Glenn posted a response to my opinion that it is stupid and offensive to blame the media for ‘ambushing’ us by reporting terrorist acts and jihadists threats, and I am not quite sure what to make of it. Glenn writes:
Cole undermines his case a bit by admitting that there are cases where media people have “behaved inappropriately” — that is, faked news on terrorists’ behalf, but the bigger point, stressed in my post and in the Austin Bay article that I linked, is that media attention isn’t just neutral coverage — the way it generally is with, say, urban crime — but rather the actual goal of terrorists. In fact, it’s their lifeblood. Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military conflict, and media coverage is an essential part of the terrorist plan.
Media people know this, and even admit it, but don’t let it affect their coverage — though as Pam Hess of UPI admitted, they’re far more careful about being spun by the U.S. military — and one reason why they don’t let it affect their coverage is that terrorism gives them ratings. That’s what I meant by their mutually-supporting relationship. Terrorists provide ratings (and, as we’ve seen, often via staged news events) and news media provide the coverage that terrorists need. As I’ve noted in the past, news media are entirely capable of moderating their own coverage when they think the stakes are high — say, protection of confidential sources, or promotion of racial tolerance — but here they clearly don’t feel that way. If they applied as much skepticism and adversarialism to terrorist behavior as they do to the U.S. military, few of us would be complaining.
I don’t think it is undermining my case to point out legitimate media failings. To the contrary, I think it strengthens my case to point out that, yes, there are times when the media is flawed and does ‘buy into’ jihadist spin. Just like it is fair to point out that there are times when the media buys into the government spin on issues. WMD, anyone? In the run up to the war in Iraq, whole segments of society were effectively shut out from the debate- cast as insane, crazy, anti-war activists and routinely ignored.
I was ok with that because, in my opinion, many of them were just that- insane, crazy, anti-war activists. That some of them turned out to be right about a number of things is egg on my face, not theirs. Ask your average lefty about the media coverage prior to the war in Iraq, throw in the name ‘Judith Miller,’ and then duck.
Regardless, it seems Glenn’s real complaint is that the media refuses to be spun by the ‘good guys,’ but is somehow buying the ‘spin’ of the bad guys. I don’t see that. I see them trying to report what they know at the time, and I don’t think what the jihadists and terrorists said was or is ‘spin.’ I think they really do want to do what they are saying, and I don’t have a problem with the media reporting that. That isn’t being spun- that is accurately reporting what they want to do, and I support them reporting it much like I support allowing the KKK to march down the streets of Skokie – I want to see what the crazy bastards are up to rather than having them fester underground.
At any rate, I simply do not buy the argument that the media being cautious when dealing with an administration and military establishment that routinely does lie to them is somehow a problem, and I don’t buy the argument that reporting the desires and statements of jihadists is somehow ‘helping’ them. If anything, it galvanizes support against them.
It seems to me the core of this distaste with the media is the false impression that, for whatever reasons, the media is on the side of the terrorists because they report what they do, yet not on the side of the good guys because they are skeptical after being lied to a number of times. If that is the case, Glenn’s problem isn’t the media coverage, it is that he is not getting to decide what the media is covering.
Finally, the debate we are now having is light-years apart from Austin Bay’s thesis. The media being insufficiently servile to the ‘good guys’ yet buying into the ‘spin’ of the bad guys is a whole different argument than Austin Bay’s claim that the media is ‘ambushing’ us and working in concert with the terrorists. Let’s quote Bay:
The ambush technique coordinates blood-spilling violence with sensational imagery and rhetoric using a dispersed network of media operatives, guerrillas and terrorists. Networked, Coordinated Blood-spilling plus Sensationalism — hence the technique’s acronym: the CBS ambush.
That is what Bay said, that is what Glenn endorsed (on several occassions), and that is stupid and offensive.
RSA
It’s hard to believe that Glenn actually thinks that news coverage of urban crime is neutral, when it’s been the subject of much controversy, and there’s good reason to think that it’s significantly biased with respect to race and age.
Another interesting point is how Glenn expects anything to be done about the situation he doesn’t like. He does offer this:
It sounds to me as if Glenn is unhappy that the press can’t be used as a governmental propaganda organ. What a strange point of view to come from a self-described libertarian.
srv
Ah, the memories:
The Kids Aren’t Allright
Glennuendo is trying to insert revisionist nuance into his thesis. He sucks at it.
jg
Glenn is an authoritarian and as such is trying to shape the media to fit his view. Either they play along or they stopped getting listened to by the masses. There can be only one authority and its judgement is not questionable.
Par R
This is pretty much a silly point in that virtually every intelligence service of every country in the world held the view that Saddam had WMD. Additionally, virtually all elements of the Clinton Administration, as well as most leading Democrats involved in defense and intelligence activities, held that same view in the run up to the Irag war.
John Cole
Like I said- I was in on shutting them out of the debate. That is my bad.
Unlike others, though, I own my shit.
ThymeZone
Nail, struck directly on head.
The most obvious thing about contemporary media “coverage” is that it reminds us of a security camera …. a lens just pointed at the world and wired to a thing that measures our responses to it. The camera that gets the most response gets the most screen time. If it’s a missing blonde, or a tanker truck fire on the interstate, or churn over a war or a policy decision, or the false dichotomy of the week …. the point is that the camera and the machine it is connected to really don’t care. The system is not “in league” with anything. Good or bad.
That is both its strength, and its weakness. And of course, it makes the system a scapegoat for all manner of things. The irony is that the decision about what to cover is made mostly by an applause meter which has no particular politics or ethics or morality whatever.
In the past, the means of distributing the stories we live by were controlled by powerful interests. Today, they are less and less controlled at all. This is both liberating, and terrifying, depending on who you are and what you expect from the storytelling.
ThymeZone
Word.
After all the noise and churn, this is what keeps many of us around here.
srv
More Appeals to Authority. Like, name us a single country other than the US that had intel operatives working in Iraq pre-2003? You can’t, but you can call them experts?
Right.
norbizness
“disinglennuous” isn’t a 21st century adjective for nothin’
The Other Steve
I think Glenn Reynolds agrees with you John.
It seems to logically follow that if Terrorism is an information war disgused as a military conflict, then a War on Terrorism is also a information war disguised as a military conflict. So yes, Glenn is basically complaining that having an independent news media(i.e. the protections provided by the First Amendment) is bad.
Now I happen to believe that GSAVE is similar to the Cold War, in that we aren’t fighting a military war, we are fighting a war of ideas. This is similar in nature to Glenn Reynolds insistence that this is an information war.
Where Glenn Reynolds, and ourselves disagree is that we believe we can win an information war by publishing the truth. That is, that our values and our ideology is naturally stronger than that of our enemies. We have no reason to hide from our values. In fact the openness of our values and ideology is what makes us stronger as a nation.
Now what we need to look at here is what do our enemies want? I think it’s clear looking at the old Iraq, present day Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and what not that our enemy which basically consists of radical Islam beholden to something they call Sharia law, wants an Authoritarian state. That is, a state which controls the people, and fundamentally a state which controls the media and tells them what they can and cannot say.
Which seems to be what Glenn Reynolds is arguing for, an Authoritarian state.
So fundamentally the question comes to my mind of who exactly is Glenn Reynolds fighting for? The US, or the Taliban?
Glenn is fundamentally wrong, and I think this goes right to the heart of why we are not winning a War on Terrorism. If the War is an information war, you cannot fight lies with lies. You must fight lies with truth.
You do not fight an enemy bent on the destruction of your values and ideology by denying your values and ideology. You fight that enemy, by proving that your values and ideology create something stronger.
This war our Cold War strategy, envisioned by Harry Truman. To prove that Communism was not a valid economic model, we had to show that our economic model worked and functioned better. And as Ronald Reagan so eloquently identified in his Evil Empire speech, it was the failure of the Soviet Union to provide for it’s citizens and ot grow it’s economy which ultimately brought about it’s collapse.
srv
Man, good thing I wasn’t reading back then, I would have blown an aneurysm.
ThymeZone
Somewhere in the CNN archives, there is a rather well done and matter of fact story about the tracking of oil shipments out of Iraq circa 2001-2002. Barrel by barrel, we were able to track the sale of the black gold by Hussein’s operations which were operating just below the sanction radar, and filling his underground vaults with cash. It wasn’t WMDs that Saddam hoarded, it was American dollars, by the millions upon millions.
But the point is, we were able to know this, and know it down to the truckload level, but we couldn’t figure out what was going on with the WMDs.
Why? The answer is way too obvious: For years, we were watching the oil, and ignoring the WMDs! That’s why we know where the oil went, and have no idea where the WMDs went.
That should tell you a lot about what our government really cared about before 911.
Par R
srv, France, Russia, and Great Britain are a mere handful of the countries with intelligence activities underway in Iraq in the subject period and that believed Iraq possessed WMD. In fact, I’m not aware of a single major intelligence service that held a contrary view. Can you?
The Other Steve
Which would have been a great argument to be had…
BEFORE WE PROVED THERE WAS NO WMDS.
Now it just sounds like whining.
ThymeZone
That’s right up there with “Putting food on your family” for diction, Par. Are you a speechwriter at the White House?
The Other Steve
Whine whine whine
Nobody likes me
Everybody hates me
I think I’ll go eat worms
Par R
Typical response from lefty losers when they get caught lying and/or dissembling. Accuse the other party of “whining.”
srv
Every.
Well, that’s better, but you specify 3 w/o evidence of “activies underway”. A mere handful of? Where’s all the evidence of these “activities” besides these general statements? You make it sound as though Iraq was crawling with spies from every country in the world. Surely, one of these Canadian or Brazilian spies wrote a book or something? No?
Me thinks you and the gov’t exaggerate. In reality, most of these countries assessments came from US/UK intel or UN inspectors. We know the former was cooked. The latter was more groupthink than evidence.
The Other Steve
Oh, what. You’re still insisting that since France thought something that makes it true, even when WE PROVED IT WAS WRONG!?
I mean what the fuck is your point other than whining yourself silly?
ThymeZone
That spoofery is an honorable profession?
Like mime.
Par R
PAY ATTENTION SRV AND THE OTHER STEVE – The attention span, or lack thereof, of lefties never ceases to amaze me. The point at issue started out as a mere statement that the US was not alone in believing that Iraq had WMD in the period prior to the start of the war in 2003….virtually every other country with an intelligence agency of any consequence believed the same thing. This is a simple fact. Look it up via Google.
Remfin
Well there’s France (yes, France, the quotes about WMD are not from their intel) and Germany…the 2 main opponents. I remember after one of those “tough on Iraq” soundbites someone asked the French (I believe UN Ambassador) what intel he had to support it, and his answer was “I don’t have any, but the Americans are so sure, and I trust them” – this was, of course, pre-Powell’s presentation, where the bumper crop of international support fizzled overnight
jg
No they didn’t. And Clinton didn’t cut and run after Black Hawk Down either. Everything you think is true is actually false.
srv
Par R says:
Translation:
“Respect Mah Authoritah!”
See Par, this is how it works. I ask a question, you contest and don’t answer it. You keep saying the same gibberish over and over.
For what I lack in attention span, you lack in critical thinking. Why would what every other intel agency (who have no demonstrable assets within Iraq) in world thinks be authorative? This isn’t a 2006 question. This is something alot of us asked when it was parroted before the invasion.
What made anyone besides the US, UK, German and French intel an authority in this matter? You might note that two of the above authorities had major questions, and intra-political debate wrt the WMD threat in Q1 of 2003.
But Costa Rican Intel was onboard. That’s all that matters. Just the facts please.
Par R
Continuing with the question of Iraqi WMD and views about the issue prior to the start of the war, K. M. Pollack, a senior intelligence analyst in the Clinton Administration wrote this in The Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2004 edition:
“Other nations’ intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat
remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal
Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build
a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held
positions similar to that of the United States; France’s President Jacques Chirac told Time
magazine last February, “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of
mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is
right … in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.” In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.”
Additionally, here’s some of the comments from the Clinto Administration senior officials on the same subject:
“In congressional testimony in March of 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton’s assistant
secretary of state for nonproliferation, summed up the intelligence community’s conclusions about Iraq at the end of the Clinton Administration:
“How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could
launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit
attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it
could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with
missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—
and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means,
such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient
quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner.”
ThymeZone
The complete lack of physical evidence was disturbing. It was all based on supposition and speculation. It was based on the lack of an official tableaux which would explain the lack of physical evidence. For want of an explanation of where they had gone, it was assumed that they must still be there. Hidden, or something.
Combined with the obvious lack of motive for using WMDs, and the lack of a means to deliver them effectively beyond his own borders, one had to doubt the pressured speech insisting that Saddam was this big threat. He never looked like one to me, and as it turned out, I was right, he wasn’t a big threat.
srv
Par,
I don’t mean to beat up on John today, but your appeals to Authority just didn’t work then, and they don’t work now:
Axis of Weasel
At least John has the courage to admit a mistake. You could learn from that. But don’t worry about it – it’s much more important that you learn to think for yourself.
Mr Furious
Par R,
As to the question of pre-war intel, NO ONE knew what the story was on Saddam’s WMDs. NO ONE! There were reports from many sources that thought he did, but there were also plenty of skeptics. As for our own intel, all clarifiers, qualifiers and skepticism were removed and a “slam dunk” case that didn;t exist was put forward. Doesn’t mean it’s what the intel showed or what the CIA, or White House actually believed.
Regardless, the inspection process was in full effect and would have revealed the truth without the 3000 dead American soldiers or $300 billion (or whatever) wasted.
It’s just like you clowns on the right to pretend there was an either or situation: We believe these “reports” and invade OR we all die a fiery nuclear death sometime in the future.
Or we could verify through coersive inspection and disarm Saddam if necessary. My money is on Bush and Cheney knowing the estimates were a crock of shit and they rushed the invasion for political timing and to kick things off before the inspections could reveal the truth.
Mr Furious
Oh, and to pretend that the media portrays crime with any neutrality is to laugh.
Reynolds IS an idiot.
Par R
srv – My intention was not to continue to argue that Iraq had WMD’s, but rather to observe that in the run up to the war, the Bush Administration views on the subject were virtually identical to that of all other major intelligence organizations in the world, including those of Germany, France, Russia, among many others. The record on that narrow point is absolutely beyond dispute, and I defy you or any other lefty to prove otherwise.
Mr Furious
You have to focus on such a narrow point, because anything more reveals the folly of your case for War. “That narrow point” was based on complete conjecture and speculation, it was not then, and should never have become, sufficient grounds to go to War.
That is my “narrow point.” And look who turned out right? Dispute that, Par R.
ThymeZone
It’s irrelevant. A superpower doesn’t go to war because a lot of other countries think something. It takes the time and does the work to find out the whole truth.
It doesn’t panic and rush to respond to a threat that doesn’t exist. It doesn’t manipulate its internal political theater to support the move because it’s afraid, apparently, of losing “momentum” toward a war that could turn out to be a giant fuckup. It doesn’t ignore the best advice of its own internal best people and rush headlong into foolish actions that make the world less safe and tear apart its own political fabric.
It doesn’t follow the the world’s conventional wisdom on a matter of such seriousness and technical blurriness. It gets to the truth, and leads the world.
Par R
I rather suspect that you don’t feel the same way about the failure of intelligence to prevent the 9/11 attacks.
Intelligence always depends to some extent on conjecture and speculation, and as to the POINT at hand, such speculation and conjecture was virtually unanimous among intelligence groups around the world. Under your approach, we should never “go to war” until, what, we have a videotapped confession from the potential enemy?
Pb
Prewar Findings Worried Analysts:
srv
Still changing the subject. I didn’t contest what others said (although Chirac saying “we don’t know, but we trust the American intel” ought to really say something to you), I contested what made them authorative sources? The government spin (everybody agrees with us) doesn’t make it more credible.
Particularly when y’all were ranting and raving about the Axis of Weasels from the only two countries who might have been authorative. They’re weasels, but their intel is good?
Sheesh.
ThymeZone
So, we go to war on the basis of unanimity in other countries?
Which doctrine does that come under, again?
Give it up, man. You’re giving spoof a bad name.
srv
I had every faith that gov’t would fail us when Osama finally came to America. I also have every faith that it will fail to protect us against the next real threat (Star of David, Lodi, Blowtorcher, etc, are not real threats).
Which we had from Osama, beforehand. Extraordinary claims (Iraq or Iran will attack us with WMDs) require extraordinary evidence.
Personally, Preventive War is not justified and immoral. See Iraq.
Sherard
I expect Glenn will respond the exact same way I will – Please provide a list of these verified “lies”. And I’m hoping against hope that “WMD” isn’t one of them, for I think you can count on one hand, the people that were saying there WEREN’T WMD in Iraq. Somehow, now, we were supposed to take the word of a handful, against essentially the combined intelligence community of most of the rest of the world.
LIES, I tell you!!!! Good lord, John, your conversion to complete BDS sufferer is damn near complete.
Mac Buckets
If I were Bush, my speeches pre-war would’ve been very short.
“Saddam didn’t disarm in accordance with UN Resolutions, so the Gulf War remains unfinished. He’s an evil bastard who kills his own people and can’t be trusted not to kill ours. He tried to assassinate the President of the United States. He sponsors and rewards acts of terrorism. His people are dying by the thousands every month because of his greed. They need to be freed and cared for, and he and his sons needs to be gone. If you’re with us, glad to have you. If you are against us and are in Saddam’s pockets (France, Germany, Russia — I’m looking in your direction), we will find out.”
Sherard
Also, let’s not forget, there is a difference between the problem and the solution. The idea that media coverage of the war is deeply, DEEPLY flawed is a fact. I agree 100% with Glenn.
The problem with John’s point of view is apparently the solution. John basically assumes that the media must a) report lies about terrorists, or otherwise supress reports about terrorists, while simultaneously, b) accepting lies from the administration or the military in order to fix the problem Glenn sees, but this is completely fallacious.
To fix the current state of affairs, you do not have to reverse the situation 180 degrees, but how about a LITTLE bit of muted response to terrorist killing instead of the predictable ratings rush. Or how about ANY coverage by the media of any storyline that remotely resembles success in Iraq ?
Maybe they don’t side with the terrorists, but they sure as HELL side against Bush, and far too often they are blindly accepting of anything that makes Bush look bad.
Pb
I agree with you there.
Whoops, disagree. What ‘media’ have you been watching these past few years? The media in general has been incredibly deferential to the President and The White House, in giving them the benefit of the doubt, and in running their statements and speeches. News stories often start out with a few paragraphs outlining just what the administration has been saying, and only after that getting to the rest of the story. Now if you had instead said, 8 years ago, this:
Then it would have been true, and I would have agreed with you. It amazes me how much conservatives bitch that their own cheerleaders in the media just aren’t clapping hard enough, and therefore should be forced to clap harder, dammit!
Jimmmm
Standard Glenn posture: “I’m not saying that Glenn Reynolds should be anally violated with a broken glass studded dildo dipped in yak dung, but I find it interesting that several top experts are suggesting just that: http://www.fuckglennreynoldsandhisfuckingstrawmen.com/tuitionrefund/UofTennessee
Detlef
Par R Says:
I followed your excellent advise. :)
Here´s what Putin said on October 11, 2002:
“Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress.”
Since you´re such a Google fan…
You can find the source by looking for “Putin Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data”
It´s the very first hit (Guardian, October 12, 2002).
Davebo
Just for starters there’s the claim that the IAEA issued a report that Saddam could have nuclear capability in as little as six months.
But you’re right, how could we have possibly known?
If only Saddam had given the inspectors full unfettered access to any site they chose prior to the war eh?
srv
Funny, I remember about 15,000 of us on Congress Ave.
And Saddams own son-in-law for one. You know, Saddams head of WMDs. And he died for it. Ole Dick loved to quote that guy too (still does, in fact), except the part about Saddam getting rid of his weapons after Gulf I.
Another myth. Please document with evidence.
RSA
My impression is that coverage of success stories in Iraq is proportional to actual success stories in Iraq. If you think that failures received too much coverage, reflect on the fact that we don’t see coffins coming back from Iraq or even injured American soldiers on TV. It shouldn’t be so much an issue of good stuff versus bad stuff in Iraq, but information that elicits engagement.
srv
Heh. Austin Bay tried that himself in 2004. Didn’t work out so well.
Richard 23
And America would have said “No way, President Buckets. Iraq is not a threat and we don’t believe in nation building.”
Great argument. I bet he needs some ice for that spanking you just gave him.
Jimmmm
We had excellent intel on Saddam’s WMD programs–from the UN inspectors, who were right. And, since the US had intel assets embedded in the UN team, we knew in 2002 that the UN inspection teams were right.
Just as there was no dearth of intel hinting at Saddam’s WMD, so, too, was there no shortage of evidence that he did not have functioning, capable WMD arsenals and development programs. It’s just that the latter didn’t dovetail with Team Bush’s pre-fab narrative.
So we took our eye off Afghanistan.
Richard 23
But that’s not he said she said. What you seem to want is more investigative journalism, not just a reporting of what has happened and what has been said about what has happened. The media is supposed to report, it’s your responsibility to think, right? They report, you decide?
That kind of opinionated commentary belongs on the editorial pages and in the National Review. You’ll probably even find your fish wrapped up in it.
Maybe you should start your own cheerleading newscast on a public access channel. You might become the next news network. Be the media, dude.
Bruce Moomaw
Virtually every nation’s intelligence agency DID believe that Saddam still had biological and chemical weapons. What they did NOT believe was that he had a significant program going for nuclear weapons, which are infinitely more dangerous and important than today’s biological (let alone chemical) weapons.
(And if he HAD had large amounts of biological and chemical weapons, then — precisely as the CIA tried to warn Bush in Oct. 2002 — his immediate reaction to any invasion would have been either to use them against our invading troops, or to threaten in advance to disperse them untrackably among terrorists. The first indication I had that something was amiss was his total failure to try to deter our invasion by threatening to do either one or the other with his CBWs.)
So — precisely because the White House was absolutely certain that the occupation and reform of Iraq would be a “cakewalk”, and that we could then use it as a platform to easily either overthrow the government of Iran or frighten it into giving up its own nuclear efforts — it was willing to lie about the size of Saddam’s nuclear program in order to convince the doubtful rest of the world to support its invasion. Now see the result of that mixture of stupidity and dishonesty; our military ability to try to eliminate Iran’s very real Bomb program — or to deal with any sudden crisis resulting from the fact that Pakistan and North Korea already have it — has been crippled.
ThymeZone
If only your speeches as yourself were as short.
But anyway, you’d make as bad a war president as you do a troll. The country would never have given unquestioning support for that speech as a basis for war.
That’s why we had the phony baloney mushroom cloud talk and the phony baloney insinuations … never too direct, to permit deniability later … of a connection between Hussein and 911. And the constant drumbeat of WMD fear music.
All the bullshit that sounded so convincing in 2002 and 2003, all the theatrical horseshit in the State of the Union speech, all timed perfectly to take advantage of the lingering confusion and anger over 911 …. all of it, crap.
So you supported crap. You defended the crap against the tsunami of facts which have discredited the crap. You defended the crap artists. And now you say, you’d have gone without the crap.
Sure you would.
Mr Furious
And your speech, Mac, would have been a lot closer to the truth as well.
Pb
I bet you could run an even more rabid version of Fox, and use *actual* cheerleaders for it. It’d be perfect–less debate, more cheering, less old geezers, more cheerleaders… it’d be like one big GOP pep rally, 24/7!
Don’t let Iran get a nuke / Their new Hitler makes me puke!
Hugo Chavez called Bush Satan / Venezuela stop the hatin’!
Terror lovers say farewell / send those traitors straight to Hell!
Goooo, Bush!
Bruce Moomaw
I’ll add that the UN inspectors were already on the verge of proving that Saddam had no significant Bomb program. Which is presumably why that leaked Downing Street memo — whose truth the British government refuses to deny — records Bush energetically trying to talk Tony Blair into helping him militarily trump up a fake “attack” by Saddam on the allies in order to provide adequate justification for an immediate invasion, before the inspectors could expose the nuclear fraud.
Mr Furious
[/subject change]
Nice attempt, jackass. Funny thing is, I don’t necessarily lay the blame for 9/11 solely on intelligence failure. In fact, you might recall a little report, “I think it was called…’Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.’ ”
I think the Administration taking a nine-month vacation from all thing terror-related didn’t help much either. Demoting the one guy (Richard Clarke) who took this shit seriously didn’t help, and neither did Cheney’s “terrorism task force” that never convened.
I’m sure any and all pre-9/11 intel reports that mentioned Bin Laden and failed to tie him to Iraq were promptly filed in the trash by the single-minded fucktards who were now running the show.
Got any more, Par?
Richard 23
Jeepers, if the Sherard News Network has actual cheerleaders I might even watch, with the sound down of course. Actually isn’t that the premise of Fox and Friends? It’s been so long since I’ve seen Fox News. My cable company doesn’t bother to carry it, surprisingly.
The Other Steve
Wow. Considering how batshit crazy Par R has turned out to be, it’s amazing to see Sherard come out to defend him.
Let me state this in small words, so that your primitive intellects can understand me.
It does not matter who thought Iraq had weapons before we invaded. What matters is that we found out that Iraq did not have weapons.
Your appeals to France claiming “well they believe it too” does not make you any less batshit crazy. In fact it sounds like whining.
There’s no whining in baseball, or on the internets.
The Other Steve
Jimmmm is right.
Just nobody wanted to listen to them. The Iraq war is a lesson on how politification of foreign policy can result in a disaster. Because PNAC and the Republican party thought that it made good politics to invade Iraq, they ignored all evidence that didn’t support their reasoning.
ThymeZone
And yet, there is in the White House, amongst the chest-thumpers who preach “Vote For Us Or Die” every two years.
These prattling little old ladies who can’t be bothered to take responsibility for their own intelligence resources suddenly turn into Strong Defenders of America at election time.
Mac Buckets
You sure are projecting your documented trolldom on those of us who’ve never been banned for being a troll. Why’s that?
I suspect they would’ve.
Mushroom cloud talk and WMD were holdovers from Clinton and Madeline Not-so-bright. No one said Saddam did 9/11.
I think you were the only one confused and angry. The rest of us just weren’t as trusting of Saddam’s good intentions as you were, I guess.
Even allowing your characterization of “crap,” yep. Problem with that?
Tsulagi
Look, they’re putting as much lipstick on this pig as they can. If he’s still not attractive to you, there is only so much they can do.
Plus we get another fallback meme of the retardocons “Hey, everyone else thought he had them too. Not our fault.” You could spend days, weeks, or whatever amount of time debunking that bullshit and it would all be wasted. Nothing sinks in that isn’t Hannity approved to get in the way of the parroting, or the goalposts simply get moved. “Don’t look at that now, look over here.” See Iraq fiasco.
Paul Wolfowitz, one of the principal architects of this mess, once observed in a rare moment of candor just after the invasion that the focus on WMDs was just politically convenient. Nothing to see here, move along was what he was saying as the WMD bullshit was unraveling even just two months into the war. Then Wolfowitz in true Bush admin fashion (see brain dead) said what people missed was the huge cool thing now that as a result of the war we could move troops out of Saudi Arabia which was pissing off bin Laden. Guess the freedomizing/democratizing theme hadn’t been fully formed yet back then.
When Franks and Pentagon staff were wrapping up their plans before the invasion started, they asked CIA and their own DIA what chemical weapons they would be facing and where they were located. Good thing to know in advance. Had to be known since their own SecDef had been flapping his arms saying of course Saddam has them you nitwits, and “they’re to the north, south, east, and west…”
The planning group asked if they could share that with them. First they were told it was classified. Huh?! Hey, we’re the good guys they said. After a lot of pressure including getting Franks involved, they got what we had. Nothing of value. 1991 after-action reports and not much else other than Chalabi supplied defector ramblings. Don’t know what Franks said when he got that, but BOHICA comes to mind. Just another day in the Bush administration.
Darrell
Sure it does, and everyone, even including those with ‘primitive intellects’, knows it. If a convicted criminal violates parole (or a murderous dictator violating terms of surrender) and refuses to turn himself in (ejecting weapons inspectors from the country as Saddam did with known uncaccounted stocks of WMDs), we have every right and obligation to take him out. It wasn’t just Bush, it was MOST Democrats screaming to take him out too.
That virtually everyone believed Saddam to have had WMDs is central to refuting the lies coming from liberals that Bush “lied”
Mac Buckets
Hell, it wouldn’t have even been the first time we attacked Iraq because of the Bush Assassination plot! The Gospel According to Bubba.
Darrell
Most of Saddam’s chem weapons programs, and from what I’ve read, many of his bio weapons programs too, could have been reconstituted in a very short time period, which, according to all accounts, was Saddam’s plan once sanctions eased up. That Saddam had little or no WMDs at that time (he had ejected weapons inspectors in 1998 with 4 tons of known Vx and hundreds of tons of weaponized chems at that time which are still to this day unaccounted for), does not make him much less of a threat, and does not change the fact that he had too many “second chances” over a 12 year time period in violating his 1991 terms of surrender.
ThymeZone
Welp. That’s it, it’s another Darrell-Mac thread.
Time to wrap it up.
Unless anyone thinks that a good exchange can be had around the subjects “Everyone thought he had WMDs” and “Mac would have made shorter speeches.”
Darrell
John, I just don’t see all these Bush admin “lies” you’re talking about.. nothing to the extent which we saw on the flip side with, for example, CNN’s willingness to keep open their Baghdad bureau under Saddam, knowingly reporting Saddam’s proganda in exchange for the privelege of keeping their Baghdad bureau during that time.
No White House spin even remotely compares to these kinds of media biases against Bush and in the media’s reporting of the war.
ThymeZone
Name them.
Pb
Take off the glasses. Also, learn to read.
DougJ
Glenn’s a jack ass (though not a bad person, perhaps). I’m glad you’re taking him on.
I still say — Surber’s the only honest Republican blogger out there (I don’t consider John to be a Republican blogger anymore).
Darrell
One of the problems with debating liberals, is that insist on debating well established facts..
Mac Buckets
The Bright Light of Mac Buckets always sends the Cockroaches of Ignorance scuttling under the Refrigerator of Retreat.
jg
Finally some honesty from Mac. It doesn’t matter what excuse the Bush administration gave for going into Iraq because you think it needed to be done. You weren’t paying attention to the excuses, they didn’t matter to you. The excuses were for those who needed convincing or to give the illusion that this governement was representative. You seem to be of the mind that governement should be free to do whats best for us and to do so by misdirection if nescessary. Am I wrong there?
ThymeZone
Yeah, whatever, but this is material from your “established facts” link:
ISG is the Iraq Study Group which wrote the report.
The details and findings basically make a mockery of your argument, Darrell.
This is why people ask for the supporting material when somebody pulls crap out of their ass like you do.
Mac Buckets
Based on your track record, yes, you are probably wrong.
I defend the decision based on the bulk of international intel in the area, and I am glad we didn’t decide that Saddam, whether he was running a bluff or whether he was getting jobbed by his scientists, deserved the benefit of the doubt. All that being said, I don’t think that stockpiles of WMD were necessary to make the case to oust Saddam. There were plenty of good reaasons to do so, and I’m glad we did it. That’s what I’m saying.
ThymeZone
Then you are basically done, because that is exactly why it was the wrong thing to do.
When you talk about “bulk of intel” you mean “bulk of intel opinion.” There wasn’t any actual intel that would have supported the WMD theory. There was speculation and opinion. Had there been solid intel, with empirical data, pictures of usable stockpiles of munitions, delivery mechanisms, and plans for using them …. we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Those pieces of information weren’t available, because the weapons weren’t there. What was available was the unsupported opinion of some intelligence agencies who failed to ask for and get the facts on the ground.
Facts which would have been available if inspections had continued. Facts which became obvious once we invaded.
You were wrong. Now you are still wrong but claiming to be have been “right” because a lot of other people were wrong too. At the end of the day, you think the ends justify the means, so your squishy wrongy-rightyness is moot since getting rid of Saddam was a “good thing.”
Of course, there’s no empirical evidence today to suggest that getting rid of Saddam was actually a good thing, and plenty to suggest that it wasn’t. But facts mean nothing when you can invent the line of manure that you have spreading here for as long as I’ve been here.
But hey, you managed to troll another thread here. Good work.
Darrell
My “argument” for which you demanded evidence was clearly stated here:
You then proceeded to dispute the “according to all accounts” part, which the Duelfer and Kay reports both confirmed. My argument was not whether Saddam had or did not have WMDs as you dishonestly characterize it being the jackass you are.. my argument, as plainly stated above, was what was Saddam’s plan once sanctions eased up.
The Other Steve
At what point, exactly did Hussein violate parole?
Keep in mind, Bush had the Weapons Inspectors ejected so he could launch his war. So you can hardly claim that Hussein wasn’t abiding by the terms of the agreement.
Nope, sorry. It appears Darrell has jumped to the defense of the batshit crazy brigade. Will Melodrama Buckets be far behind?
The Other Steve
Now wouldn’t it have been a lot easier if you’d made this incredibly compelling argument prior to invasion? I mean, think about it… You wouldn’t be sitting here defending a failed foreign policy adventure which was premised upon what has since been confirmed as a pack of lies.
Now, granted, some people say that if Melodramatic Buckets and his lip fetish Bush had made that case people would have called them bleeding hearts and hardly taken them seriously. But you know, wouldn’t it have been nice to at least found out for sure?
Instead, all we got is this pack of lies for you to defend.
Although I must admit, you look mighty pretty with your lips sewn to Bush’s ass.
Tsulagi
Damn, ThymeZone, you beat me to it. But here it is one more time for the totbots since I already had it written…
Bush/Condi: Smoking gun mushroom clouds. Eeeeeek, the ALUMINUM TUBES! Repeat over and over and over until brain seared.
Powell at U.N.: We know they have mobile chemical weapons labs. Get the duct tape and plastic ready if we don’t punch out Iraq now.
Bush/Rummy: They got 500 freaking metric tons of chemical weapons! We know they got ‘em and we know where they are.
What you had in Duelfer was someone hand-picked to provide after-action findings to support pre-action “known” facts. He didn’t have near enough lipstick to get anywhere near that for this pig. So what you got was 1000+ pages of air with a few quantifiable facts like those above.
The Other Steve
BTW, the fundamental problem I have with Melodramatic Buckets, Darrell and company defending an invasion of Iraq based upon Bleeding Heart concepts, is…
they also defend Torture as necessary.
Darrell
Repeatedly blocking weapons inspectors in the 1990’s and ejecting them from the country. Also, shooting at our planes.
Got news for you TOS, Bush wasn’t President in 1998 when Saddam ejected weapons inspectors. But perhaps Clinton was under the control of Karl Rove’s mind control rays.
ThymeZone
Right. His “plan.” His “desire.”
Unfortunately, his capability wasn’t there. He didn’t really have a motive. Even if he had been able to reconsititute the programs, it would have taken years to bring them to fruition, and even then, there were no delivery systems available, no military units ready to deploy them. And no rationale for the action would have existed, since any eighth grader could have figured out that the retaliation for the use of WMDs outside his borders would have been something akin to annihilation at worst, regime change at best.
The whole “threat” fabrication made no sense in 2002, and it makes no more sense today.
The fact that you can cover for being a damned fool by showing the names of other damned fools doesn’t, in the end, make you anything but a damned fool.
Darrell
I think that statement sums up well the utter ignorance and pathetic mindset of the left. Seriously.. with all that was known then, and all that is known now about Saddam’s regime, to ask a question like that is an incredible example of this liberal tendency
ThymeZone
Saddam had a brain fart. He didn’t have a plan. Even if he had had a real plan, he couldn’t have carried it out.
Even if he had managed to carry it out, it would have been suicidal for him to do so.
It was farce four years ago, and it’s farce today.
Darrell
False statement
Idiocy
ThymeZone
Nope, true statement. Read your own links.
Nope, truth. Hussein was first and foremost a thief, and was not about to do something that would bring the wrath of the West down on his country. He was chafing under sanctions because they put a wet blanket on his larceny. Why would he stir up an even worse hornet’s nest by using WMDs on our allies? The idea of it is beyond ludicrous.
What’s more, I am pretty sure that the warmongering neocons knew it was a ludicrous idea from the get go. Only people like you would fall for such a line of crap.
Hussein’s entire schtick was larceny, the theft of his country’s oil money. He was just another one of the Arab crapheads who figured out that they sat on a pile of potential money that required little from his country’s citizens in order to get at it. Just another raghead despot stealing the oil revenues.
jg
You fucking tool. Thats not what I was asking if I was wrong about. Its pretty fucking obvious what I was asking about. Why do you have to be dishonest and pretend I was asking about the part you selectively quoted? Is that what Hitchens would do?
Am I?
You said above that the wmd crap wasn’t a basis for your decision. Fine. It wasn’t for mine either. How do you feel about it being USED to get people who didn’t already know Saddam needed to go, to go along with the idea of removing him?
jg
You really think TOS was talking about ’98? Not ’02?
srv
Curiously the bomb evidence didn’t really match Iraqi explosives (as originally alleged), that was found not to be ‘relevant’, and the ‘bombers’ were tortured.
Lab report
ThymeZone
OMFG. Again, Keith Olbermann has administered a complete, full body, exhaustive ass-kicking to the sorry excuse we have for a president.
Hard to believe, but this one was the hardest and best smackdown yet.
If you can, see it later tonight on the re-cast. Or watch it later on streaming MSNBC video.
lard lad
Because our li’l sojourn in Iraq has turned out to be such a rousing success, of course. A few more “victories” like this one (Iran? Syria? France?), and we’ll be dominating the globe for the cause of righteousness, spreading our free-market democracy to every nation, just like the neocons envisioned it!
Mmmm… taste the freedom.
Dug Jay
It’s time to once again put up “The Best of ThymeZone, Nutcutter and/or good-old ppgaz”, per former commenter at Balloon Juice, Brian:
“SHUT THE FUCK UP”
“FIRE THEIR SORRY ASSES”
“Fire these incompetant sonsabitches and get new government. That’s what America is for, it’s why we have elections and stuff. To get rid of the imcompetants and the crooks and the liars and the self-serving fucks.”
“Don’t EVER give somebody else a hard time about citing facts, you asshole. You sling proof-by-assertion crap in here every fucking day.”
“Answer the goddammed question”
“Now go away and shut the fuck up.”
“Suppose you’re a shepherd, and you crave sex with sheep”
“Ben Stein, the fat slob”
“Jesus. Do you ever stop to think before you post?”
“this is the piece of shit that you posted”
“You fear-mongering, bigoted asshole”
“you are really making an ass of yourself now”
“why do we have to settle for this kind of dumbshit Stormy-scs-stickler commentary in here?”
“I find you a suck-ass embarassing piece of crap, myself.”
“shut the fuck up”
“fuck every lying Jew in the world.”
“Limp-wristed bastard.”
“resident piece of shit homophobe”
“Fuck them…..It’s about me”
“What possible rationale can there be for a Darrell or scs or Stormy … or stickler … to post here?….Close the door to those four psychotics, and I’ll not post here again until they do…..I’m dead serious.”
“Which version of the UN do you want to jerk us off about?”
“Shut up, and answer the questions that have been put to you.”
“Like I said, stick-up-your-ass, you are just making this stuff up.”
“Fuck off, man. You’re a joke.”
“Go away, seriously. You think you can just make shit up and peddle it here? STFU. Beat it. You aren’t even being funny any more.”
“Seriously, go away. You’re embarrassing yourself now.”
“What a frigging idiot.”
“Bill Bennett is a big fat lying stupid piece of shit.”
“make some stupid arcane point on a stupid fat pig’s radio show,”
“Aw, shove it your dirtpipe…..This is just boilerplate righty noise machine crap.”
“That’s your entire stock in trade, asshole.”
“John Cole is Darrell’s bitch.”
““Remember the lessons of 9-11” said the great George Fucking W. Bush”
“You’re about due for a cockslap.”
“if you don’t understand something I say, that’s your problem, pal! Fuck you!”
“he is a big fat pompous asshole who doesn’t care about anything or anybody but himself”
“I have always held iron workers in the highest regard.”
“I’m too lazy”
“religion and prayer is a crutch of the weak”
And that’s just in one week in April, 2006.
Sojourner
Pssst… We were absolutely RIGHT and you were absolutely WRONG.
Hah hah!!!
Sojourner
Olbermann was spectacular tonight. Say what you want about Clinton but he had the guts to point out the elephant in the room. If Clinton didn’t do enough (which he admits), then why did the Bushies do NOTHING?
ThymeZone
I’m slowing down. Ordinarily I would do all that in one post.
ThymeZone
Replace stickler with Mac Buckets, and the offer still stands.
lard lad
God, Darrell, you are truly a chucklehead. George W. Bush yanked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 2002 weeks before Shock and Awe commenced, because he decided that Saddam was a Bad Man, and that Saddam allowing the inspectors in wasn’t enough to keep us from invading after all. At least that’s more or less what he said. As for Bush’s real reasons for pulling the inspection plug… well, I’m sure anyone with the sense God gave plankton can figure that one out.
The Other Steve
To the folks at home. Darrell is playing the old confidence game. That is a scam, a grift, a con, a flim flam.
The funny thing is, he knows he’s wrong. But he tries to pretend like he hasn’t been caught spouting off batshit lunatic nonsense, by accusing everybody else of it first.
It’s really quite sad and pathetic.
Psst… Bush ejected the weapons inspectors in 2003.
Ron Beasley
I truly miss the days when the conservatives, with whom I normally disagree, were at least rational – like you John.
Pb
Apparently Darrell thinks that Saddam was in charge of the UN–that would explain a lot:
False, but he’s got company, and what else is new…
ThymeZone
Personally, I’d like to see Gilbert Gottfried get the job.
Just the idea of having the General Assembly sitting there, and the cry of “AFLAC!!!!!!!!!!!!”
C’mon, you know you love it.
Pb
Maybe he could simultaneously (a) get “The Aristocrats” joke translated into dozens of languages, and (b) help start World War III! Then he’d be at least one up on Bolton…
Derek
Every person I talked too before we invaded Iraq who thought saddam did not have any WDMs never listed any evidence of to suport it. It was pretty much like saying I have a gut feeling that the steelers are going to beat the colts. So the guessed right. Next week they may guess wrong. Either way it was a guess not based on any type of evidence.
The Other Steve
Looks like Newsweek got the message from Reynolds.
Newsweek across the world
In Europe, Asia, Latin America the cover of Newsweek reads “Losing Afghanistan”.
In the United States, afraid that such a message will have dire consequences on the War on Terror, that they may be providing aid and comfort to terrorists if they let them know things aren’t going well in AFghanistan… Newsweek has a cover story about a celebrity photographer.
Hat tip to sources.
Stay tuned next week to see if Glenn Reynolds whines about terrorists reading the European version of Newsweek and not the American version. “Whaaaa! The terrorists don’t fight fair! How can we have a disinformation war, if they don’t read what we publish.”
Andrew
EVEN THE GENERALS are traitors.
Heh.
Andrew
Oh yeah, who thinks that the right wing keeps people like Jonah Goldberg around to make moderately stupid commentators like Glenn Reynolds look intelligent by comparison?
Pb
Derek,
I hope this was a failed spoof attempt:
Apart from the question of whether or not you made it out of grammar school, you’ve gotten this one precisely wrong–you’d need evidence to support the case that Saddam *had* WMDs, not that he didn’t have them. But you’re in good company here–in fact, the Bush administration actually tried to use the argument that he didn’t appear to have them as *proof* that he had them–therefore, he must have been *hiding* them! So they really don’t get the whole “you can’t prove a negative” concept.
But really, if it had been a question of evidence, then we would have let the weapons inspectors do their jobs–after all, they were busily finding out that Saddam didn’t appear to have WMDs as well, and they said as much to The White House. Unfortunately, that very admission likely sped up the rush to war. :(
ThymeZone
Exactly. Remember all those aerial photographs and the bizarro speculations about where the WMDs might be?
All’s well that ended well, though. Bush was able to use the mystery as the basis for a comedy routine after the invasion when no weapons were found. At least he got a few good laughs out of it!
Mac Buckets
Actually, no. According to the UN, Saddam had to prove that he had destroyed his WMD and illegal weapons programs in the presence of UN inspection teams (just like South Africa had done with no problems a few years earlier). Every involved admitted Saddam chose not to adhere to these protocols, that tons of illegal WMD materials were unaccounted for, and that Iraq was hence in violation of the UN Resolutions. So Saddam did, in fact, need to show records whereby he proved he didn’t have WMD.
ThymeZone
Interesting, but irrlevant. What is relevant is the timeline and the words and actions of a government intent on ginning up a war. By the simple expedient of additional inspections, the matter could have been settled without war.
Americans thought they went to war to avert an immediate and dangerous threat to their safety. Not to prove a procedural point. The threat didn’t exist, and after the Bush White House took the time to make a comedy film about it, they settled down to the business of moving the goalposts and trying to re-cast the rationale for war.
It was an irresponsible mockery of process by a government that has consistently mocked process in every avenue of its policies and actions. And one which you have steadfastly, albeit unsuccessfully, defended here, and for reasons known only to you, continue to defend.
Be a man and stand up like John Cole. Show some guts.
The Other Steve
Please provide a source for any claims you make.
Thank you.
The Management
Andrew
It comes from Mac’s gut and it feels like the truth. Good enough for me.
The Other Steve
This is interesting…
Apparently the Clinton interview has been the #1 vid over at youtube.com, and it’s having the opposite effect as the wingnuts spin would have you believe.(you remember the spin, when Melodrama Buckets claimed it was bad for Clinton)
So Fox is having all the videos pulled from youtube claiming copyright violations. Certainly within their rights, and I could see if they wanted to make sure people viewing it were coming to their site.
Yet what’s interesting, you go over to Fox and they don’t have the full video there… just their spin takes on it. A 30 second clip, some commentary from Real Bullshit Politics and so forth. Their top video appears to be about When Sharks Attack or somesuch.
It’s sad when you are afraid of the truth you have to spin it, and then hide from it.
ThymeZone
Yes, we weep for Mac Buckets.
The Other Steve
So he really is just regurgitating this stuff.
ThymeZone
Eeewwwwwww.
The Other Steve
LOve Capitalism!
Get Regurgitator ringtones!
That was the ad when I googled for regurgitate to see if I could find something funny for Melodrama.
Mac Buckets
No, I was responding to Pb. Your post is irrelevant to that discussion. You’re trying to change the subject.
Why should I be the only one?
Look, I’ve long realized that you are all remedial history students, but this is common stuff you should all know.
Just leave your questions and I’ll answer them.
ThymeZone
Heh. I think others will judge that.
And of course, history will judge whether a technical, lawyerly argument about sanctions and procedures is enough to justify a war lasting at least 5 years and costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. My hunch is that history will judge that harshly, so say the least. In fact, the process is already well under way.
When you argue, you sound like a defense lawyer for an obviously guilty man, pleading that we should let your client off on a technicality.
Let’s just say, in this forum you may not have the jury you need.
TallDave
for whatever reasons, the media is on the side of the terrorists because they report what they do
John is propping up a rather silly strawman here. This is not the problem Glenn and others have pointed to; the problem raised is that the media is reporting what the terrorists WANT them to report. For instance, all the Hizbollah propaganda, like the staged ambulances, the stuffed animals, the photoshopped disasters, Miss “I lost seven homes” and the magical missile hole. Not to mention Green Helmet Man.
That’s besides the ridiculously sympathetic treatment of savage mobs whipped into a frenzy over silly stuff like the Mohammed pics. The media should be asking who the hell is inciting that violence and why, not treating the thing like some genuine, spontaneous outburst of Muslim outrage at the insensivity of the West.
And let’s not even start on Bilal Hussein.
The media needs to be more skeptical of terrorist agitprop. They’ve been irresponsibly credulous. It’s to the point they are more inclined to believe terrorists than our military.
TallDave
history will judge whether a technical, lawyerly argument about sanctions and procedures is enough to justify a war lasting at least 5 years and costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
Yes, and history will judge whether leaving in power a regime that murdered around 100,000 people a year was justifiable. And whether allowing that regime to develop WMD was acceptable. And whether freedom and democracy were worth fighting for.
ThymeZone
Of course it was, and always has been. The alternative requires us to argue that it’s America’s job in the world to get rid of despots. That is not our role in the world, and hopefully, never will be.
The US did not go to war in Iraq to liberate the Iraqis. It went to war to protect America and its allies from a perceived threat which turned out to be nonexistent.
ThymeZone
That’s a huge lie, of course. The fact that something is “worth fighting for” is not a mandate for America to go and fight for it wherever and whenever the problem presents itself. And being against such a policy is not embracing the idea that those things are not worth fighting for.
Do you see yourself as making speeches to fifth graders?
Andrew
TallDave, which regime are you referring to? Pick up to one to invade:
1) Burma
2) North Korea
3) Iran
4) Iraq
5) Pakistan
6) Afghanistan
We invaded Iraq for freedom and democracy? The only way a person could be more stupid is if you had a love child with Jonah Goldberg.
The Other Steve
You’re not. Darrell also has a tendency to make claims without backing them up.
But since you have a history of wingnuttery, I think it would be advantageous for you to actually try to look up sources for your claims. It might educate you on reality.
The Other Steve
I think you need to learn the definition of strawman.
ThymeZone
The prosecution rests. The jury will now withdraw and deliberate.
Mac Buckets, Darrell and TallDave, the defense team, will keep talking, but they’ll have to do it out in the hallway.
The state’s team will be partying over at the Reality Bar and Grill, eating suicide wings and drinking mass quantities. Your boy is going DOWN.
The Other Steve
You know. I struggle with this one. Considering my girlfriend is from Russia. You’re telling me that it would have been better to slaughter her family 40-50 years ago, then for them to have to live under Communism. This is a choice for them that *YOU* feel justified in making.
Here’s the thing. It’s their country. If they want democracy or capitalism or whatever, then I say we give them guns and let them fight for it. I don’t have any problem with that. In fact, I think we need to be doing more to encourage that. But once they form a government, once they have an election, the BUTT OUT.
But that’s quite a bit different from your patronistic state sponsored push for democracy whether or not people want it. Your “We know better than you, how you ought to live your life” immoralism just sickens me.
I’d really like to know just how different you think you are from the Communists, who thought an elite few ought to make the decisions for everybody else.
And you wonder why when you post here people call you evil. It’s because you are evil.
Mac Buckets
Then I require the same of all of you moonbat trolls, since you are well-documented buffoons when it comes to history.
When you have an intelligent question regarding my earlier post regarding Iraq’s burden with respect to disarmament, just let me know. I’ll answer it with the required documentation and in small enough words for you to understand. I’ll also probably ridicule you a bit for not knowing this basic stuff in the first place.
ThymeZone
Yeah, right …. there’s nowhere that the Bush team shines more than in its grasp of history.
I’ll bet you $100 that George Bush couldn’t find Mesopotamia on a map when he was first sworn in.
Hell, he might not even be able to find it now.
Darrell
Duh! Bush wanted to steal their oil, just like so many on the left have been telling us.
Darrell
The administration and military establishment do not routinely lie to the press. I think that statement itself is a lying smear on the part of John Cole.
ThymeZone
Nope. They didn’t want the inspections to find that the big scary WMD threat wasn’t so big and scary, because they wanted their war.
And you wonder why everybody laughs at you.
The Other Steve
You’d come off sounding a lot more intelligent, if you could tone down the name calling.
It really makes you appear quite pathetic, the fact that the only way you can defend your ideas is by calling everybody else st00pid.
Mac Buckets
Serving up anther heaping bowl of irony, are you? You would be wise to adhere to your own advice re: namecalling, eh? And frankly, I’m not concerned in the least how I “come off” to you, dude.
Actually, you know what looks pathetic and unintelligent? How you idiots whine about my not documenting basic recent history that every one of you should know if you are having this discussion, and then when I ask specifically what questions you have and what points of mine you dispute, you all run away and whine that I’m a big meanie, because you know if you mention anything, you’ll get smoked! Now that’s pathetic.