You disagree with Kerry's point? Well, at least Kerry *had* points, as opposed to the rote repetition of phrases: "wrong war, wrong time, blah blah"; "it's hard work."
I agree that Kerry wasn't perfect. A "global conference" isn't a panacea. Talking about a "global test" was a bit of a gaffe. But Bush was an embarrassment. He had nothing to say but "changing course is bad" -- which is obviously not a truism.
Further, even on the point you challenge, Kerry's fundamental point is sound. On 9/12, Bush had the sympathy of the world. Within months he had turned it into antipathy (with a few exceptions -- including Poland). Regardless of whether you believe that the war in Iraq was a good idea, it seems hard to defend the accusations that Bush rushed into it, without sufficient effort to build consensus, for reasons which at best can be described as poorly considered, without carefully preparing for the aftermath of invasion (including sending troops that are not well equipped for a war of occupation), and that the consequences have been a tremendous drain on our military resources.
Sorry, but your disagreement on this point isn't interesting. Bush has burned some bridges; there's no way he can repair them. At least Kerry has a shot.
You disagree with Kerry's point? Well, at least Kerry *had* points, as opposed to the rote repetition of phrases: "wrong war, wrong time, blah blah"; "it's hard work."
I agree that Kerry wasn't perfect. A "global conference" isn't a panacea. Talking about a "global test" was a bit of a gaffe. But Bush was an embarrassment. He had nothing to say but "changing course is bad" -- which is obviously not a truism.
Further, even on the point you challenge, Kerry's fundamental point is sound. On 9/12, Bush had the sympathy of the world. Within months he had turned it into antipathy (with a few exceptions -- including Poland). Regardless of whether you believe that the war in Iraq was a good idea, it seems hard to defend the accusations that Bush rushed into it, without sufficient effort to build consensus, for reasons which at best can be described as poorly considered, without carefully preparing for the aftermath of invasion (including sending troops that are not well equipped for a war of occupation), and that the consequences have been a tremendous drain on our military resources.
Sorry, but your disagreement on this point isn't interesting. Bush has burned some bridges; there's no way he can repair them. At least Kerry has a shot.
Sorry Don, but you're fooling yourself if you believe that any President could convince the disingenuous frauds and liars who are ostensibly our allies (in the broader sense, obviously not in either Iraq or the War on Terror) to join us in demolishing their back-stabbing pocket-lining support of Hussein, or in validating that demolition by supporting Iraq's reconstruction.
Now you're dreaming. Kerry is saying, "I can" when reality dictates that he's actually saying "I wish." Talk about hubris.
"I can convince France and Germany to join us in our efforts."
"I can turn lead into gold."
Both sound about the same to me.
Sorry Don, but you're fooling yourself if you believe that any President could convince the disingenuous frauds and liars who are ostensibly our allies (in the broader sense, obviously not in either Iraq or the War on Terror) to join us in demolishing their back-stabbing pocket-lining support of Hussein, or in validating that demolition by supporting Iraq's reconstruction.
Now you're dreaming. Kerry is saying, "I can" when reality dictates that he's actually saying "I wish." Talk about hubris.
"I can convince France and Germany to join us in our efforts."
"I can turn lead into gold."
Both sound about the same to me.
Unworthy response, Boyd!
Facts > inference > wishing/namecalling
"disingenuous frauds & liars" -- namecalling
"you're dreaming" -- namecalling
"reality dictates" -- wishing
"[allies] join us" sounds the same as "turn lead into gold": subjective, not particularly interesting, and not supported by the facts. I understand analogy, but this is a poor one.
There are centuries of science which suggest that lead->gold is basically impossible. Getting the allies to the table may be unlikely, but it's much more likely than lead->gold as it violates no laws of physics nor requires nearly so much energy.
And you didn't bother to respond to my central thesis. Getting more allies to the table may be vanishingly unlikely; certainly all available evidence supports the thesis that Bush isn't capable of it. However, it is unproven whether Kerry can get them back to the table, and you cannot dispute that with Kerry it becomes *more* possible. There are diplomatic avenues you don't explore, such as what treaties our allies have been emploring us to sign (Kyoto, for example) that open a dialog.
In any event, your only real point here is the following: "Kerry is saying 'I can' when we know he means 'I believe I can'." And I'll grant that point. But then, that's just like Bush saying "we're seeing progress in Iraq" when he means "We've seen no progress, there's no indication we'll see any progress soon, internal reports suggest the best we can hope for is more of the same and the worst is civil war, but nevertheless I choose to ignore the evidence and believe that it'll start getting better soon."
Thousands of our boys dead, tens of thousands of civilians dead (mostly innocents), increasingly reduced control over the country, increased civil unrest -- dude, Bush is screwing up, and screwing up badly. The *only* thing he has going for him is that he honestly believes he's doing the right thing. Sorry, but even if he's correct, screwing up the right thing isn't good enough.
And that's the basic point Kerry has been making, strongly and repeatedly. Bush screwed up the timing, he screwed up getting bin Laden and other al Quaeda leaders when he had the chance, he screwed up getting international support, he screwed up getting the troops ready. In short, he hasn't gotten much right.
Unworthy response, Boyd!
Facts > inference > wishing/namecalling
"disingenuous frauds & liars" -- namecalling
"you're dreaming" -- namecalling
"reality dictates" -- wishing
"[allies] join us" sounds the same as "turn lead into gold": subjective, not particularly interesting, and not supported by the facts. I understand analogy, but this is a poor one.
There are centuries of science which suggest that lead->gold is basically impossible. Getting the allies to the table may be unlikely, but it's much more likely than lead->gold as it violates no laws of physics nor requires nearly so much energy.
And you didn't bother to respond to my central thesis. Getting more allies to the table may be vanishingly unlikely; certainly all available evidence supports the thesis that Bush isn't capable of it. However, it is unproven whether Kerry can get them back to the table, and you cannot dispute that with Kerry it becomes *more* possible. There are diplomatic avenues you don't explore, such as what treaties our allies have been emploring us to sign (Kyoto, for example) that open a dialog.
In any event, your only real point here is the following: "Kerry is saying 'I can' when we know he means 'I believe I can'." And I'll grant that point. But then, that's just like Bush saying "we're seeing progress in Iraq" when he means "We've seen no progress, there's no indication we'll see any progress soon, internal reports suggest the best we can hope for is more of the same and the worst is civil war, but nevertheless I choose to ignore the evidence and believe that it'll start getting better soon."
Thousands of our boys dead, tens of thousands of civilians dead (mostly innocents), increasingly reduced control over the country, increased civil unrest -- dude, Bush is screwing up, and screwing up badly. The *only* thing he has going for him is that he honestly believes he's doing the right thing. Sorry, but even if he's correct, screwing up the right thing isn't good enough.
And that's the basic point Kerry has been making, strongly and repeatedly. Bush screwed up the timing, he screwed up getting bin Laden and other al Quaeda leaders when he had the chance, he screwed up getting international support, he screwed up getting the troops ready. In short, he hasn't gotten much right.
Don(do) your central thesis seems flawed. How can any leader of a nation convince those on the same level in say France and Germany that going into Iraq is a worthy cause while those governments were making millions through the UN’s Oil for Food program? There's no way in hell they'd choose war over all the money they were illegally pulling in.
And if my convoluted memory serves me correctly both France and Germany have said that no matter who is elected they will not help out in Iraq and it’s all because some “chimp” had the balls to make the tough decisions. Hell we could have had UBL on a platter VIA Syria,(I think it was Syria, doesn’t matter), pre 9-11 but someone said “nah baby nah” because of international law.
Don(do) your central thesis seems flawed. How can any leader of a nation convince those on the same level in say France and Germany that going into Iraq is a worthy cause while those governments were making millions through the UN’s Oil for Food program? There's no way in hell they'd choose war over all the money they were illegally pulling in.
And if my convoluted memory serves me correctly both France and Germany have said that no matter who is elected they will not help out in Iraq and it’s all because some “chimp” had the balls to make the tough decisions. Hell we could have had UBL on a platter VIA Syria,(I think it was Syria, doesn’t matter), pre 9-11 but someone said “nah baby nah” because of international law.
Lighten up, Don. This isn't a formal debating society, and I like to interject some life into the discussion instead of some dry recitation of facts, coupled with the dry presentation of speculation and wishful thinking as though they were facts. I'm never going to be able to convince you of the error of your ways, nor you me, so we might as well have a little fun with it, okay?
That being said, while you're right that there exists some theoretical possibility that someone could bring France and Germany to the table, it's my judgment that they will never come. These two countries have a decades-long history of supplying military matériel to the region, especially Iraq. Not surprisingly, because it's all-too-human nature, they have placed their income before their relationships with other countries, and in many cases, breaking their word. It would be naïve to believe that there's the slightest chance that a President Kerry could overcome their self-interest.
And call it namecalling if you want, but it's just so unrealistic a position that only incredible naïveté or willful blindness to history can, in my opinion, allow someone to think otherwise.
Yes, science has proved that it's impossible to turn lead into gold. History has proved that neither France nor Germany are going to send their military to support a "Grand Diversion" and have one of their countrymen to be "the last man to die for a mistake."
Sure, agreeing to a bad treaty like Kyoto will convince them. Yup. I'd bet your paycheck on it.
There's no progress? You must be limiting your news to CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. There's plenty of progress. There's also a plan. You may not know about it, because, you know, the military has that silly principle of not telling our enemies what we're going to do. You know, so maybe we can limit our own casualties while maximizing the enemy's.
I know you're going to think this is incredibly trusting, but I think we're told way too much about planned military operations. I think we all too often undermine the effectiveness of military operations by "keeping the public informed."
You want to take a very hard, critical look at Abu Ghraib, great. If colonels, generals and political appointees were responsible for it, either through permission or negligence, spank 'em. And spank 'em hard. But you want to know about how they're going to attack the enemy in advance. Sorry, those guys on the ground (or in the air, or on/under the sea) are more important to me than you keeping an eye on what they're doing and how they do it.
"Bush is screwing up." That's your opinion. There are a lot of people, with no political axe to grind, who think you're dead wrong. And they're betting their lives on it.
Lighten up, Don. This isn't a formal debating society, and I like to interject some life into the discussion instead of some dry recitation of facts, coupled with the dry presentation of speculation and wishful thinking as though they were facts. I'm never going to be able to convince you of the error of your ways, nor you me, so we might as well have a little fun with it, okay?
That being said, while you're right that there exists some theoretical possibility that someone could bring France and Germany to the table, it's my judgment that they will never come. These two countries have a decades-long history of supplying military matériel to the region, especially Iraq. Not surprisingly, because it's all-too-human nature, they have placed their income before their relationships with other countries, and in many cases, breaking their word. It would be naïve to believe that there's the slightest chance that a President Kerry could overcome their self-interest.
And call it namecalling if you want, but it's just so unrealistic a position that only incredible naïveté or willful blindness to history can, in my opinion, allow someone to think otherwise.
Yes, science has proved that it's impossible to turn lead into gold. History has proved that neither France nor Germany are going to send their military to support a "Grand Diversion" and have one of their countrymen to be "the last man to die for a mistake."
Sure, agreeing to a bad treaty like Kyoto will convince them. Yup. I'd bet your paycheck on it.
There's no progress? You must be limiting your news to CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. There's plenty of progress. There's also a plan. You may not know about it, because, you know, the military has that silly principle of not telling our enemies what we're going to do. You know, so maybe we can limit our own casualties while maximizing the enemy's.
I know you're going to think this is incredibly trusting, but I think we're told way too much about planned military operations. I think we all too often undermine the effectiveness of military operations by "keeping the public informed."
You want to take a very hard, critical look at Abu Ghraib, great. If colonels, generals and political appointees were responsible for it, either through permission or negligence, spank 'em. And spank 'em hard. But you want to know about how they're going to attack the enemy in advance. Sorry, those guys on the ground (or in the air, or on/under the sea) are more important to me than you keeping an eye on what they're doing and how they do it.
"Bush is screwing up." That's your opinion. There are a lot of people, with no political axe to grind, who think you're dead wrong. And they're betting their lives on it.
And just to clarify, I don't want to be putting words into your mouth, either. I realize you didn't say anything about being told about military operations in advance. In re-reading my comment, I realize that I was incomplete in expressing my point.
And that point is, Kerry claims that the President has no plan in Iraq, and many liberals agree, because they haven't been told. I've got more faith than that in our military. The Army leadership aren't just letting the troops sit around in Iraq, waiting to get picked off by terrorists. They're moving forward, as evidenced in Samarra, but also in many smaller ways that don't get back to us through the conventional news organizations.
Trust me, if we weren't making progress in Iraq, we'd hear about it, and we'd hear it from the Army leadership (leaked, of course).
And just to clarify, I don't want to be putting words into your mouth, either. I realize you didn't say anything about being told about military operations in advance. In re-reading my comment, I realize that I was incomplete in expressing my point.
And that point is, Kerry claims that the President has no plan in Iraq, and many liberals agree, because they haven't been told. I've got more faith than that in our military. The Army leadership aren't just letting the troops sit around in Iraq, waiting to get picked off by terrorists. They're moving forward, as evidenced in Samarra, but also in many smaller ways that don't get back to us through the conventional news organizations.
Trust me, if we weren't making progress in Iraq, we'd hear about it, and we'd hear it from the Army leadership (leaked, of course).
Sorry if I came on a bit strong. The Iraq war is a bit of a sore point for me. I viscerally despise the fact that Americans are dying alone over there. I grieve that innocent Iraqis are dying. Take a look at this. This blood is on our hands. Will we ever be clean? Was it really worth it? THERE WERE NO WMD.
But nevertheless I agree with you on your last point: the military definitely has a plan, and I neither expect nor want to know the details. Don't get me wrong; I completely agree that the boys (and girls) on the ground are making a hell of a sacrifice, and I don't want to know anything that would make them less secure.
But that's really not my point. The question is, are the politicians hampering the military? Have they committed the resources necessary? Most importantly, did they prepare sufficiently and correctly before going in? I'm not much of a military guy, but it certainly seems to me that Bush/Ashcroft planned mostly for that exciting first part of the war -- and not at all for the long, dragging, horrid war that we're in now. "Open arms and flowers" was about the plan, wasn't it? And what about all the stories about insufficient body armor? And cutting combat pay? It just seems irresponsible.
Anyway, the most concrete, and I believe irrefutable screw up, is that Bush went to war on what was clearly bad intelligence. But you know what? Anyone capable of holding a crayon should have been able to tell it was crap. I mean, Powell's presentation to the UN was a farce. We can see these "mobile weapons labs" on satellite, but we can't chopper UN inspectors to see what's inside them? Right. And the Nigerian uranium crap, and the aluminum tubes crap -- both of which were known to be baloney when they were advanced as justifications. Condoleeza Rice had been briefed that the tubes were most likely to be intended for short term rockets. Do you recall that the night before the historic vote, Congress was briefed that there was specific and concrete evidence that Hussein had the capability to deliver WMD to the continental US? I mean, it just went on and on. And it was all, every little "north and east and a little bit west" of it, bullshit.
At the time, my conservative friends assured me that there must be more and better intel which would come out later. Well, it's later, and there's no more and certainly no better intel. He screwed that one up big time. And it's a really, really big one. So when you hear "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" -- that's what I believe is meant. If it hurts the morale of our troops, I am truly sorry; but if the Commander in Chief puts troops in harm's way, he damn well better be right. If he's not, then he needs to be held accountable.
Since you ask, I get my news from a variety of sources, primarily news.google.com, the Manchester Guardian, and a variety
Sorry if I came on a bit strong. The Iraq war is a bit of a sore point for me. I viscerally despise the fact that Americans are dying alone over there. I grieve that innocent Iraqis are dying. Take a look at this. This blood is on our hands. Will we ever be clean? Was it really worth it? THERE WERE NO WMD.
But nevertheless I agree with you on your last point: the military definitely has a plan, and I neither expect nor want to know the details. Don't get me wrong; I completely agree that the boys (and girls) on the ground are making a hell of a sacrifice, and I don't want to know anything that would make them less secure.
But that's really not my point. The question is, are the politicians hampering the military? Have they committed the resources necessary? Most importantly, did they prepare sufficiently and correctly before going in? I'm not much of a military guy, but it certainly seems to me that Bush/Ashcroft planned mostly for that exciting first part of the war -- and not at all for the long, dragging, horrid war that we're in now. "Open arms and flowers" was about the plan, wasn't it? And what about all the stories about insufficient body armor? And cutting combat pay? It just seems irresponsible.
Anyway, the most concrete, and I believe irrefutable screw up, is that Bush went to war on what was clearly bad intelligence. But you know what? Anyone capable of holding a crayon should have been able to tell it was crap. I mean, Powell's presentation to the UN was a farce. We can see these "mobile weapons labs" on satellite, but we can't chopper UN inspectors to see what's inside them? Right. And the Nigerian uranium crap, and the aluminum tubes crap -- both of which were known to be baloney when they were advanced as justifications. Condoleeza Rice had been briefed that the tubes were most likely to be intended for short term rockets. Do you recall that the night before the historic vote, Congress was briefed that there was specific and concrete evidence that Hussein had the capability to deliver WMD to the continental US? I mean, it just went on and on. And it was all, every little "north and east and a little bit west" of it, bullshit.
At the time, my conservative friends assured me that there must be more and better intel which would come out later. Well, it's later, and there's no more and certainly no better intel. He screwed that one up big time. And it's a really, really big one. So when you hear "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" -- that's what I believe is meant. If it hurts the morale of our troops, I am truly sorry; but if the Commander in Chief puts troops in harm's way, he damn well better be right. If he's not, then he needs to be held accountable.
Since you ask, I get my news from a variety of sources, primarily news.google.com, the Manchester Guardian, and a variety
...hmph. Lame. Got cut off without warning.
I get my news from a variety of sources, primarily news.google.com, the Manchester Guardian, and a variety of blogs. Most of the Blogs I read are liberal, though I try to follow a few conservative blogs. I look for discussions which are focused on cogent analysis and less on rabid ideology. I haven't found many conservative blogs which meet this standard, to be frank. That is why I continue to read yours; you generally do.
Curious -- and another apology up front if this sounds like a leading question -- but where do you get your news? Do you watch/read anything other than Fox?
...hmph. Lame. Got cut off without warning.
I get my news from a variety of sources, primarily news.google.com, the Manchester Guardian, and a variety of blogs. Most of the Blogs I read are liberal, though I try to follow a few conservative blogs. I look for discussions which are focused on cogent analysis and less on rabid ideology. I haven't found many conservative blogs which meet this standard, to be frank. That is why I continue to read yours; you generally do.
Curious -- and another apology up front if this sounds like a leading question -- but where do you get your news? Do you watch/read anything other than Fox?
It's late here in Virginia, so please forgive the brevity of my response, Don.
Key point: If you're seeking the truth, you would be well-served to remember that the intelligence on Iraqi WMD was wide-spread throughout the world's intelligence services. The left's attempts to brand this as a lie, or that it was stretched to make a point, seems to ignore that fact. And yes, I'll certainly concede that some key WMD intelligence points turned out to be quite bogus. But I, for one, can honestly state that WMD was merely one of a series of reasons I felt we were justified in invading Iraq. For what it's worth, the prime rationale in my mind was the 12 years and 17 UN Security Council resolutions since the first Iraq war.
And as to the source of my news, lessee. I actually rarely watch FNC, because the shows they have on when I'm in a mood to collect my news on TV are pretty lame. I subscribe to The Washington Post, and I don't subscribe to The Washington Times. I listen to talk radio during my commute, so in the morning I get a locally-produced talk show, one of the hosts of which is Fred Grandy (Gopher from Love Boat, oh, and he used to be a Republican Congressman). But they're pretty straight with the news (political news is ABC Radio News, or whatever they call it). Then at home, I tend to put on the local NBC-owned station, because I feel they have the best, most comprehensive newscast (and the longest: the local news runs from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., when Brokaw comes on). I often watch Brokaw's show, but my blog-reading has already alerted me to the issues of the day, so I try to contrast that with what I've read in the blogosphere.
And in regards to blogs, I'd say my primary blogs that I read are Outside the Beltway (and while James is conservative, you have to admit that he plays it pretty straight); Wizbang!; INDC Journal (all of these so far are fairly local to me); In Search of Utopia to argue with that commie pinko buddy of mine, David; Scott's (he commented above) Right Moment; and many, many others too numerous to mention, and I already feel bad for leaving so many good blogs out.
On the left side, in addition to ISOU, I drop by your blog every so often, Hellblazer, and I just stumbled upon Net Politik, where, as I said in a comment to an earlier post, I hope to have many a long, spirited, but ultimately fruitless discussion with Nick, a fellow Texan.
I used to read Kevin Drum, but he has so many absolute nutcases in his comments that I ultimately gave him up, just as I did Little Green Footballs, and for the same reason on the right-hand side.
Well, I've managed to take a half hour to write this, and it's now 2 a.m. Definitely time to go to bed.
Good night!
It's late here in Virginia, so please forgive the brevity of my response, Don.
Key point: If you're seeking the truth, you would be well-served to remember that the intelligence on Iraqi WMD was wide-spread throughout the world's intelligence services. The left's attempts to brand this as a lie, or that it was stretched to make a point, seems to ignore that fact. And yes, I'll certainly concede that some key WMD intelligence points turned out to be quite bogus. But I, for one, can honestly state that WMD was merely one of a series of reasons I felt we were justified in invading Iraq. For what it's worth, the prime rationale in my mind was the 12 years and 17 UN Security Council resolutions since the first Iraq war.
And as to the source of my news, lessee. I actually rarely watch FNC, because the shows they have on when I'm in a mood to collect my news on TV are pretty lame. I subscribe to The Washington Post, and I don't subscribe to The Washington Times. I listen to talk radio during my commute, so in the morning I get a locally-produced talk show, one of the hosts of which is Fred Grandy (Gopher from Love Boat, oh, and he used to be a Republican Congressman). But they're pretty straight with the news (political news is ABC Radio News, or whatever they call it). Then at home, I tend to put on the local NBC-owned station, because I feel they have the best, most comprehensive newscast (and the longest: the local news runs from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., when Brokaw comes on). I often watch Brokaw's show, but my blog-reading has already alerted me to the issues of the day, so I try to contrast that with what I've read in the blogosphere.
And in regards to blogs, I'd say my primary blogs that I read are Outside the Beltway (and while James is conservative, you have to admit that he plays it pretty straight); Wizbang!; INDC Journal (all of these so far are fairly local to me); In Search of Utopia to argue with that commie pinko buddy of mine, David; Scott's (he commented above) Right Moment; and many, many others too numerous to mention, and I already feel bad for leaving so many good blogs out.
On the left side, in addition to ISOU, I drop by your blog every so often, Hellblazer, and I just stumbled upon Net Politik, where, as I said in a comment to an earlier post, I hope to have many a long, spirited, but ultimately fruitless discussion with Nick, a fellow Texan.
I used to read Kevin Drum, but he has so many absolute nutcases in his comments that I ultimately gave him up, just as I did Little Green Footballs, and for the same reason on the right-hand side.
Well, I've managed to take a half hour to write this, and it's now 2 a.m. Definitely time to go to bed.
Good night!
Thanks for staying up so late -- I certainly didn't mean to keep you up!! Sheesh, it could have waited, couldn't it?
Anyway. Key point: you'd be well-served to remember that the intelligence on Iraq was flawed, and that much of it was known to be flawed when it was cited. So the justification for war was flawed. That is either incompetence, or -- well, if a marketer emphasizes supporting material to sell a bill of goods, his company is going to call it salesmanship, and the purchaser is likely to call it lies. Regardless of what you, personally, feel, the rationale that was advanced for war was imminent threat due to WMD. And quite simply, that. Was. Not. True.
It was a lie, or it was a screw up. Those really are your two choices, here. Or am I missing something?
I already read OTB daily. I'll check out the others you mention. I really do like having a balanced view, and it's really, really hard to get.
Thanks for staying up so late -- I certainly didn't mean to keep you up!! Sheesh, it could have waited, couldn't it?
Anyway. Key point: you'd be well-served to remember that the intelligence on Iraq was flawed, and that much of it was known to be flawed when it was cited. So the justification for war was flawed. That is either incompetence, or -- well, if a marketer emphasizes supporting material to sell a bill of goods, his company is going to call it salesmanship, and the purchaser is likely to call it lies. Regardless of what you, personally, feel, the rationale that was advanced for war was imminent threat due to WMD. And quite simply, that. Was. Not. True.
It was a lie, or it was a screw up. Those really are your two choices, here. Or am I missing something?
I already read OTB daily. I'll check out the others you mention. I really do like having a balanced view, and it's really, really hard to get.
Your missing something.
You make some sweeping claims, not all of which are well founded.
"...the intelligence on Iraq was flawed, and that much of it was known to be flawed when it was cited."
Assuming the reports of the exchanges amongst the principals are true, Tenant certainly overstated the certainty of the intelligence ("It's a slam dunk!"), but I don't believe you have any factual basis to say "much of it was known to be flawed when it was cited."
And why weren't you paying attention when the President cited the several rationales for deposing Hussein, such as, oh, I don't know, the failure to live up to multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, their continued attacks on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, and others.
And Don, you guys really need to stop putting words into the President's mouth. Not only did he not say that Iraq's WMD presented an imminent threat, he specifically said they weren't.
I know you passionately want the Bush Administration to be either bumbling fools or evil incarnate (or maybe switching back and forth from week to week), but just because that's what you want, and have a visceral hatred for All Things Bush, that doesn't mean that what you believe so passionately has a basis in fact.
Your missing something.
You make some sweeping claims, not all of which are well founded.
"...the intelligence on Iraq was flawed, and that much of it was known to be flawed when it was cited."
Assuming the reports of the exchanges amongst the principals are true, Tenant certainly overstated the certainty of the intelligence ("It's a slam dunk!"), but I don't believe you have any factual basis to say "much of it was known to be flawed when it was cited."
And why weren't you paying attention when the President cited the several rationales for deposing Hussein, such as, oh, I don't know, the failure to live up to multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, their continued attacks on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, and others.
And Don, you guys really need to stop putting words into the President's mouth. Not only did he not say that Iraq's WMD presented an imminent threat, he specifically said they weren't.
I know you passionately want the Bush Administration to be either bumbling fools or evil incarnate (or maybe switching back and forth from week to week), but just because that's what you want, and have a visceral hatred for All Things Bush, that doesn't mean that what you believe so passionately has a basis in fact.
First: yes, the president mentioned several other rationales, but claiming that they were primary or even frequently mentioned is deeply revisionist.
Second: Oy, vey, another semantic pissing contest about "imminent." Ok, here we go.
I did not put words in the President's mouth. It's well established that the president himself never said the words "imminent" and "threat" together regarding Iraq. However, what I said was "the rationale advanced for the war was imminent threat," and there's plenty of data backing that claim:
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"Iraq is busy [getting] chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. ... What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
...just a small sampling of the dozens of statements made by various spokespeople. "Imminent," "mortal," "urgent," whatever. The point remains that they claimed he posed a threat to the USA, and he did not.
If you're interested in more, check out the Center for American Progress.
If I can track down the various links I'll respond to the intelligence stuff later. But I'd like to ask due diligence from you, as well. Can you cite one claim about the threat posed by Hussein that has been borne out by fact? Can you cite one for which **at the time** there was no known reason to be skeptical?
Tell you what -- how about a bet? I live in Seattle; I'll send you some smoked salmon if I lose. You're in Virginia, right? Figure something nice to send when you lose.
So here's the bet:
For every claim you find that was true, I'll find two that were not; for every claim you find that was false, but could not be known to be false at the time, I'll find one that was.
And to be fair, we're talking about intel which justified the depiction of Iraq as a "threat of unique urgency."
Believe me, I really, really DO NOT want the administration to be bumbling fools! ...but I can't change reality and I'm unwilling to ignore the data. 
First: yes, the president mentioned several other rationales, but claiming that they were primary or even frequently mentioned is deeply revisionist.
Second: Oy, vey, another semantic pissing contest about "imminent." Ok, here we go.
I did not put words in the President's mouth. It's well established that the president himself never said the words "imminent" and "threat" together regarding Iraq. However, what I said was "the rationale advanced for the war was imminent threat," and there's plenty of data backing that claim:
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"Iraq is busy [getting] chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. ... What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
...just a small sampling of the dozens of statements made by various spokespeople. "Imminent," "mortal," "urgent," whatever. The point remains that they claimed he posed a threat to the USA, and he did not.
If you're interested in more, check out the Center for American Progress.
If I can track down the various links I'll respond to the intelligence stuff later. But I'd like to ask due diligence from you, as well. Can you cite one claim about the threat posed by Hussein that has been borne out by fact? Can you cite one for which **at the time** there was no known reason to be skeptical?
Tell you what -- how about a bet? I live in Seattle; I'll send you some smoked salmon if I lose. You're in Virginia, right? Figure something nice to send when you lose.
So here's the bet:
For every claim you find that was true, I'll find two that were not; for every claim you find that was false, but could not be known to be false at the time, I'll find one that was.
And to be fair, we're talking about intel which justified the depiction of Iraq as a "threat of unique urgency."
Believe me, I really, really DO NOT want the administration to be bumbling fools! ...but I can't change reality and I'm unwilling to ignore the data.
Historical information can be tough to track down (it's "hard work," doncha know), but I'm in pursuit of the information you requested, Don.
Historical information can be tough to track down (it's "hard work," doncha know), but I'm in pursuit of the information you requested, Don.
Well, I don't mean to be snotty, but -- wait, wait a minute. Yes, I do! -- it's sure not hard to find claims about intel which is NOT true. State of the Union addresses, presentations to the UN, campaign statements... it's a very long list. 
By the way, if you can't find ANY, I think you should just toss the hand in and admit that at least insofar as the stated reasons for war, the administration was either lying or (more likely) had their heads firmly in their fundament.
Well, I don't mean to be snotty, but -- wait, wait a minute. Yes, I do! -- it's sure not hard to find claims about intel which is NOT true. State of the Union addresses, presentations to the UN, campaign statements... it's a very long list.
By the way, if you can't find ANY, I think you should just toss the hand in and admit that at least insofar as the stated reasons for war, the administration was either lying or (more likely) had their heads firmly in their fundament.
Ready to concede?
Ready to concede?
Don't think I'm going to forget about this just because your son is a Marine, Boyd!
...what IS a geographically appropriate thing for you to send me when you lose?
Don't think I'm going to forget about this just because your son is a Marine, Boyd!
...what IS a geographically appropriate thing for you to send me when you lose?
Commenting by HaloScan.com
