A scene from the future : SDW is being taken away in a jacket mumbling " There were WOMD in Iraq.....All 50 states.........it's all Katie Courics's fault! "
Come on SDW! I suppose if Bush fries over this it'll be someone elses fault?
The fact of the matter is right now unless Bush and company can come up with a very good ( and plausible ) explanation this is a very major rock in his road.
Cheers ( as they say )!
Still in check.
Personal insults aside:
If Bush fries over this (which he won't...you can quote me on that), it will be because he's done something so blatantly illegal and stupid that even his own party can't ignore it. The only way this could happen with regards to WMD is if somehow it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt (no legal context intended) that Bush unequivocally KNEW the intelligence was flawed when he used it. It would have to be proven that he intentionally mislead Congress. Let me say that again: INTENTIONALLY.
Now really jimmac, let's go back to Ocham's Razor for a second: Assuming the already unlikely and implausiable event that Bush DID lie as stated above, which do you think is more likely?
1) Bush will take the heat and resign or be removed in a blazing hellfire of shame?
2) Bush's poltical machine will scapegoat someone for faulty intelligence, assigning all blame to a few individuals.
Seriously, you and I both know the answer here. This is even assuming that the administrative team could so shit-all stupid as to let him go out there an knowingly lie to start a war.
If Bush fries over this (which he won't...you can quote me on that), it will be because he's done something so blatantly illegal and stupid that even his own party can't ignore it. The only way this could happen with regards to WMD is if somehow it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt (no legal context intended) that Bush unequivocally KNEW the intelligence was flawed when he used it. It would have to be proven that he intentionally mislead Congress. Let me say that again: INTENTIONALLY.
Now really jimmac, let's go back to Ocham's Razor for a second: Assuming the already unlikely and implausiable event that Bush DID lie as stated above, which do you think is more likely?
1) Bush will take the heat and resign or be removed in a blazing hellfire of shame?
2) Bush's poltical machine will scapegoat someone for faulty intelligence, assigning all blame to a few individuals.
Seriously, you and I both know the answer here. This is even assuming that the administrative team could so shit-all stupid as to let him go out there an knowingly lie to start a war.
But he's president. He was soooooooo sure. No one seemed to want to stop him because he had proof! This is so blatant I vote for number one. The intelligence community is saying that they were telling him it was a falsehood nine months before! Stuff like this can be like pulling thread out of a sweater. Once it starts to unravel other things may come to light and it might not stop! He'd better come up with a good one fast!
Sorry but it's not looking like he will come away from this uneffected. Once a lie has been established the american people don't react so kindly. Just look at Clinton.
ut he's president. He was soooooooo sure. No one seemed to want to stop him because he had proof! This is so blatant I vote for number one. The intelligence community is saying that they were telling him it was a falsehood nine months before! Stuff like this can be like pulling thread out of a sweater. Once it starts to unravel other things may come to light and it might not stop!
Sorry but it's not looking like he will come away from this uneffected. Once a lie has been established the american people don't react so kindly. Just look at Clinton.
Still in check. [/strawman]
You've perverted the accusation, jimmac.
What has been said (and hasn't been proved, btw] is that the intel community presented information to "The White House". That doesn't mean it got to him. I would venture to guess that there is a lot of intel coming in to his team, and that only a small pert of it is presented to him BY OTHER PEOPLE.
What has been said (and hasn't been proved, btw] is that the intel community presented information to "The White House". That doesn't mean it got to him. I would venture to guess that there is a lot of intel coming in to his team, and that only a small pert of it is presented to him BY OTHER PEOPLE.
Back to your typical defence of "but Bush is grossly incompetent, not a liar."
really, your posts do the work for us.
Ohhh! Two strawmen in one field Mommy!
I never said Bush was incompetent...you did. Proving that would be difficult as well. If the intelligenc eitself was wrong, does that make HIM incompetent? No. What if the people that collected the intelligence changed it when they presented it to Bush's team? What if someone on the team itself distorted it when it was presented to Bush? Does this make Bush incompetent? No.
The hunt for WMD is not over, even though you'd like it to be. Even if WMD is not found (and my contention is that it may have already been or wll be before the next election), Bush is NOT going to take the fall. You can't possibly be so naive as to think he will...even if he is guilty.
I never said Bush was incompetent...you did. Proving that would be difficult as well. If the intelligenc eitself was wrong, does that make HIM incompetent? No. What if the people that collected the intelligence changed it when they presented it to Bush's team? What if someone on the team itself distorted it when it was presented to Bush? Does this make Bush incompetent? No.
The hunt for WMD is not over, even though you'd like it to be. Even if WMD is not found (and my contention is that it may have already been or wll be before the next election), Bush is NOT going to take the fall. You can't possibly be so naive as to think he will...even if he is guilty.
Talk about straw you're clutching at them!
Look I've got to go to work but I'll be back. We'll see how the day unfolds.
You can't possibly be so naive as to think he will...even if he is guilty.
Is this really all it's about to you? Reelection? I've noticed in several war threads now, you just say "yeah, but he'll be re-elected, even if he is guilty." We all understand, from the other political threads you've started, that you really really want Bush re-elected. But what about simple right and wrong?
Sorry, but anyone who really looked at the evidence knew that what was being presented was BS. The president is ultimately responsible not only for the decisions he makes, but for the fate of the country militarily. The buck stops there.
Really there are only two possibilities: he is grossly incompetent or he lied.
And hasn't your belief system been decimated enough?
What has been said (and hasn't been proved, btw] is that the intel community presented information to "The White House". That doesn't mean it got to him.
Is this really all it's about to you? Reelection? I've noticed in several war threads now, you just say "yeah, but he'll be re-elected, even if he is guilty." We all understand, from the other political threads you've started, that you really really want Bush re-elected. But what about simple right and wrong?
No. Of course not. I don't believe Bush knowingly lied. If I see evidence he did, then we have a problem. So far, I have zeen about zero evidence of that. Zero. All we have is questions which laypeople can't usually know the answers to right away.
Quote:
Sorry, but anyone who really looked at the evidence knew that what was being presented was BS. The president is ultimately responsible not only for the decisions he makes, but for the fate of the country militarily. The buck stops there.
Really there are only two possibilities: he is grossly incompetent or he lied.
And hasn't your belief system been decimated enough?
Let's look at giants debate techniques:
The first sentence tries to make the old "reasonable person" argument. Basically, he's saying "anyone who saw what I saw would agree". Ummm. No.
The second and third sentences are a perversion of the "responsible for the conduct of the crew under my command" idea. If this logic is taken to the extreme, Bush could be help responsible for a Captain in the Army cheating on his wife (a court martial offense).
The next part about possibilities is a classic use of the "False Dilemma" debate tactic. The debator presents two choices when in fact there are many more possibilities. Either way, the choices benefit the presenter. Nice try.
The last part is what I call the "disqualification" technique. The presenter attempts to invalidate the argument by invalidating not the argument, but the opponent himself. Again, nice try.
The answer to your question, btw, is no. My belief system has been anything but disproven. It is liberals like you who have been proven wrong on virtually every national security issue since the Cold War.
And bunge: I disagree. He can't be held responsible (legally or probably, politically) if the information given to him by trusted advisors was flawed. He can rhetorically assume it, but it it's kind of meaningless to say "he's responsible". As I said, by your logic Clinton should have been tried for manslaughter for every casualty in the military under his command.
The first sentence tries to make the old "reasonable person" argument. Basically, he's saying "anyone who saw what I saw would agree". Ummm. No.
Ummm, yeah.
I liked how blix put it:
"What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons," Blix said in an interview with the New York Times.
"I don't see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied" existing reports by UN inspectors, he said.
"Is the United Nations on a different planet? Are reports from here totally unread south of the Hudson?"
Quote:
The second and third sentences are a perversion of the "responsible for the conduct of the crew under my command" idea.
By definition of his job he is responsible. Oh, and by defintion of his his, he is the one who holds responsibility for leading us to war.
Quote:
The next part about possibilities is a classic use of the "False Dilemma" debate tactic.
It's not a debate tactic, it's the simple truth. Any alternative you've presented falls squarely under incompetence. The fact is that anyone who looked at the reports knew there was no threat. So either he lied or is grossly incompetent. An, no, you can't put the blame on anyone else for Bush's actions.
Quote:
The last part is what I call the "disqualification" technique. The presenter attempts to invalidate the argument by invalidating not the argument, but the opponent himself...My belief system has been anything but disproven. It is liberals like you who have been proven wrong on virtually every national security issue since the Cold War.
Well, while you are looking to rationalize yourself out of your sad, sad pit, the rest of us are dealing with reality. How many threads have you started saying 'look WMD' and have turned out to be false? The sheer number of times you have been so blatantly and royally WRONG is enough to make the earth spin backwards.
Quote:
He can't be held responsible (legally or probably, politically) if the information given to him by trusted advisors was flawed.
Yes he can. Any dipshit that is that incompetent needs to go. Refer to Blix's quote above.
"What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons," Blix said in an interview with the New York Times.
"I don't see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied" existing reports by UN inspectors, he said.
"Is the United Nations on a different planet? Are reports from here totally unread south of the Hudson?"
Hans Blix is an idiot. He was the 23rd choice for his job. He was consistently anti-American and anti-war. His job was not to prevent war. His job was to disarm Iraq. In any case, the quote above makes it seem as if Blix was saying that there were no real weapons. That's your INTERPRETATION of his comments. It could have easily meant that such WMD were incredibly compact and more stealthily hidden than US forces thought. Nice try.
Quote:
By definition of his job he is responsible. Oh, and by defintion of his his, he is the one who holds responsibility for leading us to war.
If the intelligence presented to him was flawed, then he cannot be held responsible. Period. It's academic anyway.
Quote:
It's not a debate tactic, it's the simple truth. Any alternative you've presented falls squarely under incompetence. The fact is that anyone who looked at the reports knew there was no threat. So either he lied or is grossly incompetent. An, no, you can't put the blame on anyone else for Bush's actions.
What reports? The UN's?
The UN iteself was unbelievably incompetent and spineless. You CANNOT be putting faith in the toothless inspection regime, now can you? And who do you mean by anyone? You? Did you look at the them? Show me the relevant passages showing that Iraq had clearly disarmed. It wasn't *just* about imminent threat, it was about IRAQ DISARMING.
Your argument is pompous and arrogant. "Anyone who looked at the report would conclude there was no threat..." My God. Apparently not. Apparently such ignorama as Colin Powell, Dr. Condi Rice and George Tenet don't agree with you.
Quote:
Well, while you are looking to rationalize yourself out of your sad, sad pit, the rest of us are dealing with reality. How many threads have you started saying 'look WMD' and have turned out to be false? The sheer number of times you have been so blatantly and royally WRONG is enough to make the earth spin backwards.
Which threads were those? I starred one about the inspectors finding banned chemical warheads. Those weren't disproven. I also started the Nuclear centrifuge thread...which to my knowledge hasn't been disproven either. Which times have I been wrong?? Show me even ONE time on this issue!!!
[broken record]
Quote:
Yes he can. Any dipshit that is that incompetent needs to go. Refer to Blix's quote above.
[/broken record]
False Dilemma. Say it with me. You still haven't answered: Why is it that Bush is incompetent if he was presented with faulty intel ? BTW, this is academic as well...because the hunt for WMD is not over.
Sorry, SWF, but you spend far too much time speculating and far too little time actually studying the intelligence community.
Here's a couple books to get you started:
The New Craft of Intelligence: Personal, Public & Political
On Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World
Once you are done with those, it would be a good idea to spend a couple years paying attention to some of the private intel services like stratfor. Subscribe to them and watch over the course of a couple of years for patterns.
During this time, do a search at www.theatlantic.com for articles on inteligence aquisition, analysis and communication.
Next, do the same thing at the New Yorker.
Both of the above magazines have had some of the most well respected articles on current events in the intel community published over the past 15 years, which has been a great time of flux.
Next, go to www.newamericancentury.org and read all of the articles there. PNAC is the repository of papers written by admin officials that have directed our foreign policy through their posts in the Bush admin.
Next, go to www.foreignaffairs.org and sign up for a year subscription (only $32). It is THE 'industry publication' and the articles are written by the acedemics and global admin officials involved in the decision making processes (Rice and Rumsfeld both wrote articles last year). But you should already know that if you are informed enough to comment on the Bush admin and it's policies and inner workings.
Last, but not least, take a class or two on American Politics from a respectable university.
When you have done all this, maybe you will be in a better position to for a view of the global intelligence community and American politics that is at least halfway realistic.
Didn't you mean SDW, as in short for SDW2001? But I guess you're too busy using your awesome powers of global awareness to fuss over little details like using the right names.
[...some condescension and book recommendations removed...]
Once you are done with those, it would be a good idea to spend a couple years [emphasis mine]paying attention to some of the private intel services like stratfor. Subscribe to them and watch over the course of a couple of years for patterns.
Sort of the way John Nash spent years finding patterns in A Beautiful Mind? How are your supplies of colored string and push pins holding out?
During this time [...instructions on how to emulate the life of our intensely acute hero, giant, removed.]
When you have done all this, maybe you will be in a better position to for a view of the global intelligence community and American politics that is at least halfway realistic.
SDW: Yes, do all of this, and in a few years maybe, just maybe, you'll have attained enough enlightenment to shuffle around the outskirts of giant's Higher Consciousness.
giant: Perhaps you need to find another forum... hard as this might be... where your intellectual equals might be found. Well, not equals... I mean, ppfhh! Let's get real... But perhaps a few special individuals who are maybe 75-80% up to your level, so it's not too painful for you to have to explain your wisdom and insight... something which is obviously an altogether too difficult task to expect among the cretinous, ignorant swine on AI.
Chances are I'm actually much closer to you than SDW2001 when it comes opinions on Iraq and WoMB... but that doesn't make you any less insufferable.
Didn't you mean SDW, as in short for SDW2001? But I guess you're too busy using your awesome powers of global awareness to fuss over little details like using the right names.
It was intentional. But, sorry, I know you consider it condesending to point out the obvious.
Quote:
giant: Perhaps you need to find another forum... hard as this might be... where your intellectual equals might be found. Well, not equals... I mean, ppfhh! Let's get real... But perhaps a few special individuals who are maybe 75-80% up to your level, so it's not too painful for you to have to explain your wisdom and insight... something which is obviously an altogether too difficult task to expect among the cretinous, ignorant swine on AI.
You seem to be feeling a bit inadequate. Or do you just have a crush?
So now I get penalized for actually studying something before talking about it? Hmmm.
AI's not the problem, certain indivudals that either preach the benefits of ignorant opinion (or just live by it) are.
And why focus on me, when SJO can't post a letter without the boys club ridiculing her? Oh yeah, because you are just full of sh*tline (FYI: intentional).
Oh, PS. My first post in FC and all thereafter predicted the outcome of this war, and was followed by intense abuse including swear words referring to my mother's genitalia. All because I pointed out a year ago that the Bush admin was lying. Those same people are the ones I've singled out, particularly the ones that were either banned or otherwise restrained by moderators. Sorry, but you're pointing your stick in the wrong direction. When I start calling your parents names because you point out that the sky is blue, then you can commence your attack on me.
You seem to be feeling a bit inadequate. Or do you just have a crush?
I couldn't possibly have as big a crush on you as you have on yourself.
So now I get penalized for actually studying something before talking about it? Hmmm.
No penalty at all for studying. For lording it over other people, yes.
There are plenty of intelligent, well-educated people out there in the world who can convey what they know without condescension, who can explain what they know and inspire further exploration, rather than using what they know as a convenient excuse for not having to bother explaining themselves to their "lessers". You are not one of these people.
And why focus on me, when SJO can't post a letter without the boys club ridiculing her?
I've both disagreed and agreed with sammi jo. I've occasionally found her frustrating, but I've also found her informative and have learned a thing or two from her. She is a better communicator than you, and doesn't even come close to your arrogance. You show very little inclination to explain and discuss, and a great inclination to assert, bicker, condescend, and pose.
Oh yeah, because you are just full of sh*tline (FYI: intentional).
How comforting to know that after years of education and study that you haven't lost touch with your fifth grade sense of humor.
First, thanks shetline. You're the kind of person I respect because you can disagree with someone without insulting him for having a different opinion.
As for you giant, not only is your last post (^) ridiculous, it is, as usual, in violation of the posting guidelines.
Quote:
...full of sh*tline (FYI: Intentional)
That's over the top.
Expectedly, you strut around the forum as if you are somehow more informed than the rest of us because you read the New Yorker () and subscribe to foreignaffairs.org. That is a prepostorous supposition. The kind of information we are talking about here is stuff that is NOT YET available to the general public. As much as you'd like to think otherwise, that includes you. Read the excrutiatingly liberal New Yorker all you want...it won't help you defeat common sense and general reason, which tell us that as ordinary citizens, we DON'T KNOW everything the government knows.
In almost every thread, you label other's opinions ignorant. You are the definitive example of the kind of elitist, guilty, white liberal America-blaming snob I like to reference. I don't think there is a better example. After all, it is only your side...(the Left side by the way) that owns the concepts of equality, compassion, freedom of speech and press. Conservatives are simply not allowed to have opinions contrary to yours, and if they do, they are idiots, simpletons, jingoists, war mongers and racists.
A college degree can be a useful tool and mind-opening experience. But a few classes at a prestigous Ivy-league school or small *liberal* arts (ha) college won't change the the principles I hold dear. And that's really the issue here, isn't it? True elitist liberals like yourself have the rather convenient and feel-good notion that if only the conservative position was just a little more educated and diversified, than perhaps...just perhaps it would agree with you. That's called a self-reinforcing delusion.
Your argument is that Iraq doesn't and didn't have WMD. I say that's unbelieveably wrong, given all that we know about Saddam Hussein's Iraq. You say there was no threat. I say that's pretty naive in a post 9/11 world where even a small vial of a chemical agent given to a group like Al-Qadea could make the aformentioned world-altering day look small by comparison. You say that George W. Bush lied or was incompetent, when there is no evidence of either possibility. You say the hunt for WMD is over, as if you would know. You say all this and more, and then loudly trumpet your assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Unbelievably though, it is your side that has (as I said) been wrong on nearly every national security issue in the 20th century, from Soviet Expansionism to the first Gulf War, the Left has been on the wrong side of history every time.
Your little condescending rant aside, you have become a parody of yourself. Happy Posting.
I say that's pretty naive in a post 9/11 world where even a small vial of a chemical agent given to a group like Al-Qadea could make the aformentioned world-altering day look small by comparison.
Let's bomb all US based educational facilities that don't have the tighest security surrounding their chemical labs. Remember all that anthrax in the mail? American origins, dorkhole.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
A scene from the future : SDW is being taken away in a jacket mumbling " There were WOMD in Iraq.....All 50 states.........it's all Katie Courics's fault! "
Come on SDW! I suppose if Bush fries over this it'll be someone elses fault?
The fact of the matter is right now unless Bush and company can come up with a very good ( and plausible ) explanation this is a very major rock in his road.
Cheers ( as they say )!
Still in check.
Personal insults aside:
If Bush fries over this (which he won't...you can quote me on that), it will be because he's done something so blatantly illegal and stupid that even his own party can't ignore it. The only way this could happen with regards to WMD is if somehow it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt (no legal context intended) that Bush unequivocally KNEW the intelligence was flawed when he used it. It would have to be proven that he intentionally mislead Congress. Let me say that again: INTENTIONALLY.
Now really jimmac, let's go back to Ocham's Razor for a second: Assuming the already unlikely and implausiable event that Bush DID lie as stated above, which do you think is more likely?
1) Bush will take the heat and resign or be removed in a blazing hellfire of shame?
2) Bush's poltical machine will scapegoat someone for faulty intelligence, assigning all blame to a few individuals.
Seriously, you and I both know the answer here. This is even assuming that the administrative team could so shit-all stupid as to let him go out there an knowingly lie to start a war.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Personal insults aside:
If Bush fries over this (which he won't...you can quote me on that), it will be because he's done something so blatantly illegal and stupid that even his own party can't ignore it. The only way this could happen with regards to WMD is if somehow it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt (no legal context intended) that Bush unequivocally KNEW the intelligence was flawed when he used it. It would have to be proven that he intentionally mislead Congress. Let me say that again: INTENTIONALLY.
Now really jimmac, let's go back to Ocham's Razor for a second: Assuming the already unlikely and implausiable event that Bush DID lie as stated above, which do you think is more likely?
1) Bush will take the heat and resign or be removed in a blazing hellfire of shame?
2) Bush's poltical machine will scapegoat someone for faulty intelligence, assigning all blame to a few individuals.
Seriously, you and I both know the answer here. This is even assuming that the administrative team could so shit-all stupid as to let him go out there an knowingly lie to start a war.
But he's president. He was soooooooo sure. No one seemed to want to stop him because he had proof! This is so blatant I vote for number one. The intelligence community is saying that they were telling him it was a falsehood nine months before! Stuff like this can be like pulling thread out of a sweater. Once it starts to unravel other things may come to light and it might not stop! He'd better come up with a good one fast!
Sorry but it's not looking like he will come away from this uneffected. Once a lie has been established the american people don't react so kindly. Just look at Clinton.
Still in check.
ut he's president. He was soooooooo sure. No one seemed to want to stop him because he had proof! This is so blatant I vote for number one. The intelligence community is saying that they were telling him it was a falsehood nine months before! Stuff like this can be like pulling thread out of a sweater. Once it starts to unravel other things may come to light and it might not stop!
Sorry but it's not looking like he will come away from this uneffected. Once a lie has been established the american people don't react so kindly. Just look at Clinton.
Still in check. [/strawman]
You've perverted the accusation, jimmac.
What has been said (and hasn't been proved, btw] is that the intel community presented information to "The White House". That doesn't mean it got to him. I would venture to guess that there is a lot of intel coming in to his team, and that only a small pert of it is presented to him BY OTHER PEOPLE.
He won't take the fall. I guarantee you!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Let me say that again: INTENTIONALLY.
Back to your typical defence of "but Bush is grossly incompetent, not a liar."
Personal insults aside:
really, your posts do the work for us.
Originally posted by SDW2001
[strawman]
You've perverted the accusation, jimmac.
What has been said (and hasn't been proved, btw] is that the intel community presented information to "The White House". That doesn't mean it got to him. I would venture to guess that there is a lot of intel coming in to his team, and that only a small pert of it is presented to him BY OTHER PEOPLE.
He won't take the fall. I guarantee you!
Geez!
Originally posted by giant
Back to your typical defence of "but Bush is grossly incompetent, not a liar."
really, your posts do the work for us.
Ohhh! Two strawmen in one field Mommy!
I never said Bush was incompetent...you did. Proving that would be difficult as well. If the intelligenc eitself was wrong, does that make HIM incompetent? No. What if the people that collected the intelligence changed it when they presented it to Bush's team? What if someone on the team itself distorted it when it was presented to Bush? Does this make Bush incompetent? No.
The hunt for WMD is not over, even though you'd like it to be. Even if WMD is not found (and my contention is that it may have already been or wll be before the next election), Bush is NOT going to take the fall. You can't possibly be so naive as to think he will...even if he is guilty.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Ohhh! Two strawmen in one field Mommy!
I never said Bush was incompetent...you did. Proving that would be difficult as well. If the intelligenc eitself was wrong, does that make HIM incompetent? No. What if the people that collected the intelligence changed it when they presented it to Bush's team? What if someone on the team itself distorted it when it was presented to Bush? Does this make Bush incompetent? No.
The hunt for WMD is not over, even though you'd like it to be. Even if WMD is not found (and my contention is that it may have already been or wll be before the next election), Bush is NOT going to take the fall. You can't possibly be so naive as to think he will...even if he is guilty.
Talk about straw you're clutching at them!
Look I've got to go to work but I'll be back. We'll see how the day unfolds.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You can't possibly be so naive as to think he will...even if he is guilty.
Is this really all it's about to you? Reelection? I've noticed in several war threads now, you just say "yeah, but he'll be re-elected, even if he is guilty." We all understand, from the other political threads you've started, that you really really want Bush re-elected. But what about simple right and wrong?
Originally posted by SDW2001
I never said Bush was incompetent.
Sorry, but anyone who really looked at the evidence knew that what was being presented was BS. The president is ultimately responsible not only for the decisions he makes, but for the fate of the country militarily. The buck stops there.
Really there are only two possibilities: he is grossly incompetent or he lied.
And hasn't your belief system been decimated enough?
Originally posted by SDW2001
What has been said (and hasn't been proved, btw] is that the intel community presented information to "The White House". That doesn't mean it got to him.
He's still 100% responsible.
Originally posted by BRussell
Is this really all it's about to you? Reelection? I've noticed in several war threads now, you just say "yeah, but he'll be re-elected, even if he is guilty." We all understand, from the other political threads you've started, that you really really want Bush re-elected. But what about simple right and wrong?
No. Of course not. I don't believe Bush knowingly lied. If I see evidence he did, then we have a problem. So far, I have zeen about zero evidence of that. Zero. All we have is questions which laypeople can't usually know the answers to right away.
Sorry, but anyone who really looked at the evidence knew that what was being presented was BS. The president is ultimately responsible not only for the decisions he makes, but for the fate of the country militarily. The buck stops there.
Really there are only two possibilities: he is grossly incompetent or he lied.
And hasn't your belief system been decimated enough?
Let's look at giants debate techniques:
The first sentence tries to make the old "reasonable person" argument. Basically, he's saying "anyone who saw what I saw would agree". Ummm. No.
The second and third sentences are a perversion of the "responsible for the conduct of the crew under my command" idea. If this logic is taken to the extreme, Bush could be help responsible for a Captain in the Army cheating on his wife (a court martial offense).
The next part about possibilities is a classic use of the "False Dilemma" debate tactic. The debator presents two choices when in fact there are many more possibilities. Either way, the choices benefit the presenter. Nice try.
The last part is what I call the "disqualification" technique. The presenter attempts to invalidate the argument by invalidating not the argument, but the opponent himself. Again, nice try.
The answer to your question, btw, is no. My belief system has been anything but disproven. It is liberals like you who have been proven wrong on virtually every national security issue since the Cold War.
And bunge: I disagree. He can't be held responsible (legally or probably, politically) if the information given to him by trusted advisors was flawed. He can rhetorically assume it, but it it's kind of meaningless to say "he's responsible". As I said, by your logic Clinton should have been tried for manslaughter for every casualty in the military under his command.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The first sentence tries to make the old "reasonable person" argument. Basically, he's saying "anyone who saw what I saw would agree". Ummm. No.
Ummm, yeah.
I liked how blix put it:
"What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons," Blix said in an interview with the New York Times.
"I don't see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied" existing reports by UN inspectors, he said.
"Is the United Nations on a different planet? Are reports from here totally unread south of the Hudson?"
The second and third sentences are a perversion of the "responsible for the conduct of the crew under my command" idea.
By definition of his job he is responsible. Oh, and by defintion of his his, he is the one who holds responsibility for leading us to war.
The next part about possibilities is a classic use of the "False Dilemma" debate tactic.
It's not a debate tactic, it's the simple truth. Any alternative you've presented falls squarely under incompetence. The fact is that anyone who looked at the reports knew there was no threat. So either he lied or is grossly incompetent. An, no, you can't put the blame on anyone else for Bush's actions.
The last part is what I call the "disqualification" technique. The presenter attempts to invalidate the argument by invalidating not the argument, but the opponent himself...My belief system has been anything but disproven. It is liberals like you who have been proven wrong on virtually every national security issue since the Cold War.
Well, while you are looking to rationalize yourself out of your sad, sad pit, the rest of us are dealing with reality. How many threads have you started saying 'look WMD' and have turned out to be false? The sheer number of times you have been so blatantly and royally WRONG is enough to make the earth spin backwards.
He can't be held responsible (legally or probably, politically) if the information given to him by trusted advisors was flawed.
Yes he can. Any dipshit that is that incompetent needs to go. Refer to Blix's quote above.
Ummm, yeah.
I liked how blix put it:
"What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons," Blix said in an interview with the New York Times.
"I don't see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied" existing reports by UN inspectors, he said.
"Is the United Nations on a different planet? Are reports from here totally unread south of the Hudson?"
Hans Blix is an idiot. He was the 23rd choice for his job. He was consistently anti-American and anti-war. His job was not to prevent war. His job was to disarm Iraq. In any case, the quote above makes it seem as if Blix was saying that there were no real weapons. That's your INTERPRETATION of his comments. It could have easily meant that such WMD were incredibly compact and more stealthily hidden than US forces thought. Nice try.
By definition of his job he is responsible. Oh, and by defintion of his his, he is the one who holds responsibility for leading us to war.
If the intelligence presented to him was flawed, then he cannot be held responsible. Period. It's academic anyway.
It's not a debate tactic, it's the simple truth. Any alternative you've presented falls squarely under incompetence. The fact is that anyone who looked at the reports knew there was no threat. So either he lied or is grossly incompetent. An, no, you can't put the blame on anyone else for Bush's actions.
What reports? The UN's?
The UN iteself was unbelievably incompetent and spineless. You CANNOT be putting faith in the toothless inspection regime, now can you? And who do you mean by anyone? You? Did you look at the them? Show me the relevant passages showing that Iraq had clearly disarmed. It wasn't *just* about imminent threat, it was about IRAQ DISARMING.
Your argument is pompous and arrogant. "Anyone who looked at the report would conclude there was no threat..." My God. Apparently not. Apparently such ignorama as Colin Powell, Dr. Condi Rice and George Tenet don't agree with you.
Well, while you are looking to rationalize yourself out of your sad, sad pit, the rest of us are dealing with reality. How many threads have you started saying 'look WMD' and have turned out to be false? The sheer number of times you have been so blatantly and royally WRONG is enough to make the earth spin backwards.
Which threads were those? I starred one about the inspectors finding banned chemical warheads. Those weren't disproven. I also started the Nuclear centrifuge thread...which to my knowledge hasn't been disproven either. Which times have I been wrong?? Show me even ONE time on this issue!!!
[broken record]
Yes he can. Any dipshit that is that incompetent needs to go. Refer to Blix's quote above.
[/broken record]
False Dilemma. Say it with me. You still haven't answered: Why is it that Bush is incompetent if he was presented with faulty intel ? BTW, this is academic as well...because the hunt for WMD is not over.
Here's a couple books to get you started:
The New Craft of Intelligence: Personal, Public & Political
On Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World
Once you are done with those, it would be a good idea to spend a couple years paying attention to some of the private intel services like stratfor. Subscribe to them and watch over the course of a couple of years for patterns.
During this time, do a search at www.theatlantic.com for articles on inteligence aquisition, analysis and communication.
Next, do the same thing at the New Yorker.
Both of the above magazines have had some of the most well respected articles on current events in the intel community published over the past 15 years, which has been a great time of flux.
Next, go to www.newamericancentury.org and read all of the articles there. PNAC is the repository of papers written by admin officials that have directed our foreign policy through their posts in the Bush admin.
Next, go to www.foreignaffairs.org and sign up for a year subscription (only $32). It is THE 'industry publication' and the articles are written by the acedemics and global admin officials involved in the decision making processes (Rice and Rumsfeld both wrote articles last year). But you should already know that if you are informed enough to comment on the Bush admin and it's policies and inner workings.
Last, but not least, take a class or two on American Politics from a respectable university.
When you have done all this, maybe you will be in a better position to for a view of the global intelligence community and American politics that is at least halfway realistic.
Originally posted by giant
Sorry, SWF
Didn't you mean SDW, as in short for SDW2001? But I guess you're too busy using your awesome powers of global awareness to fuss over little details like using the right names.
[...some condescension and book recommendations removed...]
Once you are done with those, it would be a good idea to spend a couple years [emphasis mine]paying attention to some of the private intel services like stratfor. Subscribe to them and watch over the course of a couple of years for patterns.
Sort of the way John Nash spent years finding patterns in A Beautiful Mind? How are your supplies of colored string and push pins holding out?
During this time [...instructions on how to emulate the life of our intensely acute hero, giant, removed.]
When you have done all this, maybe you will be in a better position to for a view of the global intelligence community and American politics that is at least halfway realistic.
SDW: Yes, do all of this, and in a few years maybe, just maybe, you'll have attained enough enlightenment to shuffle around the outskirts of giant's Higher Consciousness.
giant: Perhaps you need to find another forum... hard as this might be... where your intellectual equals might be found. Well, not equals... I mean, ppfhh! Let's get real... But perhaps a few special individuals who are maybe 75-80% up to your level, so it's not too painful for you to have to explain your wisdom and insight... something which is obviously an altogether too difficult task to expect among the cretinous, ignorant swine on AI.
Chances are I'm actually much closer to you than SDW2001 when it comes opinions on Iraq and WoMB... but that doesn't make you any less insufferable.
Originally posted by shetline
Didn't you mean SDW, as in short for SDW2001? But I guess you're too busy using your awesome powers of global awareness to fuss over little details like using the right names.
It was intentional. But, sorry, I know you consider it condesending to point out the obvious.
giant: Perhaps you need to find another forum... hard as this might be... where your intellectual equals might be found. Well, not equals... I mean, ppfhh! Let's get real... But perhaps a few special individuals who are maybe 75-80% up to your level, so it's not too painful for you to have to explain your wisdom and insight... something which is obviously an altogether too difficult task to expect among the cretinous, ignorant swine on AI.
You seem to be feeling a bit inadequate. Or do you just have a crush?
So now I get penalized for actually studying something before talking about it? Hmmm.
AI's not the problem, certain indivudals that either preach the benefits of ignorant opinion (or just live by it) are.
And why focus on me, when SJO can't post a letter without the boys club ridiculing her? Oh yeah, because you are just full of sh*tline (FYI: intentional).
Originally posted by giant
You seem to be feeling a bit inadequate. Or do you just have a crush?
I couldn't possibly have as big a crush on you as you have on yourself.
So now I get penalized for actually studying something before talking about it? Hmmm.
No penalty at all for studying. For lording it over other people, yes.
There are plenty of intelligent, well-educated people out there in the world who can convey what they know without condescension, who can explain what they know and inspire further exploration, rather than using what they know as a convenient excuse for not having to bother explaining themselves to their "lessers". You are not one of these people.
And why focus on me, when SJO can't post a letter without the boys club ridiculing her?
I've both disagreed and agreed with sammi jo. I've occasionally found her frustrating, but I've also found her informative and have learned a thing or two from her. She is a better communicator than you, and doesn't even come close to your arrogance. You show very little inclination to explain and discuss, and a great inclination to assert, bicker, condescend, and pose.
Oh yeah, because you are just full of sh*tline (FYI: intentional).
How comforting to know that after years of education and study that you haven't lost touch with your fifth grade sense of humor.
As for you giant, not only is your last post (^) ridiculous, it is, as usual, in violation of the posting guidelines.
...full of sh*tline (FYI: Intentional)
That's over the top.
Expectedly, you strut around the forum as if you are somehow more informed than the rest of us because you read the New Yorker (
In almost every thread, you label other's opinions ignorant. You are the definitive example of the kind of elitist, guilty, white liberal America-blaming snob I like to reference. I don't think there is a better example. After all, it is only your side...(the Left side by the way) that owns the concepts of equality, compassion, freedom of speech and press. Conservatives are simply not allowed to have opinions contrary to yours, and if they do, they are idiots, simpletons, jingoists, war mongers and racists.
A college degree can be a useful tool and mind-opening experience. But a few classes at a prestigous Ivy-league school or small *liberal* arts (ha) college won't change the the principles I hold dear. And that's really the issue here, isn't it? True elitist liberals like yourself have the rather convenient and feel-good notion that if only the conservative position was just a little more educated and diversified, than perhaps...just perhaps it would agree with you. That's called a self-reinforcing delusion.
Your argument is that Iraq doesn't and didn't have WMD. I say that's unbelieveably wrong, given all that we know about Saddam Hussein's Iraq. You say there was no threat. I say that's pretty naive in a post 9/11 world where even a small vial of a chemical agent given to a group like Al-Qadea could make the aformentioned world-altering day look small by comparison. You say that George W. Bush lied or was incompetent, when there is no evidence of either possibility. You say the hunt for WMD is over, as if you would know. You say all this and more, and then loudly trumpet your assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Unbelievably though, it is your side that has (as I said) been wrong on nearly every national security issue in the 20th century, from Soviet Expansionism to the first Gulf War, the Left has been on the wrong side of history every time.
Your little condescending rant aside, you have become a parody of yourself. Happy Posting.
SDW
Originally posted by SDW2001
I say that's pretty naive in a post 9/11 world where even a small vial of a chemical agent given to a group like Al-Qadea could make the aformentioned world-altering day look small by comparison.
Let's bomb all US based educational facilities that don't have the tighest security surrounding their chemical labs. Remember all that anthrax in the mail? American origins, dorkhole.