FINAL WORD/CONSENSUS OF SD.Net

[Stormbringer]

Umm, hasn't it been shown that Bush was rabid about going back to Iraq from the second he entered office?

Rabid, no. That he was legitimately planning on dealing with him as he promised in his campaign, yes. There's a huge difference between the two.

I'm quite convinced that he would have gone out for one reason or another, whether grasping at straws or not. He's certainly a big enough moron to think that his lies would never be uncovered.

Personal opinions don't mean much. If you've got evidence for it, go ahead and provide it. It's possible he did lie but taking it just on opinion doesn't mean much.

We're talking about a president that, in the beginning, rarely gave press conferences for fear of being put on the spot.

Given his wonderful speaking skills would you put him in the firing line with the press?

Bush=puppet.

Enough of the tin foil hat crap.

[Chardok]

I know, personal opinions don't mean much or hold any water. It's just one of those gut things you can't quite explain, I felt it for awhile, then I saw/heard/read about Paul O'neill's account of how the white house is run, and it only served to confirm it. Of course, we ARE talking about a potentially embittered ex-employee, but still. I think he was looking for any little reason to go back to Iraq, and while I admit Saddam was a bad guy, it was not worth 500+ american dead, thousands injured and three guys blown up by 30mm chaingun fire.

As for the tinfoil hat thing, I should perhaps clarify that... Do you not feel like bush is simply parroting things his high-level cabinet tells him to? Again, though, in this place of logic and reason, I concede my personal opinion doesn't count for much, except I know that one deluded madman, bad as he was, was not worth 500 americans men and women, (he wasn't even worth 500 American FISH) and billions upon billions of dollars. Saddam was effectively impotent after GWI. Plus, given that going to Iraq was about...finding WMD's, no wait, Freedom for Iraqis, no wait, Saddam is a bad guy, No, WMD's, wait a tick, We, uh, well, can't fool us again! HAd he given one reason and said THIS Is why we are going into Iraq and stuck to his guns, I would have swallowed, but it was a paper-thin case for Saddam's MASSIVE WMD program and how he was presented as an imminent threat to peace and freedom-loving people everywhere, then flip-flopping back and forth. *Gasp for air* THEN toss in the fact that he threw a hearty "Fuck-you-look-how-big-my-dick-is" into the face of the U.N and many longstanding Allies of the U.S., THEN excluded the countries who said fuck you right back from contracts in Iraq (though it WAS our prerogative) (and excluding subcontracts and whatnot) ON TOP OF creating this humongous budget deficit growing like stage 4 cancer cells, THEN he says "Hey guess whut? Weere goin' to da moon!" in an obvious attempt at election year voter-stroking......*gasps again*

I've had enough Bushism. I've bitten onto many of the democratic hopeful's rabid anti-bush stance, and I'm not ashamed to say it. I'm voting democratic to get that little shit out of office, point blank, game over. Time to clean house, Bring back Bill Clinton, have a nice day, do not pass go, do not collect 200.00, Merry christmas, kiss my ass, kiss his ass, kiss your ass, happy hanukah, Mazzeltoff. (sp?)

[Durandal]

I seem to recall inspectors finding copious amounts of Dihydrogen Monoxide in scientists' homes, as well as some suspiciously long extension cords. Come on, why would the Iraqi scientists buy a 50-foot cord when a 25-foot one would clearly be sufficient? I think we all know the answer.

[Chardok]

EDIT_______________

The last part (Read happy hanukah et al.) was just kidding about, not flaming)

[revprez]

You realize that such stores would last long right? And that anything buried isn't likely to be useful at this point.

Depends on what it is. If they spray dried their anthrax they would still have that. The mustard should last a long time, and botulinum can be stored quietly and in small quantities in such a way that would last for years. They might not have Sarin or Taubin, but they could have over a ton of VX.

True, but nothing left to lose isn't a very good motive for cooperation. Especially not for some one that's a bit detached from reality.

Exactpy. What's to gain? He must know that he can't escape trial.

The key to that, not able. There might not be weapons and they certainly aren't going to last buried in the desert.

By buried I mean stored in underground depots. They may also be across the border. For mustard and dry anthrax (I also think some form of VX) this isn't a problem--you don't need refrigeration to keep them viable for years, just a nice dry place. For botulinum precursors, well that's what mobile labs are for. I could imagine a good story about Achmed getting paid a good $5000 up front to keep a truck fueled and running in a cave outside his town while the former regime elements try to piece together the chemists and biologists necessary to re-task the weapons.

Well, it's clear that Iraq has no useable WMDs. That means either the intel was wrong or he lied. Yes, it would be stupid. But he wouldn't be the first president to do that.

Well the intelligence that was made public supports his claims (we can debate whether he exaggerated later), so he's not deviating from it. Second, I'm not sure you can say the intelligence was wrong. Hussein had six months to do what he needed to do before we went to war, plus four years before that to conceal his activities with no inspection regime whatsoever.

There have been plenty of people that have said the intelligence was shaky and that the administration picked and choosed what they looked at.

There are plenty of unnamed sources popping up in the Times, and most of these complaints could be put in the "well I (or my team) had this view and the other guy (or the B team) had that view" category. I'm looking for evidence of lying, as in the intelligence community saying one thing and the President saying the other with the intent to deceive. Overselling a threat is, in my mind, distinct from lying about one.

I doubt anyone is going to claim the role as deliberately faking things but we've got people saying it was not the most objective analysis.

Granted these are the same people who "objectively analyzed" there way into missing 9/11. To sustain objectivity the intelligence community tries (I can't emphasize this enough) to run an idea through as many different interpretations as possible. The result is an adversarial system where different desks, teams and agencies will come to different conclusions looking at the same evidence on even the most dry issues. That's why you don't just farm out nuke stuff to DOE exclusively or diplomatic intelligence to State. This adversarial system will also engender groupthink, interbureaucratic rivalries and an assortment of other organizational pathologies that--big surprise--lead to leaks.

I guess that's why the study of this system is the star quality topic in security studies since 9/11. The more State Department friendly tail at in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence watched their star ascend higher and higher until they missed an opportunity to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers.

Then where the hell is all of it?

We didn't know much about his weapons whereabouts (or quantities) before 1991 and even afterwards UNSCOM managed to raise more questions than it settled. They could be anywhere, even nowhere. The former should worry everybody enough to make sure the question of whether they existed or not is settled without a doubt before asking what happens if they did not exist.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

I know, personal opinions don't mean much or hold any water. It's just one of those gut things you can't quite explain, I felt it for awhile, then I saw/heard/read about Paul O'neill's account of how the white house is run, and it only served to confirm it.

To quote James Fallows, a stronger war critic than yourself, "how is this news?" Everybody knew in 2001 that Hussein was on the radar screen for the administration. Why? Because in July 2001 Condoleeza Rice announced that "Saddam Hussein is on the radar screen for the administration." As for the war planning, of course it started early. We've had a standing OPLAN 03 (now 1003) for Major Theater War (then Major Regional Contingency) since 1991. It is updated every two years and 2001 was a year that the JOPES system requests the combatant commanders (then, briefly, CINCs) update war plans relevant to their area of operations. Other agencies of the government come into play to discuss intelligence, pretexts for and paths to hostilities, etc., including CIA, the DOE, even Justice and the INS.

This is entirely routine stuff, people. Just like the post war planning. When executed, it's not pretty (or surprisingly effective), but the fact is nobody just goes off to a room somewhere and hatches a plot to start a war.

Of course, we ARE talking about a potentially embittered ex-employee, but still. I think he was looking for any little reason to go back to Iraq, and while I admit Saddam was a bad guy, it was not worth 500+ american dead, thousands injured and three guys blown up by 30mm chaingun fire.

What is worth that much blood and effort, might I ask you?

As for the tinfoil hat thing, I should perhaps clarify that... Do you not feel like bush is simply parroting things his high-level cabinet tells him to?

The Bob Woodward book makes it very clear that he is not. Various left and right wing discussions of the Bush presidency make it very clear that thpugh he is a delegator and probably receives his information through several filters, he does receive competing counsel and he does make the final decision on major issues. Any other criticism about scripting has solely to do with solemanship, not how he governs.

You see? There are serious grounds on which to critique and defend the President and there are (and I like the term now) "tin foil hat" ways of going about it. Don't you think manner of criticism that finds it way into genuine public discourse is more appropriate for a person of your objective qualities?

Rev Prez

[revprez]

I seem to recall inspectors finding copious amounts of Dihydrogen Monoxide in scientists' homes, as well as some suspiciously long extension cords. Come on, why would the Iraqi scientists buy a 50-foot cord when a 25-foot one would clearly be sufficient? I think we all know the answer.

Yes, but the tap water and extension cords found in a scientists home cannot on their own be used to kill thousands. VX, anthrax, botulinum, mustard, and nukes can.

Rev Prez

[Chardok]

What is worth that much blood and effort, might I ask you?

Very few endeavors, I'm afraid. Open invaision of a sovereign nation, defense of said nation, defense of our nation. the kuwait war, for example, I can see. And Bush I even stopped at the kuwati border, to the dismay of many, but he did the right thing, IMHO. the Iraqis were routed nicely and kuwaiti oil for all! Whee!

[revprez]

Very few endeavors, I'm afraid. Open invaision of a sovereign nation, defense of said nation, defense of our nation. the kuwait war, for example, I can see. And Bush I even stopped at the kuwati border, to the dismay of many, but he did the right thing, IMHO. the Iraqis were routed nicely and kuwaiti oil for all! Whee!

And how does the threat represented by nexus of transnational and international terrorist organizations, rogue states, and weapons of mass destruction characterize that list of endeavors?

Rev Prez

[Chardok]

And how does the threat represented by nexus of transnational and international terrorist organizations, rogue states, and weapons of mass destruction characterize that list of endeavors?

Rev Prez

If I understand your Cryptic wording correctly (you'll forgive me, of course, if I do not, I am a graduate of the school of hard knocks. While well versed in english usage, some statements/inquiries are simply too complicated for my feeble brain to decipher.)

then my answer is this:
I don't really give a shit how they characterize that list of endeavors.

[revprez]

I'm asking if you've taken into account the threat represented by the nexus of transnational and international terrorist organizations, rogue states, and weapons of mass destruction?

Rev Prez

[Chardok]

I'm asking if you've taken into account the threat represented by the nexus of transnational and international terrorist organizations, rogue states, and weapons of mass destruction?

Rev Prez

So we should invade sovereign nations on the off chance they harbor terrorist organizations which may or may not have, or obtain in the future, weapons of mass destruction? My dear Rev Prez, if we did that, we would be living under the United Empire of Shrubby. If the only way to take out terrorist organizations were to invade their countries of origin/funding, well, you can't fool us again.

[revprez]

So we should invade sovereign nations on the off chance they harbor terrorist organizations which may or may not have, or obtain in the future, weapons of mass destruction?

No, we should invade sovereign nations that give us indication of a desire and capacity to build WMD, give them to terrorists, and show no inclination of responding to other options. Hussein had twelve years to get off his path, then another five months to clean up his act. He refused to comply. If that's not exhausting all options short of war, I don't know what is.

My dear Rev Prez, if we did that, we would be living under the United Empire of Shrubby. If the only way to take out terrorist organizations were to invade their countries of origin/funding, well, you can't fool us again.

We don't usually have to invade. Generally, host countries are rational enough to participate in eradicating the terror threat in their own borders. When they are cooperating with terrorists and trying to acquire WMD or expand what they have, when they refuse to acquiesce to diplomatic and economic pressure, then we strike militarily. This is an entirely manageable grand strategy.

Rev Prez

[Chardok]

North Korea.

[Knife]

North Korea.

Is starving to death in the dark. They're ripe to fall by themselves or with the help of other nations near them, like ROK or China. We don't need to invade Iran either because all indications are that they'll change in the next few years as well as the iron grip of the fundies slips.

[Chardok]

And perfectly willing to sell their shit to get more food and shit while putting on a pretty smiley face for the rest of the world.

[Knife]

And perfectly willing to sell their shit to get more food and shit while putting on a pretty smiley face for the rest of the world.

Thats the point. While I do not doubt the possibility of a rouge organization getting together a nice picknick basket, the amount of food and medical supplies that NK wants is only really available by those nations that don't want to let NK have nukes.

Thats the leverage we have right now in diplomacy. We tried to blockcade Saddam and it didn't really work. If after a decade NK is still threatening use of nukes unless the US trades food with them, then I'd advocate using force (sooner really but....).

[revprez]

Thats the leverage we have right now in diplomacy. We tried to blockcade Saddam and it didn't really work. If after a decade NK is still threatening use of nukes unless the US trades food with them, then I'd advocate using force (sooner really but....).

Hahaha...yeah, I would prefer to set the timetable beofre NK develops a megaton range capacity.

Rev Prez

[Knife]

Thats the leverage we have right now in diplomacy. We tried to blockcade Saddam and it didn't really work. If after a decade NK is still threatening use of nukes unless the US trades food with them, then I'd advocate using force (sooner really but....).

Hahaha...yeah, I would prefer to set the timetable beofre NK develops a megaton range capacity.

Rev Prez

Guess you missed;

then I'd advocate using force (sooner really but....).

[revprez]

Guess you missed;

then I'd advocate using force (sooner really but....).

Nah, I was responding in a good natured way to that paranthetical remark. Is it a cultural thing on this board to presume other posters are questioning the accuracy of your remarks all the time?

Rev Prez

[Stravo]

And they will feel no shame for it.

For some one that supported the war, you're awfully quick to point fingers.

I was told that we were in eminent danger of some sort of attack of chemical or biological agents by this adminstration. This administration initiated a campaign of fear and misinformation with innuendoes and not so subtle heavy handed tactics.

This new part line of liberation is utterly absurd and those service men and women he claimed to love so much in his DISGUSTING little photo op on the carrier spent months not receiving proper medical treatment (particularly among reservists) and were being told they would go home time and time again before suddenly changing their time frame. His callousness to the fighting man and woman (he has not attended any burials) is extremely troubling.

The entire Iraqi mission is a fiasco of epic proportions and just because you support an action does not mean you cannot criticize it. Support does not equate to blind devotion. I have never been a fan of this man but I approved of his hardline tact against the terrorists and anyone who poses even the remotest threat to us. After 9/11 there can be nothing but steel and fire for our enemies but the Iraqi person trying to eek out a living is NOT my enemy.

I recognize the good this mission has accomplished: getting rid of a dictator, liberating a populace, getting other nations to begin to fall in line (ie Libya), smacking France down in its attempt to think that it is even remotely relevant anymore, making this country stronger than it has been in a long time and making me feel safer. But at the same time I recognize many of the awful flaws and lies that have been perpetrated about this action.

[Darth Wong]

Is it a cultural thing on this board to presume other posters are questioning the accuracy of your remarks all the time?

Are you capable of discussing any subject without using the "appeal to motive" fallacy against those you disagree with?

[Stormbringer]

I know, personal opinions don't mean much or hold any water. It's just one of those gut things you can't quite explain, I felt it for awhile, then I saw/heard/read about Paul O'neill's account of how the white house is run, and it only served to confirm it. Of course, we ARE talking about a potentially embittered ex-employee, but still.

O'Neil's comments have only been damning if you buy into the tin foil hat brigade's notion. The most important of the charges were really that they were looking at regime change in Iraq and that's not damning at all considering Bush was open about wanting to do that. It was a campaign promise.

I don't know what else of substance there were to O'Neil charges beyond the usual smears and I have to say that's likely the embittered employee talking.

I think he was looking for any little reason to go back to Iraq, and while I admit Saddam was a bad guy, it was not worth 500+ american dead, thousands injured and three guys blown up by 30mm chaingun fire.

That might be damning, if he hadn't talked about doing what he did in his campaign and the previous administration at least looked at the same.

As to whether it was worth it, I don't honestly know the way things are goimg. As to the guys that got chain gunned, don't point RPGs at Apaches.

As for the tinfoil hat thing, I should perhaps clarify that... Do you not feel like bush is simply parroting things his high-level cabinet tells him to?

He's not afraid to listen to his advisor but I hardly think he's their puppet. Most presidents rely heavily on their advisors and it's only moronic left wing charges that have made that into something sinister.

Again, though, in this place of logic and reason, I concede my personal opinion doesn't count for much, except I know that one deluded madman, bad as he was, was not worth 500 americans men and women, (he wasn't even worth 500 American FISH) and billions upon billions of dollars. Saddam was effectively impotent after GWI. Plus, given that going to Iraq was about...finding WMD's, no wait, Freedom for Iraqis, no wait, Saddam is a bad guy, No, WMD's, wait a tick, We, uh, well, can't fool us again! HAd he given one reason and said THIS Is why we are going into Iraq and stuck to his guns, I would have swallowed, but it was a paper-thin case for Saddam's MASSIVE WMD program and how he was presented as an imminent threat to peace and freedom-loving people everywhere, then flip-flopping back and forth. *Gasp for air* THEN toss in the fact that he threw a hearty "Fuck-you-look-how-big-my-dick-is" into the face of the U.N and many longstanding Allies of the U.S., THEN excluded the countries who said fuck you right back from contracts in Iraq (though it WAS our prerogative) (and excluding subcontracts and whatnot) ON TOP OF creating this humongous budget deficit growing like stage 4 cancer cells, THEN he says "Hey guess whut? Weere goin' to da moon!" in an obvious attempt at election year voter-stroking......*gasps again*

Wow, now that's a rant.

I've had enough Bushism. I've bitten onto many of the democratic hopeful's rabid anti-bush stance, and I'm not ashamed to say it. I'm voting democratic to get that little shit out of office, point blank, game over.

That isn't anything to be proud of you're just an unreasoning pawn. If nothing else you ought to make up your mind and consider things rationally. Buying into the party line just because it's the party line is always a bad idea.

Time to clean house, Bring back Bill Clinton, have a nice day, do not pass go, do not collect 200.00, Merry christmas, kiss my ass, kiss his ass, kiss your ass, happy hanukah, Mazzeltoff. (sp?)

Bill Clinton served out his two terms. And he made a damn good mess of things too. It's just he's a charmer and the media as often as not failed to deal with the real issues.


PS: I want Bush out of office as well. But I'd rather not replace him with some one that'll screw things up worse than he did.

[revprez]

I was told that we were in eminent danger of some sort of attack of chemical or biological agents by this adminstration.

I've been informed, after a great deal of ridicule, that this is called argumentum ad verecundiam[/ii], the appeal to authority. I'm not so sure how it works as an excuse, but in my experience a fallacy is not committed when the source is deemed knowledgable and germane. After all, despite all the sourcing and fact checking journalists are still reporting a measure of their sources "because I say so" information.

This administration initiated a campaign of fear and misinformation with innuendoes and not so subtle heavy handed tactics.

This administration prepared a country for war after 9/11, leading Americans through two campaigns. I've seen no evidence of fear-mongering, disinformation campaigns, or heavy handedness. On the other hand, in the run up to the Iraq campaign kick off, I saw some of the most vicious and vile criticism of a sitting wartime president in modern times. The need to wage this campaign was thoroughly questioned from the start, and despite catcalls to the contrary the Administration never once labeled the very disloyal opposition unpatriotic. Sometimes I wish they had.

This new part line of liberation is utterly absurd and those service men and women he claimed to love so much in his DISGUSTING little photo op on the carrier spent months not receiving proper medical treatment (particularly among reservists) and were being told they would go home time and time again before suddenly changing their time frame. His callousness to the fighting man and woman (he has not attended any burials) is extremely troubling.

I find it simply amazing what critics will dwell on. It's January 2004 and people are still whining about the President's well-timed and appropriate trip to thank the returning sailors of the USS Lincoln for their service. On top of that, they're taking the President of the United States to task for mid-level management issues regarding unit deployment. Well, on behalf of the President I would like to apologize; I know it offends people to see the bourgeoise former ANG officer in the friendly company of the enlisted victims of this capitalist war (despite the fact these brainwashed peasants break 70-30 Republican most every election). I also know that it disgusts critics that the President has to take the military out and use it to protect this country 9/11 even though the armed services have yet to recover from all the hemorrhaging experience of the first six years of the last administration's tenure. How dare he show up Michael O'Hanlon, Will Gale and Kenny Pollock, once "Hawks on the Cheap" and now reformed "We Can't Do This For less than $1 Trillion so Let's Not," by being so bold as to implement a policy not approved by the Brookings shadow government!

The entire Iraqi mission is a fiasco of epic proportions and just because you support an action does not mean you cannot criticize it.

No, but out respect for mere courtesy it should mean you criticize it responsibly.

Support does not equate to blind devotion.

Support definitely does not equate to giving moral or material support to the terrorists through unpatriotic attacks on the President's character and motives and "no" votes on needed wartime supplementals.

I have never been a fan of this man but I approved of his hardline tact against the terrorists and anyone who poses even the remotest threat to us. After 9/11 there can be nothing but steel and fire for our enemies but the Iraqi person trying to eek out a living is NOT my enemy.

So what's your beef? The man articulated a policy that is the right direction for American national security. The machine goes to implement it. So far, you've spent a lot of time blaming Bush for what could be described as systematic problems in our government period. He didn't downsize the military. He didn't hired the analysts at the CIA. He didn't make the post war plans. We have hundreds of thousands of federal employees and servicemen and women who are responsible for national security implementing policy. Given how set the procedures of war planning and preparation are, tell me how is it President Bush has done worse in pursuit of what you admit is the right goal than your ideal President would have?

I recognize the good this mission has accomplished: getting rid of a dictator, liberating a populace, getting other nations to begin to fall in line (ie Libya), smacking France down in its attempt to think that it is even remotely relevant anymore, making this country stronger than it has been in a long time and making me feel safer. But at the same time I recognize many of the awful flaws and lies that have been perpetrated about this action.

See above. If you can think of a better way to have gone about things (and that doesn't mean fantasizing, but actual ways the government could have done a better job given all its bureaucratic eccentrities), then I'm waiting to hear it.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Is it a cultural thing on this board to presume other posters are questioning the accuracy of your remarks all the time?

Are you capable of discussing any subject without using the "appeal to motive" fallacy against those you disagree with?

Are you capable of seeing any exchange on this board as anything but an argument? I've got any number of substantive posts in this thread and you harp on the one that is just a friendly point of order. Jesus, what the hell is your problem anyway?

Rev Prez