind of like the torture?


Nah, he really knew that there were no WMD--that the intelligence services of every nation monitoring Iraq (Russia, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Jordan, Israel, etc.) were wrong. Perhaps someday the left will get around to explaining how he knew. He understood all along that he wouldn't find the weapons he was looking for, but he decided to use this pretext to help out his friends in the Democratic Party. You see, his personal approval ratings were in the high seventies, and he naturally didn't want to win re-election by a landslide. He, like most politicians, wanted to make it very close so that he'd have a serious chance of losing.
Why should anyone have a problem with the left's Big Lie? What's so implausible about a pol trying to lose?



Well, at least you answered honestly about your revenge fantasies. So torture is only torture if permanent injury occurs. That was something like the legal definition procured from the DOJ.

I too can redefine well-understood words, use them in the context of their actual definitions, and then claim to be honest. But really, I'd just be lying if I did that.


Yeah, only three thousand civilians were murdered on 9/11/01. I'm overreacting when I want to prevent even worse atrocities. I think victims of real torture could easily explain the difference to you. But, of course, you don't care.

[pomeroo]

If Bush wants to "fight the jihadists" (what a stupid phrase), then why hasn't he bagged the Jumbo Jihadist after more than SIX YEARS following the 9/11 attacks? See Ron - I WANT TO BAG THE JUMBO JIHADIST. But I don't think Bush does. The Jumbo Jihadist might talk if he's bagged, and that might not be so good for DoofieCorps.

On Katrina: STOP with your Doofie-defending on this one. The death toll from that is about 1,600. SIXTEEN HUNDRED lives (best estimate) were lost in this disaster and federal folly. Katrina, and our response, would have been - as an ancillary benefit - a perfect way to show the world the result of a caring, fast-responding, technologically advanced nation as it draws together to save its citizenry from the after effects of a predicted national disaster. In such a crisis? The federal government is ALWAYS going to be expected to bigfoot the management of that crisis. And why? Because they have the resources!

While Katrina was in the Gulf, gathering itself for the assault on New Orleans and Mississippi, little old John Q. Nobody me was looking at the satellite image - still days away from landfall - and envisioning an armada of U.S. Naval vessels behind it, following it northwards. As a sailor, who has been out there in a warship, dodging hurricanes, I knew that any of our naval warships could out-maneuver this storm. And so I was envisioning a task force of at least a big carrier (preferably 2) with a dozen or so other vessels (helicopter carriers, amphibious ships to land men and machines, supply ships, etc.) following the storm from a safe distance south of it. Just SO obvious. Why? Why does a J. Q. Nobody such as me see that so plainly - but not the Feddies?

Do you know what Fox "News" would have done to the rep of Bill Clinton if they had footage of him, onstage, strumming a guitar while black people were breathing in water in their attics in New Orleans? They'd have called for a public lynching! You would be seeing that image EVERY DAY on Fox "News", driving home the point that Billy fiddled while the Big Easy drowned.

But the job of Fox "News" is to shape everything so that it favors the radical right wing now in the Executive, and in various other parts of our Federal government. That is Murdoch's decree, and his employees obey without questioning the master.


It's funny. You fabricate silly nonsense about Fox News, but CBS spent five years working on a partisan hit piece that failed to swing a presidential election only because the documents it relied on proved phony. I wonder what you'd say if Fox started doing the work of the Republican National Committee. This is Bernie Goldberg's point: a major network actively campaigns for the Democratic candidate and nobody sees anything unusual. Your fantasies about Fox don't accord very well with reality, but what else is new?

[pomeroo]

Well that's a strawman if I've ever seen one.

I thought only twoofers had no idea of what a straw man argument is.

[D'rok]

Nah, he really knew that there were no WMD--that the intelligence services of every nation monitoring Iraq (Russia, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Jordan, Israel, etc.) were wrong. Perhaps someday the left will get around to explaining how he knew. He understood all along that he wouldn't find the weapons he was looking for, but he decided to use this pretext to help out his friends in the Democratic Party. You see, his personal approval ratings were in the high seventies, and he naturally didn't want to win re-election by a landslide. He, like most politicians, wanted to make it very close so that he'd have a serious chance of losing.
Why should anyone have a problem with the left's Big Lie? What's so implausible about a pol trying to lose?

I had a feeling you'd answer like that. Actually, I'm willing to buy the incompetence argument on this issue - at least for Bush himself. But the claim that the consensus amongst intelligence professionals was that Iraq was a WMD threat is just specious. Cherry-picking, "special plans" from offices of the same name, and ambitious Iraqi nationals are a more likely explanation IMO. Intelligence was fully politicized leading up to the war. In that sense, I suppose Bush wasn't really lying personally.


Yeah, only three thousand civilians were murdered on 9/11/01. I'm overreacting when I want to prevent even worse atrocities. I think victims of real torture could easily explain the difference to you. But, of course, you don't care.

You are real piece of work. I don't care about the victims of 9/11 because I object to torture? I don't want to prevent worse atrocities because I object to torture? How was Burning Man this summer anyway? I hear that straw burns well.

I assume you've spoken to victims of American torture and they've explained to you how "real" it wasn't. "Real" torture victims, of course, put sugar on their porridge. What a crock. That kind of rationalization for evil is just sickening.

Is it really so hard for you to imagine a way to fight terrorism without resorting to torture?

[D'rok]

I thought only twoofers had no idea of what a straw man argument is.

Pomeroo: D'rok cheers for Baathists and Islamists.
D'rok: Huh? Shouldn't I have actually said that before it is attributed to me and used against me in an argument?

[pomeroo]

I had a feeling you'd answer like that. Actually, I'm willing to buy the incompetence argument on this issue - at least for Bush himself. But the claim that the consensus amongst intelligence professionals was that Iraq was a WMD threat is just specious. Cherry-picking, "special plans" from offices of the same name, and ambitious Iraqi nationals are a more likely explanation IMO. Intelligence was fully politicized leading up to the war. In that sense, I suppose Bush wasn't really lying personally.


Stop squirming. The left's Big Lie has been busted. NO INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OF ANY NATIONS MONITORING IRAQ THOUGHT THAT THERE WERE NO WMD.




You are real piece of work. I don't care about the victims of 9/11 because I object to torture? I don't want to prevent worse atrocities because I object to torture? How was Burning Man this summer anyway? I hear that straw burns well.

I assume you've spoken to victims of American torture and they've explained to you how "real" it wasn't. "Real" torture victims, of course, put sugar on their porridge. What a crock. That kind of rationalization for evil is just sickening.

Is it really so hard for you to imagine a way to fight terrorism without resorting to torture?


The torture myth is merely another attempt by the left to undermine the war against the jihadists. The lies about Gitmo were exposed by the Red Cross. Who are these "victims" of American torture? What sort of tortures do they describe? Anything like the stuff that goes on in Fidel's gulag?

[~enigma~]

Please Stop The Political Babble In This Subforum.

[D'rok]

Please Stop The Political Babble In This Subforum.

Report it and get the thread split or closed.

[D'rok]

Stop squirming. The left's Big Lie has been busted. NO INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OF ANY NATIONS MONITORING IRAQ THOUGHT THAT THERE WERE NO WMD.Capitals and bolded? It must be true then.


The torture myth is merely another attempt by the left to undermine the war against the jihadists. Remind me about the pre-invasion Iraqi jihadists again? My memory is fuzzy on that one.

The lies about Gitmo were exposed by the Red Cross. Who are these "victims" of American torture? What sort of tortures do they describe? Nothing that can't be re-defined by Gonzales or his successors I'm sure.

Anything like the stuff that goes on in Fidel's gulag? No idea. Regardless, how would that absolve America of moral culpability for its own actions? Someone did something worse, so what we did is ok?

[Brainache]

Stop squirming. The left's Big Lie has been busted. NO INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OF ANY NATIONS MONITORING IRAQ THOUGHT THAT THERE WERE NO WMD.
...

Ahem:

A lack of intelligence
May 31 2003

Australia's spies knew the United States was lying about Iraq's WMD programme. So why didn't the Government choose to believe them? Andrew Wilkie writes. ...


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/1054177726543.html

[~enigma~]

Report it and get the thread split or closed.
lready done but thanks for shing me you have no concern for the rules of the forum. Welcome to ignore.

[ConspiRaider]

Stop squirming. The left's Big Lie has been busted. NO INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OF ANY NATIONS MONITORING IRAQ THOUGHT THAT THERE WERE NO WMD.

The torture myth is merely another attempt by the left to undermine the war against the jihadists. The lies about Gitmo were exposed by the Red Cross. Who are these "victims" of American torture? What sort of tortures do they describe? Anything like the stuff that goes on in Fidel's gulag?
God yer a twoofer. You are exactly like a 9/11 twoofer, but for a different topic. You think that by typing something - that makes it TRUE?

Don't you know that the Central Intelligence Agency (that's one of OURS, Ron, case you fergots) found NO WMDs - BEFORE the invasion? Valerie Plame knew that - because she was working in the section of the CIA that concerned itself with that very task. OH WAIT!!! Here comes the fanatical right wing response: Valerie Plame was lying!!! Pathetically predictable, Ron, is what you've become. And that is characteristic of twoofers, yes? We already know their flailing arguments beforehand.

Torture myth. Twoofer Ron. Again, you type this with you eyes tightly closed. Why Ron, only a day or so ago, a Gitmo detainee is starting to talk about his torture, as best he can. Why do you think such a huge muzzle is being slapped on all the detainees? Why no habeus corpus for them? Why inaccessibility to lawyers? Why detention without trial? Do you think it's because they might spill the beans? And do you also think the muzzling is a stalling tactic, such that all evidence of torture can be first destroyed, and participants transferred away, hushed up, whatever?

What about the pyramid of naked prisoners at Abu Ghraib? And the other things? How about rendition? How does that fit your "myth" fantasy?

Don't you wish, at times, that you were NOT a fanatical right winger?

And why aren't YOU "fighting the jihadists"? To you, they are the planet's biggest threat. Shouldn't you be out there, saving mankind?

[Sporanox]

I'm sure this has been noticed before, but I think it still should be said...

I see zero sources for all the political claims that are being thrown around this topic.

Without that the debate will collapse into the muddy waters of "this is true" point and "this is not true" counterpoint, which it seems to be doing right now.

To join the discussion, I submit that Saddam had the intention to restart his WMD program after he gained sufficient resources as seen in the post-invasion Duelfer report. A link describing the report can be found here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995422,00.html

Note: It also provides support for Ron's claim that all prominent governments believed Saddam had WMD pre-Iraq war.

[portlandatheist]

What started this whole derail was the claim that Bush was a "liar" in regards to wMD and Iraq.
Hillary Clinton stated
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
To be fair, I don't think this accusation alone is grounds to characterize either Hillary or Bush as "liars".

[ConspiRaider]

I'm sure this has been noticed before, but I think it still should be said...

I see zero sources for all the political claims that are being thrown around this topic.

Without that the debate will collapse into the muddy waters of "this is true" point and "this is not true" counterpoint, which it seems to be doing right now.

To join the discussion, I submit that Saddam had the intention to restart his WMD program after he gained sufficient resources as seen in the post-invasion Duelfer report. A link describing the report can be found here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995422,00.html

Note: It also provides support for Ron's claim that all prominent governments believed Saddam had WMD pre-Iraq war.
This is political discourse, and that is ALWAYS muddy waters, whether anyone likes it or not.

So Ron ran out to get some desperate support for his radical right wing ways, eh? And here you are.

"Belief" is not good enough to smash a nation militarily, capture its leader, effect his execution, touch off a civil war, kill nearly 4,000 Americans, wound nearly 30,000 Americans, kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, wound tens of thousands of Iraqis, create hundreds of thousands of refugees and spend - so far - nearly half a trillion of our American taxpayer dollars for war.

You have to KNOW - belief is not even close to being enough. Or - it didn't used to be. Or - it's enough when the county you wish to dominate has an enormous natural resource that you MUST get control of.

You have not been in the military. Nor has Ron. And therefore you have no reference point as to how serious military action is. War is ALWAYS the thing you work to avoid most rigorously. This outlaw crew who stormed into the White House did not know the meaning of the word "avoid". They were LOOKING to invade this country of Iraq. Don't forget the Downing Street Memos: "Fixing fact around the policy." That's what they said in Britain, concerning the mindset of the Bush Administration and Iraq. The policy? Take their country. The facts? Whatever we can find to justify it to America and the world.

When facts, such as no WMDs being found before the invasion, were made known to them? Ignored. We don't want to hear that.

When claims, such as from the lying jerkweed Curveball were discouinted by other agencies, other countries? Ignored. We don't want to hear that.

[ConspiRaider]

What started this whole derail was the claim that Bush was a "liar" in regards to wMD and Iraq.
Hillary Clinton stated

To be fair, I don't think this accusation alone is grounds to characterize either Hillary or Bush as "liars".
This is NOT about Hillary Clinton. Why are you picking her out, from the combined total of 535 lawmakers in the House and Senate?

WMD is only ONE thing Bush lied about. There are many, many others. Less than a week ago, he lied again, about the NIE report. Actually expected us to believe him! That's the funny part.

Bush lies because he realizes he can get away with it. He is no longer held to standards, by Congress, by mass media, by his administration. And that is why he was so disappointed the NIE report spoiled his little rush to war with Iran so decisively. He just expects that when he declares something, everyone will start wagging their heads up and down.

Bush would have made a TERRIFIC dictator. That has to be one of his big life regrets - that he got to head of state, but in the wrong country. Where his power can be checked. As a dictator? Oh, Bush is textbook qualified.

[portlandatheist]

I said that this accusation ALONE is not grounds to characterize Bush as a liar. I did not bring up any other statements by Bush. That's all my point was and I brought in the Clinton quote because what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If that ALONE makes Bush a liar, then we also have to characterize numerous others as liars as well from both sides of the aisle(and the Atlantic). Would you disagree with that sentiment?

[D'rok]

I said that this accusation ALONE is not grounds to characterize Bush as a liar. I did not bring up any other statements by Bush. That's all my point was and I brought in the Clinton quote because what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If that ALONE makes Bush a liar, then we also have to characterize numerous others as liars as well from both sides of the aisle(and the Atlantic). Would you disagree with that sentiment?

IMO, Hillary has no compunction whatsoever when it comes to lying if it suits her ambitions. She was born for politics.

Frankly, on the WMD issue I can't figure out whether Bush was consciously lying or was just so willfully ignorant and ideologically blind that he actually believed the whoppers he was selling. On the torture issue, I'm sure he's aware of precisely how dishonest he's being. He just believes that torture is justified under the circumstances.

The notion that there was an intelligence failure is just flat out nonsense. There was a hi-jacking of the American intelligence apparatus. Policy was driving the conclusions, not data.

[Kestrel]

The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein was over in a few months. Nobody claimed that the war would pay for itself--another leftist canard..

Donald Rumsfeld gave a lowball cost figure of $50 billion for the Iraq war in a Jan 19, 2003 news conference:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1322

Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.

On March 27, 2003 Paul Wolfiwitz did tell a House Subcommittee that Iraq oil revenues would finance the rebuilding of Iraq:

"the oil revenues of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but ... we’re not dealing with Afghanistan that’s permanent ward of the international community. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."

Quote taken from page 9 of this CRS document:
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32090.pdf

[portlandatheist]

IMO, Hillary has no compunction whatsoever when it comes to lying if it suits her ambitions. She was born for politics.

Frankly, on the WMD issue I can't figure out whether Bush was consciously lying or was just so willfully ignorant and ideologically blind that he actually believed the whoppers he was selling. On the torture issue, I'm sure he's aware of precisely how dishonest he's being. He just believes that torture is justified under the circumstances.

The notion that there was an intelligence failure is just flat out nonsense. There was a hi-jacking of the American intelligence apparatus. Policy was driving the conclusions, not data.

Indeed, but politicians with more integrity than either Bush or Hillary were saying essentially the same thing(like Joe Liberman). That was my basic point.

In theory, the intelligence community should be immune from political pressure (same for the scientific community for that matter) but sadly, as you point out, this is/was tragically not the case. There is a good Frontline episode that explores this dysfunctional relationship between the Bush administration and the intelligence community entitled "Truth, War and Consequences" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/view/

[Sporanox]

This is political discourse, and that is ALWAYS muddy waters, whether anyone likes it or not.

Makes sense, but it seemed to me there was more than usual.

So Ron ran out to get some desperate support for his radical right wing ways, eh? And here you are.

No. There is no conspiracy here. And I don't think I'm on the far right, either. I believe waterboarding is a form of torture and I oppose the use of it. EDIT: I also don't believe that torture yields truthful testimony.

Belief" is not good enough to smash a nation militarily, capture its leader, effect his execution, touch off a civil war, kill nearly 4,000 Americans, wound nearly 30,000 Americans, kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, wound tens of thousands of Iraqis, create hundreds of thousands of refugees and spend - so far - nearly half a trillion of our American taxpayer dollars for war.

You have to KNOW - belief is not even close to being enough. Or - it didn't used to be. Or - it's enough when the county you wish to dominate has an enormous natural resource that you MUST get control of.

First: Saddam having WMDs and the possible threat of collaboration with some of our more proactive enemies wasn't the only reason we invaded Iraq. Middle East stabilization was also a goal.

Second: The consequences you speak of largely stem from failures to properly understand Iraqi demographics, values, and culture as well as general strategic failures in general such as ignoring and jettisoning Shinseki when he famously stated that 450,000 troops would be needed to completely pacify Iraq post-invasion.

Third: The Iraqis are undoubtedly free to sell their oil to whoever they choose to do, and that's what they're doing. In recent months the Kurds have broken off from the Iraqi parliament's discussion of oil appropriation and made their own deals with buyers of their own choosing. We do not have a hand in the process. Thus invading them so they could give us oil is a dubious reason at best.

Another fact is that Halliburton had won a LOGCAP supercontract prior the invasion and was thus set to provide services for U.S. troops. (Halliburton also did the same under the Clinton Administration, at least for a time).

You have not been in the military. Nor has Ron. And therefore you have no reference point as to how serious military action is. War is ALWAYS the thing you work to avoid most rigorously. This outlaw crew who stormed into the White House did not know the meaning of the word "avoid". They were LOOKING to invade this country of Iraq. Don't forget the Downing Street Memos: "Fixing fact around the policy." That's what they said in Britain, concerning the mindset of the Bush Administration and Iraq. The policy? Take their country. The facts? Whatever we can find to justify it to America and the world.


Correct. Neither Ron or I have served. I'm not sure if you have, but that's beside the point. Many Congressmen and Presidents who presided over decisions to use military action have not served either.

This thinking also discounts civilian pacifism. How could they have an opinion on the effects of war if they have never served? It also does not work around the support that John McCain and other veterans have shown.

I certainly can see evidence of fact being fixed around policy with the whole yellowcake fiasco, but I do not believe that constitutes lying when the overwhelming consensus was STILL that Iraq had WMD and I do not believe that the Administration was lying to the American public about the threats that were perceived. Yes, there was an eagerness to go to war that ultimately resulted in the yellowcake justification and underplanning for the entire operation. Does that mean that there was no justification for the war? I don't agree. One can afford to look beyond what Bush has said to find this.

When facts, such as no WMDs being found before the invasion, were made known to them? Ignored. We don't want to hear that.

At the time, Saddam Hussein desperately wanted to project the image that he still had WMD. In the last page of the article I cited, the author talks about how the regime was unable to resolve the dichotomy between bluffing with WMD and insisting that they did not have any to lift sanctions. Further clarification can be found on page 4 of this article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005816-1,00.html

Charges were made that Iraqis "hustled evidence out the back door even as U.N. inspectors entered through the front." If Saddam wanted to keep his charade going, he certainly could have - by expelling the weapons inspectors, as he did in previous years, or simply perpetuating the WMD facade described.

When claims, such as from the lying jerkweed Curveball were discouinted by other agencies, other countries? Ignored. We don't want to hear that.

As I mentioned before, the omission of evidence like Curveball's testimony would not have changed the perception of Iraq's weapons.

[BenBurch]

Donald Rumsfeld gave a lowball cost figure of $50 billion for the Iraq war in a Jan 19, 2003 news conference...

Not too long before the war, Larry Lindsey, an economist working for this Administration, suggested that the costs might range between $100 and $200 billion, and the White House could not distance itself from that estimate quickly enough;

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/sproject.irq.war.cost/

And the above article puts lie to the thought that the lying about the cost of this war was unintentional. This was a lie on a full-court-press!

[BenBurch]

Oh, and Pomeroo? This is the very same war as the one we started with Saddam, the fighting never really stopped;

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.gif

[BenBurch]

As of just this moment, the DIRECT costs of the Iraq War are estimated by http://www.costofwar.com/ as $475,713,718,207, Or $476B.

Those are just the direct costs. They do not include indirect costs such as cost of money, and (very important) does not include funds from other appropriated budget items transferred unilaterally by the Pentagon under emergency provisions, which is probably impossible to get a number for, but which is known to be significant.

Given the indirect costs and cost of money (and remember compound interest) I believe that the total cost is in excess of one trillion, and there are estimates that it could top two trillion; http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html

I mean, only in a bad farce could a war estimated at less than $60B and weeks in duration could now be in its fifth year, with ~4000 dead and ~20,000 maimed American Soldiers, and have costs CERTAINLY over $476B, right?

My only questions, and I am tying to be real fair here;


Did the White House know how much this was gonna cost, but they shouted down reasonable estimates as ridiculous to prevent "sticker shock," or were they really this incompetent?
What happened to balanced budgets, fiscal conservatism, and "not being the world's policeman," that the Republicans espouse when they are OUT of power, eh? You lack the courage of your convictions.

[Darth Rotor]

My only questions, and I am tying to be real fair here;


Did the White House know how much this was gonna cost, but they shouted down reasonable estimates as ridiculous to prevent "sticker shock," or were they really this incompetent?
What happened to balanced budgets, fiscal conservatism, and "not being the world's policeman," that the Republicans espouse when they are OUT of power, eh? You lack the courage of your convictions.


Ben, the rhetoric from the pre war run up all points to the Bush Team falling for the "short and splendid war" myth, and hard. (Eg, German General Staff, 1914.) See both Rummy's comments and Wolfowitz's already referred to in the thread.

As to point two, I askrf the same question about the time a war was chosen and a tax cut announced in the same year. That "Guns and Butter" idea was dead in the water, and is now listing to port rather heavily.

Funny old thing, after four and a half years of that, the dollar is weakening. Hmmm, wonder why that might be. :p

DR

[Sporanox]

Not too long before the war, Larry Lindsey, an economist working for this Administration, suggested that the costs might range between $100 and $200 billion, and the White House could not distance itself from that estimate quickly enough;

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/....irq.war.cost/

And the above article puts lie to the thought that the lying about the cost of this war was unintentional. This was a lie on a full-court-press!

I'm sure that this figure applied when the Administration was considering the whole "overly secularist society, will greet liberators indefinitely with roses" scenario. Remember, deposing Saddam was not that much work. The poor management of the aftermath WAS, especially with Rumsfeld's horribly clashing army ideas (small and effective occupation/peacekeeping force? yeah, right).

Oh, and Pomeroo? This is the very same war as the one we started with Saddam, the fighting never really stopped;


Fortunately, that trend has recently stopped. There is still violence - it's just not increasing.


As to point two, I ask the same question about the time a war was chosen and a tax cut announced in the same year. That "Guns and Butter" idea is dead in the water.

I can't really offer much of a defense of this, as I haven't read into it. But yeah, suffice to say, it seems like it turned out pretty bad. One of the major mistakes of this Administration is not requiring enough support from Americans during a time of two wars that's stretching over the duration of WWII...

[Undesired Walrus]

Soup is less dangerous than nuclear bombs.


Well, not really. Hopelessly inept Humans and horribly deformed platypuses all descended from primordial soup, so I'd say that soup is the most dangerous thing ever in history.

Just have some of my aunts scottish broth, and you will see what I mean.

[pomeroo]

This is political discourse, and that is ALWAYS muddy waters, whether anyone likes it or not.

So Ron ran out to get some desperate support for his radical right wing ways, eh? And here you are.

"Belief" is not good enough to smash a nation militarily, capture its leader, effect his execution, touch off a civil war, kill nearly 4,000 Americans, wound nearly 30,000 Americans, kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, wound tens of thousands of Iraqis, create hundreds of thousands of refugees and spend - so far - nearly half a trillion of our American taxpayer dollars for war.

You have to KNOW - belief is not even close to being enough. Or - it didn't used to be. Or - it's enough when the county you wish to dominate has an enormous natural resource that you MUST get control of.

You have not been in the military. Nor has Ron. And therefore you have no reference point as to how serious military action is. War is ALWAYS the thing you work to avoid most rigorously. This outlaw crew who stormed into the White House did not know the meaning of the word "avoid". They were LOOKING to invade this country of Iraq. Don't forget the Downing Street Memos: "Fixing fact around the policy." That's what they said in Britain, concerning the mindset of the Bush Administration and Iraq. The policy? Take their country. The facts? Whatever we can find to justify it to America and the world.

When facts, such as no WMDs being found before the invasion, were made known to them? Ignored. We don't want to hear that.

When claims, such as from the lying jerkweed Curveball were discouinted by other agencies, other countries? Ignored. We don't want to hear that.


You should lay off the sauce, Dave. I "ran out" to get help from someone I don't know? Really? How did I manage that?

You're not telling the truth about the liar Valerie Plame, as you know. Neither she nor anyone else has ever claimed that the CIA knew that there were no WMD in Iraq. Nobody in the CIA has suggested anything of the sort. Your imagination is getting the better of you.

Tell us what your hero Bill Clinton bombed in 1998. When did the intelligence change and who is making the claim that it did?

[pomeroo]

Capitals and bolded? It must be true then.


Yes, it is completely true. No one says otherwise.



Remind me about the pre-invasion Iraqi jihadists again? My memory is fuzzy on that one.


Yes, your memory has been shown to be extremely fuzzy. The Iraqi jihadists you refer to must be the members of Ansar al-Islam who operated, with Saddam's permission, a training camp at Salman Pak. If you didn't know this, you shouldn't be pontificating.
Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, claimed they had anything to do with the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01. But, of course, you already knew that.



Nothing that can't be re-defined by Gonzales or his successors I'm sure.

No idea. Regardless, how would that absolve America of moral culpability for its own actions? Someone did something worse, so what we did is ok?


Dodge noted. Leftists who fawn over Cuba's blood-soaked tyrant understand that his regime practices many forms of torture. They don't care. There is no evidence that America sanctions torture. Tendentious lies fabricated by apologists for the world's worst states don't rise to the level of evidence.

[pomeroo]

This is political discourse, and that is ALWAYS muddy waters, whether anyone likes it or not.

So Ron ran out to get some desperate support for his radical right wing ways, eh? And here you are.

"Belief" is not good enough to smash a nation militarily, capture its leader, effect his execution, touch off a civil war, kill nearly 4,000 Americans, wound nearly 30,000 Americans, kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, wound tens of thousands of Iraqis, create hundreds of thousands of refugees and spend - so far - nearly half a trillion of our American taxpayer dollars for war.

You have to KNOW - belief is not even close to being enough. Or - it didn't used to be. Or - it's enough when the county you wish to dominate has an enormous natural resource that you MUST get control of.

You have not been in the military. Nor has Ron. And therefore you have no reference point as to how serious military action is. War is ALWAYS the thing you work to avoid most rigorously. This outlaw crew who stormed into the White House did not know the meaning of the word "avoid". They were LOOKING to invade this country of Iraq. Don't forget the Downing Street Memos: "Fixing fact around the policy." That's what they said in Britain, concerning the mindset of the Bush Administration and Iraq. The policy? Take their country. The facts? Whatever we can find to justify it to America and the world.

When facts, such as no WMDs being found before the invasion, were made known to them? Ignored. We don't want to hear that.


The Downing Street Memos?! Very desperate, Dave. I thought only twoofers and the most rabid loony-leftists refer to that farrago of nonsense. As you know very well, the Brits do not use "to fix" in the American slang sense. Fixing policy around intelligence means, of course, focusing it around the findings.



When claims, such as from the lying jerkweed Curveball were discouinted by other agencies, other countries? Ignored. We don't want to hear that.


Nobody cares about Curveball. EVERY country monitoring Iraq concluded that Saddam retained WMD stockpiles.

I note that "Sporanox" dared to mention the Duelfer Report. Leftists don't like the Duelfer Report. It destroys their entire house of lies. You don't want anyone to mention the Duelfer Report--EVER!

[pomeroo]

IMO, Hillary has no compunction whatsoever when it comes to lying if it suits her ambitions. She was born for politics.


What--you don't believe that she converted a thousand-dollar investment in cattle futures into a hundred grand purely through the exercise of the merest fraction of her genius? A few jealous financial analysts who claim that such feat was impossible mean nothing. What could they possibly know?



Frankly, on the WMD issue I can't figure out whether Bush was consciously lying or was just so willfully ignorant and ideologically blind that he actually believed the whoppers he was selling.


Yeah, I can understand the source of your conflict. On the one hand, it is completely insane to think that Bush would bet his presidency on a lie that was certain to be exposed (you either find 'em or you don't). On the other, you are a leftist with an emotional commitment to the Big Lie. I think we all know how you'll resolve this one.



On the torture issue, I'm sure he's aware of precisely how dishonest he's being. He just believes that torture is justified under the circumstances.


I'm sure all rational people are aware of the left's ongoing dishonesty. The Red Cross determined that inmates at Gitmo were being treated well.



The notion that there was an intelligence failure is just flat out nonsense. There was a hi-jacking of the American intelligence apparatus. Policy was driving the conclusions, not data.


Really? Why did that terribly inconvenient bi-partisan Senate Investigating Committee conclude exactly the opposite? Oh, I forgot: like the Duelfer report, that investigation is something the left simply will not allow to be mentioned. Sorry.

[pomeroo]

Oh, and Pomeroo? This is the very same war as the one we started with Saddam, the fighting never really stopped;

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.gif


Gee, I'm afraid that leftists will be extremely unhappy with you. You see, you've stepped on the third rail.

If this is the same war and, uh, al Qaeda is fighting in it, uh, well, uh...

You get my drift? As I said, leftists will be very, very unhappy with you. They will request--no, demand--that you rethink your position.

[Upchurch]

Ben, the rhetoric from the pre war run up all points to the Bush Team falling for the "short and splendid war" myth, and hard. (Eg, German General Staff, 1914.) See both Rummy's comments and Wolfowitz's already referred to in the thread.
But DR, if you go back further than that, we have former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (defending elder Bush's decision to not push on to Baghdad after Gulf War I) quite correctly predicting what a mess Iraq would be if were to invade.

How do you reconcile this change of heart from a top member of the Bush Team? He surely would have known that none of the sectarian politics that would lead to the fracturing and civil war in Iraq had changed.

[D'rok]

Yes, it is completely true. No one says otherwise.

Brainache's link seems to contradict you. My own government's refusal to participate despite intense pressure seems to contradict you (although political reasons alone could suffice for that).


Yes, your memory has been shown to be extremely fuzzy. The Iraqi jihadists you refer to must be the members of Ansar al-Islam who operated, with Saddam's permission, a training camp at Salman Pak. If you didn't know this, you shouldn't be pontificating.
Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, claimed they had anything to do with the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01. But, of course, you already knew that.A Kurdish Islamist group unafilliated with Iraq or Saddam is your justification for the invasion? Really? Pathetic.

I also note that the Salman Pak accusation was another tale spun by INC defectors that has since been discredited by your own intelligence agencies. But, of course, you already knew that.


Dodge noted.Yes. Bringing up Fidel is a dodge.

Leftists who fawn over Cuba's blood-soaked tyrant understand that his regime practices many forms of torture. They don't care.What the hell is a leftist? Are you implying that I fawn over blood soaked dictators and their evil practices? If so, please go straight to hell. If not, please try to contain yourself.

There is no evidence that America sanctions torture. There is evidence that America does torture. You've already stated that you accept the DOJ's re-defining of the term. So be it. It changes nothing.

Also, you may wish to ask Maher Arar his opinion on America's sanctioning of torture. I'm not sure how rendition of a Canadian citizen to Syria for the purposes of torture is anything other than explicit sanctioning of it.

Tendentious lies fabricated by apologists for the world's worst states don't rise to the level of evidence.Did I do this? Show me where I've been an apologist. Betcha you can't.

[BenBurch]

...Fortunately, that trend has recently stopped. There is still violence - it's just not increasing.

I'm happy about that, but understand what it means;

1. We have changed our operational strategy such that we no longer expose ourselves. The enemy is still out there, but he does not get a clear shot. We also are not engaging him and reducing his numbers. Just the opposite, he can now recruit and train in our absence.

2. We have gotten to the point with emergency field medical interventions that utterly wrecked human beings, who would mercifully have died in any previous conflict, are now being patched together and gotten to an operating theater. I'd like to say that we will be paying the costs for their treatment for decades, but, sadly, the Bush Administration seems to want to find every possible excuse to deny treatment to the physically and mentally wounded from this war.

So, not necessarily a good outcome, despite the hopeful trend.

[D'rok]

What--you don't believe that she converted a thousand-dollar investment in cattle futures into a hundred grand purely through the exercise of the merest fraction of her genius? A few jealous financial analysts who claim that such feat was impossible mean nothing. What could they possibly know?

I have no idea what you are saying here. Are you chastising me for agreeing with you that Hillary is a liar?


Yeah, I can understand the source of your conflict. On the one hand, it is completely insane to think that Bush would bet his presidency on a lie that was certain to be exposed (you either find 'em or you don't). On the other, you are a leftist with an emotional commitment to the Big Lie. I think we all know how you'll resolve this one.The emotional commitment seems to be coming from your court. You'll have noticed that I've refrained from labeling you, while you seem to enjoy tossing labels around like they're arguments for something.

The lies of the Bush administration were exposed. He kept his presidency. Bravo Karl.


I'm sure all rational people are aware of the left's ongoing dishonesty. The Red Cross determined that inmates at Gitmo were being treated well.I'm sure all rational people are those who hold the same viewpoints as you.

"The International Committee of the Red Cross has charged in confidential reports to the United States government that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.The finding that the handling of prisoners detained and interrogated at Guantánamo amounted to torture came after a visit by a Red Cross inspection team that spent most of last June in Guantánamo."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.htm?_r=1&oref=slogin


Really? Why did that terribly inconvenient bi-partisan Senate Investigating Committee conclude exactly the opposite? Oh, I forgot: like the Duelfer report, that investigation is something the left simply will not allow to be mentioned. Sorry.Hmm. I suppose I have to admit that that report called what happened an intelligence failure. However, they characterized the failure as conclusions unsupported by the available intelligence data. I believe this is almost exactly what I claimed.

Policy was driving the conclusions, not data.

Yup. Looks that way.

[BenBurch]

Pomeroo, we are not fighting AlQ in Iraq. We are fighting a war within Islam that goes back to the dispute over who should have been the Second Caliph.

Yes, AlQ moved in right on the heels of our idiotic mistake, but they were not there originally; They are pure opportunists and are picking the easiest place on the planet to kill Americans. Heck, they manage to find one to kill every couple of days and they could not be more pleased with themselves!

But there would have bee no opportunity for AlQ in Iraq at all if we had understood in advance that we could never occupy the place and keep Sunni and Shiite apart the way Saddam had done. Had that original conflict not re-surfaced, the we could have succeeded.

But many of us here on the Educated Left who understand exactly the tensions within Islam and the sort of tensions frozen in place in Iraq by Saddam's iron fist knew, absolutely KNEW, what this would turn into. We warned you fools on the radical right about this, and you ignored us.

And now you have "hugged the tar-baby" and we are going to be paying for your knee-jerk idiocy for the next 100 years at least.

Nice going, chumps.

[pomeroo]

Brainache's link seems to contradict you. My own government's refusal to participate despite intense pressure seems to contradict you (although political reasons alone could suffice for that).


I've listed nations that were known to be monitoring Iraq. If Canada's intelligence service belongs on the list, I'm not aware of it.




A Kurdish Islamist group unafilliated with Iraq or Saddam is your justification for the invasion? Really? Pathetic.


I'm afraid that won't work. Nobody thinks that the Ansar al-Islam training camp was part of the reason we went to war. Its existence, however, is inconvenient for the mythmakers who pretend that Saddam had no tolerance for radical Islamists.



I also note that the Salman Pak accusation was another tale spun by INC defectors that has since been discredited by your own intelligence agencies. But, of course, you already knew that.


I didn't and don't.




Yes. Bringing up Fidel is a dodge.

What the hell is a leftist? Are you implying that I fawn over blood soaked dictators and their evil practices? If so, please go straight to hell. If not, please try to contain yourself.

There is evidence that America does torture. You've already stated that you accept the DOJ's re-defining of the term. So be it. It changes nothing.


A leftist is someone who thinks the wrong side won the Cold War. I don't know what your opinion of Castro is, but I do know that prominent Hollywood celebrities and leaders of the grotesquely misnamed "peace" movement adore the Cuban dictator.

There is not the slightest bit of evidence that America sanctions torture.



Also, you may wish to ask Maher Arar his opinion on America's sanctioning of torture. I'm not sure how rendition of a Canadian citizen to Syria for the purposes of torture is anything other than explicit sanctioning of it.

Did I do this? Show me where I've been an apologist. Betcha you can't.


I'm unfamiliar with the Arar case. Tell me about him.

I believe that anyone who promotes the canard about America's use of torture is attempting to establish a false moral equivalence and thereby makes himself an apologist for the jihadists.

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, we are not fighting AlQ in Iraq. We are fighting a war within Islam that goes back to the dispute over who should have been the Second Caliph.

Yes, AlQ moved in right on the heels of our idiotic mistake, but they were not there originally; They are pure opportunists and are picking the easiest place on the planet to kill Americans. Heck, they manage to find one to kill every couple of days and they could not be more pleased with themselves!

But there would have bee no opportunity for AlQ in Iraq at all if we had understood in advance that we could never occupy the place and keep Sunni and Shiite apart the way Saddam had done. Had that original conflict not re-surfaced, the we could have succeeded.

But many of us here on the Educated Left who understand exactly the tensions within Islam and the sort of tensions frozen in place in Iraq by Saddam's iron fist knew, absolutely KNEW, what this would turn into. We warned you fools on the radical right about this, and you ignored us.

And now you have "hugged the tar-baby" and we are going to be paying for your knee-jerk idiocy for the next 100 years at least.

Nice going, chumps.


Your propaganda is looking mighty silly these days. Al Qaeda's decision to stake everything on Iraq has turned out disastrously for the jihadists. But did they have a choice? The rise of a liberal democracy in the Middle East would be a mortal blow to their vision. They had to fight, and now they're being destroyed and their pleas to the Iraqi people are being rejected.

Incidentally, the left didn't warn us about anything. The left's only fear is that we will prevail against the jihadists.

[BenBurch]

I honestly don't care what AlQ does, they are all dead men as far as I am concerned.

What I do care about is the 80% of the fighting that is Sunni vs Shiite and Shiite vs USA (and Sunni vs USA.)

And your memory is faulty; We warned of the exact scenario we are in right now. In detail. You went into this knowing full well what was up.

Yeah, I know you couldn't hear us;

http://www.canofun.com.nyud.net/blog/parshallfinger.jpg

[D'rok]

A leftist is someone who thinks the wrong side won the Cold War. I don't know what your opinion of Castro is, but I do know that prominent Hollywood celebrities and leaders of the grotesquely misnamed "peace" movement adore the Cuban dictator.

In that case, I can assure you I am not a leftist. The good guys won the Cold War. Fidel Castro is a tyrant.

There is not the slightest bit of evidence that America sanctions torture.

I'm unfamiliar with the Arar case. Tell me about him."Maher Arar is a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. He was born in Syria and came to Canada with his family at the age of 17. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. On Sept. 26, 2002, while in transit in New York’s JFK airport when returning home from a vacation [and while carrying a Canadian passport], Arar was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria, where he was held in a tiny “grave-like” cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. In Syria, he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.

During his imprisonment, Arar's wife, Monia Mazigh, campaigned relentlessly on his behalf until he was returned to Canada in October 2003. On Jan. 28, 2004, under pressure from Canadian human rights organizations and a growing number of citizens, the Government of Canada announced a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar.

On September 18, 2006, the Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.""

http://www.ararcommission.ca/
http://www.maherarar.ca/



I believe that anyone who promotes the canard about America's use of torture is attempting to establish a false moral equivalence and thereby makes himself an apologist for the jihadists.I am no jihadist apologist. If you want evidence, you can head over to this thread where I'm actually trying to defend America's honour in Iraq against Oliver's nonsense. (Oliver implied America was responsible for the suicide bombings in Iraq).

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100717

[BenBurch]

In that case, I can assure you I am not a leftist. The good guys won the Cold War. Fidel Castro is a tyrant.

Amen, brother!

[Sporanox]

...Fortunately, that trend has recently stopped. There is still violence - it's just not increasing.
1. We have changed our operational strategy such that we no longer expose ourselves. The enemy is still out there, but he does not get a clear shot. We also are not engaging him and reducing his numbers. Just the opposite, he can now recruit and train in our absence.

This is actually not our strategy. Instead, with the increased troop load, we are working to reach out into more areas and co-opt more native Iraqis to fight with us. In the process, this defuses much of the insurgency that was earlier attacking our troops.

The additional troops have enabled the United States to push into Sunni areas where American forces had not operated for many months and to stay there rather than sweeping through and leaving.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02iraq-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

You may have to log in to view this, but it is well worth it. It's a very comprehensive summary of what we're using the "surge" for (which will be able to last until 2008 approximately, about how long the armed forces can take the strain).

2. We have gotten to the point with emergency field medical interventions that utterly wrecked human beings, who would mercifully have died in any previous conflict, are now being patched together and gotten to an operating theater. I'd like to say that we will be paying the costs for their treatment for decades, but, sadly, the Bush Administration seems to want to find every possible excuse to deny treatment to the physically and mentally wounded from this war.

So, not necessarily a good outcome, despite the hopeful trend.

I'm not so sure about what you mean here. Gotten to an operating theater? Are you saying that we're sending amputees back to the front lines? Certainly not.

I have not read into the Bush Administration's specific policies on returning vets, but what I am aware of is the fact that the Veterans' Administration has been riddled with incompetence as of late. This is not necessarily, however, a product of Bush. One man cannot be responsible for all the nation's woes.

I honestly don't care what AlQ does, they are all dead men as far as I am concerned.

AQI is very important, for a few reasons:

First, it forces once-Sunni insurgents to work together and actually be friends with us. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

Second, AQI is thought to be responsible for fueling and igniting the massive sectarian fighting that is now the major problem in Iraq. This is well outlined in the Zarqawi letter, which talks about seeming coercion of complacent Iraqi Sunnis who are "unaware" of the "Shi'ite menace."


4. The Shi`a

These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies … and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands of these Sabeans.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/31694.htm

Zarqawi says he wants to provoke the Sunnis into attacking the "inattentive" Sunnis. This is what basically happened in the beginnings of the infighting after the Samarra bombing. Thus, the ability of AQI to wreck our efforts cannot be understated.

[pomeroo]

In that case, I can assure you I am not a leftist. The good guys won the Cold War. Fidel Castro is a tyrant.





I am no jihadist apologist. If you want evidence, you can head over to this thread where I'm actually trying to defend America's honour in Iraq against Oliver's nonsense. (Oliver implied America was responsible for the suicide bombings in Iraq).

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100717


Fair enough. I appreciate your clarification of these points.