• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

When you’re a Republican, they let you do it.

Bad people in a position to do bad things will do bad things because they are bad people. End of story.

Text STOP to opt out of updates on war plans.

Petty moves from a petty man.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

The willow is too close to the house.

Hell hath no fury like a farmer bankrupted.

Sometimes the world just tells you your cat is here.

Mediocre white men think RFK Jr’s pathetic midlife crisis is inspirational. The bar is set so low for them, it’s subterranean.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

Not loving this new fraud based economy.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

It is possible to do the right thing without the promise of a cookie.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

If you cannot answer whether trump lost the 2020 election, you are unfit for office.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / Glenn Responds

Glenn Responds

by John Cole|  September 25, 200611:24 am| 139 Comments

This post is in: Media, War on Terror aka GSAVE®, Blogospheric Navel-Gazing

FacebookTweetEmail

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.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Authoritah
Next Post: Left And Right »

Reader Interactions

139Comments

  1. 1.

    RSA

    September 25, 2006 at 11:44 am

    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:

    In his novel Soft Targets, Dean Ing suggested a media-based information campaign against terrorism. One of the many ways in which that novel is obsolete is that it’s now impossible to imagine the press cooperating.

    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.

  2. 2.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 11:51 am

    n 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.

    Ah, the memories:

    The Kids Aren’t Allright

    Glennuendo is trying to insert revisionist nuance into his thesis. He sucks at it.

  3. 3.

    jg

    September 25, 2006 at 11:54 am

    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.

  4. 4.

    Par R

    September 25, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Just like it is fair to point out that there are times when the media buys into the government spin on issues. WMD, anyone?

    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.

  5. 5.

    John Cole

    September 25, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Like I said- I was in on shutting them out of the debate. That is my bad.

    Unlike others, though, I own my shit.

  6. 6.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 11:59 am

    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.

    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.

  7. 7.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    Like I said- I was in on shutting them out of the debate. That is my bad.

    Unlike others, though, I own my shit.

    Word.

    After all the noise and churn, this is what keeps many of us around here.

  8. 8.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 12:02 pm

    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

    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.

  9. 9.

    norbizness

    September 25, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    “disinglennuous” isn’t a 21st century adjective for nothin’

  10. 10.

    The Other Steve

    September 25, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    John Cole wrote:

    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.

    I think Glenn Reynolds agrees with you John.

    Glenn Reynolds wrote:

    Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military conflict, and media coverage is an essential part of the terrorist plan.

    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.

  11. 11.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    Word.

    After all the noise and churn, this is what keeps many of us around here.

    Man, good thing I wasn’t reading back then, I would have blown an aneurysm.

  12. 12.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 12:11 pm

    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?

    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.

  13. 13.

    Par R

    September 25, 2006 at 12:11 pm

    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?

  14. 14.

    The Other Steve

    September 25, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    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.

    Which would have been a great argument to be had…

    BEFORE WE PROVED THERE WAS NO WMDS.

    Now it just sounds like whining.

  15. 15.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    In fact, I’m not aware of a single major intelligence service that held a contrary view. Can you?

    That’s right up there with “Putting food on your family” for diction, Par. Are you a speechwriter at the White House?

  16. 16.

    The Other Steve

    September 25, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    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?

    Whine whine whine

    Nobody likes me

    Everybody hates me

    I think I’ll go eat worms

  17. 17.

    Par R

    September 25, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    Typical response from lefty losers when they get caught lying and/or dissembling. Accuse the other party of “whining.”

  18. 18.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    virtually every intelligence service of every country in the world

    Every.

    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?

    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.

  19. 19.

    The Other Steve

    September 25, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    Typical response from lefty losers when they get caught lying and/or dissembling. Accuse the other party of “whining.”

    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?

  20. 20.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    I mean what the fuck is your point other than whining yourself silly?

    That spoofery is an honorable profession?

    Like mime.

  21. 21.

    Par R

    September 25, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    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.

  22. 22.

    Remfin

    September 25, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    In fact, I’m not aware of a single major intelligence service that held a contrary view. Can you?

    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

  23. 23.

    jg

    September 25, 2006 at 12:52 pm

    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

    No they didn’t. And Clinton didn’t cut and run after Black Hawk Down either. Everything you think is true is actually false.

  24. 24.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 1:03 pm

    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.

  25. 25.

    Par R

    September 25, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    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.”

  26. 26.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    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.

    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.

  27. 27.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    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.

  28. 28.

    Mr Furious

    September 25, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    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.

  29. 29.

    Mr Furious

    September 25, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    Oh, and to pretend that the media portrays crime with any neutrality is to laugh.

    Reynolds IS an idiot.

  30. 30.

    Par R

    September 25, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    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.

  31. 31.

    Mr Furious

    September 25, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    The record on that narrow point is absolutely beyond dispute, and I defy you or any other lefty to prove otherwise.

    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.

  32. 32.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 1:47 pm

    The record on that narrow point is absolutely beyond dispute, and I defy you or any other lefty to prove otherwise.

    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.

  33. 33.

    Par R

    September 25, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    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.

    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?

  34. 34.

    Pb

    September 25, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    Prewar Findings Worried Analysts:

    a close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president’s commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel, shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein’s alleged weapons programs.

    These included claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa for its nuclear program, had mobile labs for producing biological weapons, ran an active chemical weapons program and possessed unmanned aircraft that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. All these claims were made by Bush or then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in public addresses even though, the reports made clear, they had yet to be verified by U.S. intelligence agencies.
    […]
    On the day before the president’s speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball’s information on the mobile biological units in Bush’s speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball “problematical” and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters give “serious consideration” before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.

  35. 35.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    The record on that narrow point is absolutely beyond dispute, and I defy you or any other lefty to prove otherwise.

    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.

  36. 36.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    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.

    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.

  37. 37.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    I rather suspect that you don’t feel the same way about the failure of intelligence to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

    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).

    Under your approach, we should never “go to war” until, what, we have a videotapped confession from the potential enemy?

    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.

  38. 38.

    Sherard

    September 25, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    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.

  39. 39.

    Mac Buckets

    September 25, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    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.”

  40. 40.

    Sherard

    September 25, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    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.

  41. 41.

    Pb

    September 25, 2006 at 2:21 pm

    The idea that media coverage of the war is deeply, DEEPLY flawed is a fact.

    I agree with you there.

    they sure as HELL side against Bush, and far too often they are blindly accepting of anything that makes Bush look bad

    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:

    they sure as HELL side against Clinton, and far too often they are blindly accepting of anything that makes Clinton look bad

    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!

  42. 42.

    Jimmmm

    September 25, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    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

  43. 43.

    Detlef

    September 25, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Par R Says:

    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.

    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).

  44. 44.

    Davebo

    September 25, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    I expect Glenn will respond the exact same way I will – Please provide a list of these verified “lies”.

    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?

  45. 45.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    Somehow, now, we were supposed to take the word of a handful

    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.

    He tried to assassinate the President of the United States.

    Another myth. Please document with evidence.

  46. 46.

    RSA

    September 25, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    Or how about ANY coverage by the media of any storyline that remotely resembles success in Iraq ?

    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.

  47. 47.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    Or how about ANY coverage by the media of any storyline that remotely resembles success in Iraq ?

    Heh. Austin Bay tried that himself in 2004. Didn’t work out so well.

  48. 48.

    Richard 23

    September 25, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    If I were Bush, my speeches pre-war would’ve been very short.

    And America would have said “No way, President Buckets. Iraq is not a threat and we don’t believe in nation building.”

    LIES, I tell you! Good lord, John, your conversion to complete BDS sufferer is damn near complete.

    Great argument. I bet he needs some ice for that spanking you just gave him.

  49. 49.

    Jimmmm

    September 25, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    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.

  50. 50.

    Richard 23

    September 25, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    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.

    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?

    Or how about ANY coverage by the media of any storyline that remotely resembles success in Iraq?

    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.

  51. 51.

    Bruce Moomaw

    September 25, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    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.

  52. 52.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    If I were Bush, my speeches pre-war would’ve been very short.

    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.

  53. 53.

    Mr Furious

    September 25, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    If I were Bush, my speeches pre-war would’ve been very short.

    And your speech, Mac, would have been a lot closer to the truth as well.

  54. 54.

    Pb

    September 25, 2006 at 3:09 pm

    Maybe you should start your own cheerleading newscast on a public access channel.

    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!

  55. 55.

    Bruce Moomaw

    September 25, 2006 at 3:10 pm

    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.

  56. 56.

    Mr Furious

    September 25, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    I rather suspect that you don’t feel the same way about the failure of intelligence to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

    [/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?

  57. 57.

    Richard 23

    September 25, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    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.

  58. 58.

    The Other Steve

    September 25, 2006 at 3:29 pm

    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.

  59. 59.

    The Other Steve

    September 25, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    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.

    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.

  60. 60.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    There’s no whining in baseball, or on the internets.

    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.

  61. 61.

    Mac Buckets

    September 25, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    But anyway, you’d make as bad a war president as you do a troll.

    You sure are projecting your documented trolldom on those of us who’ve never been banned for being a troll. Why’s that?

    The country would never have given unquestioning support for that speech as a basis for war.

    I suspect they would’ve.

    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.

    Mushroom cloud talk and WMD were holdovers from Clinton and Madeline Not-so-bright. No one said Saddam did 9/11.

    all timed perfectly to take advantage of the lingering confusion and anger over 911 …. all of it, crap.

    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.

    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.

    Even allowing your characterization of “crap,” yep. Problem with that?

  62. 62.

    Tsulagi

    September 25, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    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.

    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.

  63. 63.

    Darrell

    September 25, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    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.

    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”

  64. 64.

    Mac Buckets

    September 25, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    He tried to assassinate the President of the United States.

    Another myth. Please document with evidence.

    Hell, it wouldn’t have even been the first time we attacked Iraq because of the Bush Assassination plot! The Gospel According to Bubba.

    Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving “compelling evidence” from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was “directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service.”

    “It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi government and directed against a former president of the United States because of actions he took as president,” Clinton said. Bush led the coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. “As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans,” Clinton said.

    After two months of investigation and mounting evidence, Clinton became convinced during two “exhaustive and exhausting” meetings last week that Iraq was indeed behind a foiled car-bomb plot to kill Bush during his visit to Kuwait April 14-16, a senior administration official said.

  65. 65.

    Darrell

    September 25, 2006 at 4:19 pm

    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.

    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.

  66. 66.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 4:22 pm

    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.”

  67. 67.

    Darrell

    September 25, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    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.

    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.

  68. 68.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    according to all accounts

    Name them.

  69. 69.

    Pb

    September 25, 2006 at 4:38 pm

    I just don’t see all these Bush admin “lies” you’re talking about.

    Take off the glasses. Also, learn to read.

  70. 70.

    DougJ

    September 25, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    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).

  71. 71.

    Darrell

    September 25, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    according to all accounts

    Name them.

    One of the problems with debating liberals, is that insist on debating well established facts..

  72. 72.

    Mac Buckets

    September 25, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    That’s it, it’s another Darrell-Mac thread.

    The Bright Light of Mac Buckets always sends the Cockroaches of Ignorance scuttling under the Refrigerator of Retreat.

  73. 73.

    jg

    September 25, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    Mac Buckets Says:

    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.

    Even allowing your characterization of “crap,” yep. Problem with that?

    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?

  74. 74.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    One of the problems with debating liberals,

    Yeah, whatever, but this is material from your “established facts” link:

    In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq posssessed or was developing BW agent production systems …

    ISG thoroughly examined two trailers captured in 2003 suspected of being BW agent production units, and …. judges that its Iraqi makers almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen. It is impractical to use the equipment for the production and weaponization of BW agent.

    —-//

    The IIS has a series of laboratories that conducted biological work including research into BW agents for assassination purposes until the mid-1990s. ISG has not been able to establish the scope and nature of the work at these laboratories or determine whether any of the work was related to military development of BW agent.

    (…although there is no evidence of it).

    (…there is no evidence to link (tests) with the development of BW agent for military use).

    —-//

    ISG has uncovered no evidence of … research into BW agents ny universities or research organizations.

    —-//

    ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992 Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent.

    —-//

    Iraq would have faced great difficult in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability — some declared — readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program.

    … Any attempt to create a new BW program would have encountered a range of major hurdles … staff could not receive techinical training abroad, foreign assistance was almost impossible to get. Additionally, Iraq’s infrastructure and public utilities were crumbling. New large projects … would attract international attention.

    —-//

    ISG did not discover chemical process or production units configured to produce key …CW agents.

    …There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions (after 1991) …..a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted … or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

    —//

    ISG discovered … that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after (1991).

    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.

  75. 75.

    Mac Buckets

    September 25, 2006 at 5:40 pm

    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…Am I wrong there?

    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.

  76. 76.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 5:51 pm

    I defend the decision based on the bulk of international intel in the area

    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.

  77. 77.

    Darrell

    September 25, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    The details and findings basically make a mockery of your argument, Darrell.

    My “argument” for which you demanded evidence was clearly stated here:

    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.

    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.

    Key Findings
    Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end
    sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

    Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that
    which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

  78. 78.

    The Other Steve

    September 25, 2006 at 5:54 pm

    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.

    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?

  79. 79.

    The Other Steve

    September 25, 2006 at 5:57 pm

    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.

    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.

  80. 80.

    Tsulagi

    September 25, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    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.

    ISG: Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

    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.

    ISG: In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.

    Bush/Rummy: They got 500 freaking metric tons of chemical weapons! We know they got ‘em and we know where they are.

    ISG: While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

    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.

  81. 81.

    The Other Steve

    September 25, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    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.

  82. 82.

    Darrell

    September 25, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    At what point, exactly did Hussein violate parole?

    Repeatedly blocking weapons inspectors in the 1990’s and ejecting them from the country. Also, shooting at our planes.

    Keep in mind, Bush had the Weapons Inspectors ejected so he could launch his war.

    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.

  83. 83.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    Saddam’s plan once sanctions eased up.

    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.

  84. 84.

    Darrell

    September 25, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    At what point, exactly did Hussein violate parole?

    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

  85. 85.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Saddam’s plan once sanctions eased up.

    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.

  86. 86.

    Darrell

    September 25, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Unfortunately, his capability wasn’t there

    False statement

    He didn’t really have a motive

    Idiocy

  87. 87.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    False statement

    Nope, true statement. Read your own links.

    Idiocy

    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.

  88. 88.

    jg

    September 25, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    Mac Buckets Says:

    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…Am I wrong there?

    Based on your track record, yes, you are probably wrong.

    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?

    You seem to be of the mind that government should be free to do whats best for us and to do so by misdirection if nescessary. Am I wrong there?

    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?

  89. 89.

    jg

    September 25, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    Keep in mind, Bush had the Weapons Inspectors ejected so he could launch his war.

    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.

    You really think TOS was talking about ’98? Not ’02?

  90. 90.

    srv

    September 25, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    Hell, it wouldn’t have even been the first time we attacked Iraq … The Gospel According to Bubba.

    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

  91. 91.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 8:02 pm

    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.

  92. 92.

    lard lad

    September 25, 2006 at 8:37 pm

    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.

    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.

  93. 93.

    Dug Jay

    September 25, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    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.

  94. 94.

    Sojourner

    September 25, 2006 at 8:42 pm

    I think that statement sums up well the utter ignorance and pathetic mindset of the left.

    Pssst… We were absolutely RIGHT and you were absolutely WRONG.

    Hah hah!!!

  95. 95.

    Sojourner

    September 25, 2006 at 8:44 pm

    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?

  96. 96.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 8:45 pm

    And that’s just in one week in April, 2006.

    I’m slowing down. Ordinarily I would do all that in one post.

  97. 97.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 8:46 pm

    “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.”

    Replace stickler with Mac Buckets, and the offer still stands.

  98. 98.

    lard lad

    September 25, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    Keep in mind, Bush had the Weapons Inspectors ejected so he could launch his war.

    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.

    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.

  99. 99.

    The Other Steve

    September 25, 2006 at 8:50 pm

    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

    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.

  100. 100.

    Ron Beasley

    September 25, 2006 at 9:10 pm

    I truly miss the days when the conservatives, with whom I normally disagree, were at least rational – like you John.

  101. 101.

    Pb

    September 25, 2006 at 9:35 pm

    Apparently Darrell thinks that Saddam was in charge of the UN–that would explain a lot:

    in 1998 when Saddam ejected weapons inspectors

    False, but he’s got company, and what else is new…

  102. 102.

    ThymeZone

    September 25, 2006 at 10:03 pm

    Apparently Darrell thinks that Saddam was in charge of the UN—that would explain a lot:

    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.

  103. 103.

    Pb

    September 25, 2006 at 10:09 pm

    Personally, I’d like to see Gilbert Gottfried get the job.

    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…

  104. 104.

    Derek

    September 26, 2006 at 1:46 am

    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.

  105. 105.

    The Other Steve

    September 26, 2006 at 8:11 am

    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.”

  106. 106.

    Andrew

    September 26, 2006 at 8:58 am

    EVEN THE GENERALS are traitors.

    Heh.

  107. 107.

    Andrew

    September 26, 2006 at 9:08 am

    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?

  108. 108.

    Pb

    September 26, 2006 at 9:21 am

    Derek,

    I hope this was a failed spoof attempt:

    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.

    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. :(

  109. 109.

    ThymeZone

    September 26, 2006 at 9:31 am

    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!

    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!

  110. 110.

    Mac Buckets

    September 26, 2006 at 9:42 am

    you’d need evidence to support the case that Saddam had WMDs, not that he didn’t have them.

    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.

  111. 111.

    ThymeZone

    September 26, 2006 at 10:03 am

    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.

    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.

  112. 112.

    The Other Steve

    September 26, 2006 at 10:04 am

    Actually, no.

    Please provide a source for any claims you make.

    Thank you.
    The Management

  113. 113.

    Andrew

    September 26, 2006 at 10:10 am

    Please provide a source for any claims you make.

    It comes from Mac’s gut and it feels like the truth. Good enough for me.

  114. 114.

    The Other Steve

    September 26, 2006 at 10:11 am

    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.

  115. 115.

    ThymeZone

    September 26, 2006 at 10:13 am

    It’s sad when you are afraid of the truth you have to spin it, and then hide from it.

    Yes, we weep for Mac Buckets.

  116. 116.

    The Other Steve

    September 26, 2006 at 10:14 am

    It comes from Mac’s gut

    So he really is just regurgitating this stuff.

  117. 117.

    ThymeZone

    September 26, 2006 at 10:18 am

    It comes from Mac’s gut

    Eeewwwwwww.

  118. 118.

    The Other Steve

    September 26, 2006 at 10:26 am

    LOve Capitalism!

    Get Regurgitator ringtones!

    That was the ad when I googled for regurgitate to see if I could find something funny for Melodrama.

  119. 119.

    Mac Buckets

    September 26, 2006 at 10:43 am

    Interesting, but irrlevant. What is relevant is the timeline and the words and actions of a government intent on ginning up a war.

    No, I was responding to Pb. Your post is irrelevant to that discussion. You’re trying to change the subject.

    Please provide a source for any claims you make.

    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.

  120. 120.

    ThymeZone

    September 26, 2006 at 11:15 am

    Your post is irrelevant to that discussion

    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.

  121. 121.

    TallDave

    September 26, 2006 at 11:29 am

    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.

  122. 122.

    TallDave

    September 26, 2006 at 11:36 am

    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.

  123. 123.

    ThymeZone

    September 26, 2006 at 11:44 am

    Yes, and history will judge whether leaving in power a regime that murdered around 100,000 people a year was justifiable

    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.

  124. 124.

    ThymeZone

    September 26, 2006 at 11:46 am

    whether freedom and democracy were worth fighting for.

    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?

  125. 125.

    Andrew

    September 26, 2006 at 11:46 am

    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.

  126. 126.

    The Other Steve

    September 26, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    Why should I be the only one?

    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.

  127. 127.

    The Other Steve

    September 26, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    John is propping up a rather silly strawman here.

    I think you need to learn the definition of strawman.

  128. 128.

    ThymeZone

    September 26, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    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.

  129. 129.

    The Other Steve

    September 26, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    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.

    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.

  130. 130.

    Mac Buckets

    September 26, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    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.

    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.

  131. 131.

    ThymeZone

    September 26, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    since you are well-documented buffoons when it comes to history.

    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.

  132. 132.

    Darrell

    September 26, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    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.

    Duh! Bush wanted to steal their oil, just like so many on the left have been telling us.

  133. 133.

    Darrell

    September 26, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    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

    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.

  134. 134.

    ThymeZone

    September 26, 2006 at 1:42 pm

    Duh! Bush wanted to steal their oil,

    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.

    The administration and military establishment do not routinely lie to the press.

    And you wonder why everybody laughs at you.

  135. 135.

    The Other Steve

    September 26, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    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.

    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.

  136. 136.

    Mac Buckets

    September 26, 2006 at 4:25 pm

    You’d come off sounding a lot more intelligent, if you could tone down the name calling.

    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.

    It really makes you appear quite pathetic

    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.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Woodwork » Blog Archive » Glennuendo says:
    September 25, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    […] from the Wingnut Debate Dictionary and Balloon Juice comments. […]

  2. Dean's World says:
    September 26, 2006 at 11:07 am

    reality vs spin

    John Cole, remarking on the thesis (advocated by Glenn, Austin Bay, and others) that teh media is actively supporting the terrorists’ goals, pretty much sums up my view.

  3. Balloon Juice says:
    September 27, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    […] Which, of course, was a response to the Austin Bay idiocy, in which he claims the media is working in concert with terrorists to ‘ambush’ the public. So, it seemed to me to the thing to do would be to list some administration/Presidential lies. Which I did. And I was lazy, and stopped at just four or five, when I could have gone on for hours. I did not conflate administration lies with military lies- I think the military does its level best to be honest and truthful within the constraints imposed upon them by their constitutional obligations and military regulations. But do they lie? […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Winter Wren - North of Quebec City (part 2 of 3) - Cap Tourmente and on the way to Tadoussac 4
Image by Winter Wren (5/16/25)

Recent Comments

  • prostratedragon on Open Thread: Oh, Really? (May 17, 2025 @ 5:22am)
  • prostratedragon on Totally Out of the Loop Open Thread (May 17, 2025 @ 4:54am)
  • Baud on Open Thread: Oh, Really? (May 17, 2025 @ 4:51am)
  • montanareddog on Open Thread: Oh, Really? (May 17, 2025 @ 4:45am)
  • oklahomo on Open Thread: Oh, Really? (May 17, 2025 @ 4:07am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!