The single sarin shell.., couldn't Bush do better?
I'm still pretty *on* about the bloody STOCKPILES of weapons of massive, complete and utter destructuion. These WMDs were supposed to be raining on our troops from the skys, instead the best the Administration can come up with is ONE shell which contains two constituents of sarin (NOT EVEN THE COMPLETED PRODUCT). And lets be accurate, it wasn't a shell (aka, it wasn't launchable) it was an "improvised explosive device".
/colormesuprisedthatnobodyelsemadeathreadaboutit
One shell clearly does not make a chemical arsenal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722855.stm
/colormesuprisedthatnobodyelsemadeathreadaboutit
One shell clearly does not make a chemical arsenal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722855.stm
Comments
Originally posted by rageous
Old news.
The one thing that makes this not-old-news is that the sarin was just confirmed, beyond the original, notoriously unreliable field tests.
Still, hardly much to base a war on, and even trying to cast this wisp of sarin as the "tip of the iceberg" (which no doubt some people will do) is pretty far-fetched.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
I'm still pretty *on* about the bloody STOCKPILES of weapons of massive, complete and utter destructuion. These WMDs were supposed to be raining on our troops from the skys, instead the best the Administration can come up with is ONE shell which contains two constituents of sarin (NOT EVEN THE COMPLETED PRODUCT). And lets be accurate, it wasn't a shell (aka, it wasn't launchable) it was an "improvised explosive device".
/colormesuprisedthatnobodyelsemadeathreadaboutit
One shell clearly does not make a chemical arsenal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722855.stm
So bush went over there and planted this?
Oh now I see, no wonder you guys hate Bush. man is he sneaky!
Originally posted by NaplesX
So bush went over there and planted this?
Oh now I see, no wonder you guys hate Bush. man is he sneaky!
Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman.
New tactic. How about we address the certainty of finding WMD in Iraq prior to Mar 2003. How about we address the lack of doubts by Rummy, Wolfie, Perlie, Bushie, and Cheney prior to the war and juxtapose the pre-war assurance to the post-war realities. Lets not build strawmen to side track the discussion.
[edit] forgot the r in strawman
Originally posted by faust9
Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman, Stawman.
New tactic. How about we address the certainty of finding WMD in Iraq prior to Mar 2003. How about we address the lack of doubts by Rummy, Wolfie, Perlie, Bushie, and Cheney prior to the war and juxtapose the pre-war assurance to the post-war realities. Lets not build strawmen to side track the discussion.
Dude if you're gonna copy and paste a million times at least spell it right =\\
Originally posted by rageous
Dude if you're gonna copy and paste a million times at least spell it right =\\
Man am I an idiot!!!
Originally posted by NaplesX
So bush went over there and planted this?
Oh now I see, no wonder you guys hate Bush. man is he sneaky!
Ha ha ha. Yep. His title just defines the raging liberal hard-on for anything anti-bush this board has eh? Bush Is Responsible For Everything? should be the liberal tag line, since that's apparently the favored tactic. A soldier took a dump on Iraq soil... gotta be Bush's fault!
Faust I think the anti-busherkers are the ones that need a new tactic. Napels is just reacting to the frothing blame-Bush mentality thats prevelant here, its hardly a "stawman" tactic.
Anti-Bush folks seemed to place some amount of faith in the IISS in that other thread so I thought the IISS assessment of of the WMD in Iraq might be of interest here too...
http://www.iiss.org/confStatement.php?confID=3
Originally posted by dviant
the raging liberal hard-on for anything anti-bush this board has
You realize the inherent contradiction in this post, don't you?
Originally posted by dviant
Ha ha ha. Yep. His title just defines the raging liberal hard-on for anything anti-bush this board has eh? Bush Is Responsible For Everything? should be the liberal tag line, since that's apparently the favored tactic. A soldier took a dump on Iraq soil... gotta be Bush's fault!
Faust I think the anti-busherkers need a new tactic. Napels is just reacting to the frothing blame-Bush mentality thats prevelant here, its hardly a "stawman" tactic.
It most certainly is a strawman. Naples misrepresented the original statement in order to deflate the argument. He didn't address the speeches given by all members of the admin prior to Mar 2003 where they were very consistent ans specific about the quantities and locations of WMD's. Naples didn't address the utter lack of WMD finds save this one shell. Naples misrepresented the original argument in an attempt to discredit it.
Originally posted by giant
You realize the inherent contradiction in this post, don't you?
Should I have said "subdued" liberal hard-on? :P
Originally posted by faust9
It most certainly is a strawman. Naples misrepresented the original statement in order to deflate the argument. He didn't address the speeches given by all members of the admin prior to Mar 2003 where they were very consistent ans specific about the quantities and locations of WMD's. Naples didn't address the utter lack of WMD finds save this one shell. Naples misrepresented the original argument in an attempt to discredit it.
Note the title includes this "couldn't Bush do better?" The implication is pretty easy to see.
Edit: Oh yeah and if bush has control over all of this and can wish evidence be planted at any given point, I would think he could do better. That fact actually helps because, one shell brings up the obvious next question, "Where are the rest?"
This is what people like to call evidence. Which usually comes in bits and pieces, as opposed to the expected stockpiles.
Originally posted by dviant
Should I have said "subdued" liberal hard-on? :P
I'm not sure you can call them liberals subdued.
Originally posted by faust9
Naples misrepresented the original statement in order to deflate the argument.
Who's misrepresenting here? The orignal poster states his title like Bush is personally out scouring Iraq.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Note the title includes this "couldn't Bush do better?" The implication is pretty easy to see.
The funniest part is that you are serious.
Originally posted by giant
I'm not sure you can call them liberals subdued.
So what are you talking about then when you first quoted me?
Originally posted by giant
The funniest part is that you are serious.
I'm sure he's Just annoyed by the blame-Bush mentality in the title. The intential focus on the President rather than the administration as a whole, the congress, coalition forces, inspectors or whatever else may be important to a real discussion. ie Raging Anti-Bush Hard-On?
Originally posted by dviant
Who's misrepresenting here? The orignal poster states his title like Bush is personally out scouring Iraq.
In this regard you and Naples are horribly wrong. US actions in Iraq = Bush. The hunt for WMD = Bush. The touting of WMD's prior to Mar 2003 by the administration = Bush. Not finding the massive stocks that Bush (via his lips and the mouths of his admin) said were there is his--Bush's-- responsability. He is the man who ultimetly authorized the invasion so he bears the criticism fully. He can't blame Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz because they are only advisers. Bush made the decision. No WMD's = Bush's fault.
I say again why didn't Naples address the pre-invasion speeches given by the admin to the actual finds? Why did he choose to attempt to sidetrack the thread with a strawman?
I'll stop if you will... so read my IISS link instead.
Originally posted by dviant
Go on about it some more Faust. The more we talk about it the more it DOES become a strawman sinces its beginning to derail the thread.
I'll stop if you will... so read my IISS link instead.
I have read it and it directly contradicts what the inspectors who were there have said.
Let's seee, who to believe, who to believe, who to believe? I'll go with David Kay on this.
Thanks