|
|
| Author |
Message |
gull
|
|
A curious sort of argument.
| 
Jun 25 19:16 UTC 2003 |
I was pointed to this column on MSNBC's website by a friend's
LiveJournal. It uses an odd, somewhat amusing bit of logic to paint
Democratic candidate John Kerry as a fool:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/930674.asp?0cv=OA01%22
Basically, the argument is that Kerry is a fool because he believed Bush
about Iraqi WMDs. That's right, someone is arguing we shouldn't vote
for Kerry because Bush lied and Kerry bought it:
"...the evidence that the Bush/Blair team was exaggerating or inflating
the WMD issue was available long before the, er, lull in inspections
that has now befallen us. And it was made available to Kerry, too, as a
very mordant article on the Net by his constituent Charles Jenks has
recently shown. Thus, for the senator to say that he was deceived along
with all of us is provably false. He is now belatedly entering the
ranks of those who claim never to have been fooled in the first place."
Somehow I doubt the Bush administration will want to use that in their
campaign. But just imagine, they could get him coming and going: "John
Kerry unpatriotically questioned Bush's leadership before the war. Then
he revealed himself as a fool when he believed Bush's statements about
WMD. John Kerry: An unpatriotic idiot."
|
| 60 responses total. |
mynxcat
|
|
response 1 of 60:
|
Jun 25 19:39 UTC 2003 |
Haha - I liked the byline - "Unpatriotic Idiot!"
|
naftee
|
|
response 2 of 60:
|
Jun 26 01:32 UTC 2003 |
What's the livejournal username?
|
polytarp
|
|
response 3 of 60:
|
Jun 26 01:36 UTC 2003 |
zionicman
|
gull
|
|
response 4 of 60:
|
Jun 26 13:58 UTC 2003 |
Re #2: kevinjdog
Overall it's mostly just random ramblings, but the link to that article
caught my eye.
|
sabre
|
|
response 5 of 60:
|
Jul 4 11:58 UTC 2003 |
dull( that's right DULL) your thread is liberal proganda. The WMD issue wasn't
inflated you fucking moron. Go buttfuck your brother.
|| ||
|\___/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
_____|<--->|_____
/ | | \
/ | | | | \
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | |
| | |
| /
| /
\ /
\ /
| |
| |
|
pvn
|
|
response 6 of 60:
|
Jul 5 09:00 UTC 2003 |
THAT was an intellectual arguemnt, uh huh.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 7 of 60:
|
Jul 5 10:11 UTC 2003 |
In the school of iconoclasm, you flunked out of kindergarten, man. Go
home.
|
jazz
|
|
response 8 of 60:
|
Jul 5 15:00 UTC 2003 |
Case #32, why ascii and room temperature IQs don't mix.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 9 of 60:
|
Jul 6 17:57 UTC 2003 |
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
What do you folks make of the gas centrifuge parts buried in a nuclear
scientist's back yard, parts that were supposed to be declared and destroyed
under the UN resolutions?
|
scott
|
|
response 10 of 60:
|
Jul 6 18:16 UTC 2003 |
Absence of proof is more likely to mean absence than presence in this case.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 11 of 60:
|
Jul 6 18:23 UTC 2003 |
So where did all the chemical weapons that Iraq admitted they had go?
Do you remember Sarah Connor's weapons stash in Terminator 2? It was
the size of a shipping container, and buried in the desert. A single
shipping container could contain enough nerve gas to wipe out thousands
of people, and it could be hidden in much the same way as the cache in
Terminator 2, invisible to the naked eye somewhere in a nation the size
of the state of California.
|
scott
|
|
response 12 of 60:
|
Jul 6 18:35 UTC 2003 |
I don't know where the weapons are.
Apparently neither does the Bush administration, despite their prewar claims.
|
jazz
|
|
response 13 of 60:
|
Jul 6 20:46 UTC 2003 |
There are any number of possibilities, the most frightening of which
is that they were lost or misplaced, something that we've already seen happen
with breakaway Soviet republics and fissionable materials. It's possible some
were used and not owned up to. It's possible some were sold.
It's a valid question, but it doesn't avoid the touchy situation that
we're still unable to prove the allegations we went to war for. Since we went
to war without UN approval, and damaged our ties to many European nations to
do so, we really do have the burden of proof.
|
i
|
|
response 14 of 60:
|
Jul 6 23:15 UTC 2003 |
Since the "throw out the professional intelligence analysis standards and
proclaim every cheap fabrication or biased rumor we can get our hands on as
hard evidence" scam is now an open secret, since guarding the most critical
WMD-related sites wasn't something our military bothered to do when looters
were hauling off records, equipment, etc., since made-out-to-be-a-huge-
threat-to-America-with-his-WMD's Saddam never bothered to use 'em against
our invasion forces, since there's *still* miserably little evidence of
Iraq actually having meaningful quantities of serious WMD's, and since
swarming-with-Islamic-terrorists-and-has-plenty-of-100%-real-and-tested-
nuclear-weapons-but-their-dictator-kissed-Bush's-ass Pakistan is called
a "close friend" and rewarded with $billion$, i see an extremely strong
case that Bush & Co. never had any real interest in or concerns about any
Iraqi WMD's...*EXCEPT* as a sham issue convenient for suckering the public
into supporting a war that Buch & Co. wanted to fight for other, probably
far less honest, legitimate, or honorable reasons.
|
mdw
|
|
response 15 of 60:
|
Jul 7 02:08 UTC 2003 |
It certainly doesn't look like the US effort to search for WMD was well
thought out. The mere fact that civilians were able to loot a
well-known nuclear site that we knew about in advance suggests we didn't
have our act together. We've also apparently failed to adequately track
the paper trail, and aren't treating the scientists especially well.
|
gull
|
|
response 16 of 60:
|
Jul 7 13:40 UTC 2003 |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/sprj.irq.uranium/index.html
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former U.S. diplomat said Sunday he told the Bush
administration that Iraq had not tried to buy uranium from Niger in the
late 1990s to develop nuclear weapons.
"Former Ambassador to Gabon Joseph Wilson told NBC's "Meet the Press" he
informed the CIA and the State Department that such information was
false months before U.S. and British officials used it during the debate
that led to war.
"During his State of the Union address in January, two months before the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, President Bush accused Iraq of trying to buy
"significant quantities of uranium" from an unnamed African country. He
cited British intelligence, which had published a similar report in
September 2002.
""If they were referring to Niger when they were referring to uranium
sales from Africa to Iraq, ... that information was erroneous and ...
they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British
white paper and the president's State of the Union address," Wilson
said. ..."
|
bru
|
|
response 17 of 60:
|
Jul 7 14:04 UTC 2003 |
""If they were referring to Niger..." says it all. "If" is a might pwerful
word.
Storage facilities don't need to be big, nor do they need to look like storage
facilities. I know here in the united states of a supply officer in a
national guard unit that had NG 3equipment in his basement in several trunks
because the NG had run out of storage facilities.
I know of equipment in every organization I have worked with that nobody knew
we had, or could not find equipment we were supposed to have half the time.
I know the GAO thinks the U.S. Customs Service had a range built in Detroit
for federal firerams training, but no one here ever saw it get built. They
say it was built because they budgeted the $200,000 dollars for it in 1988.
So the lack and confusion of communications, the fact that soldiers didn't
recieve orders that someone thought they had, that equipment cannot be found,
and that proof is rather sketchy doesn't prove anything so far.
The war is still being fought over there, and will be for years to come. And
in the end we may or may not find those things we are looking for in the way
of WMD.
|
trew
|
|
response 18 of 60:
|
Jul 7 15:07 UTC 2003 |
I am amazed at the incompetence of Bush and Blair. Any politician worth thier
salt would either have found the incriminating evidence or planted some of
their own long ago.
Modern politicians - I spit on them . . . pah!
|
jazz
|
|
response 19 of 60:
|
Jul 7 15:10 UTC 2003 |
One would presume they're working on it. Blix and his inspection team
have already been kicked out and aren't being allowed to resume their job.
The first step, making sure that whoever "finds" incriminating evidence is
on our payroll, is already down.
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 60:
|
Jul 7 17:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 21 of 60:
|
Jul 7 17:37 UTC 2003 |
Iraq was ordered to destroy those weapons, Todd. It's actually possible they
were destroyed.
I suspect that the real problem is that your sense of reality has been damaged
by watching too much Fox News.
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 60:
|
Jul 7 18:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 23 of 60:
|
Jul 7 18:18 UTC 2003 |
I, for one, never really doubted that Iraq had WMDs before the war. I
believed Bush when he said they were ready to be used within 45 minutes.
I was as surprised as anyone when they not only weren't used against
our troops, but failed to turn up. But our intelligence services
shouldn't be surprised by this sort of thing; they should KNOW what the
situation is. So either the intelligence was distorted, or our
intelligence services were horribly incompetant. Either way, there
should be an investigation to find the problem and fix it.
I'm inclined to think that quite a bit of distortion went on, since we
already know Bush presented fake documents about Iraq's nuclear program
as being genuine. But there was probably some incompetance involved, too.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 60:
|
Jul 7 18:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|