« I'm Putting The Aerial Up So I Can Go Out On The Air | Main | True Crime, False Accounts »

How to Create A Stupid American

I really should not be surprised by the lack of critical thinking skills by the folks on the left. But for whatever reason I keep being shocked by its absence.

Our friends over a Wizbang Blue link a video that has all the liberal children giggling with glee...

You know the video is a loser by who links it (Wizbang Blue and Andrew Sullivan) and that fact is further confirmed when the video opens with that well known political scientist Jon Stewart.

What is sad when you watch the video however is how it appeals to the lower end of the IQ scale. If you'd like to save the 7 minutes, it comes down to Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction because we did not find them.

Of course the whole thing is predictably devoid of any reason or thought. No mention of the various times Bill Clinton and a plethora of Democrats said Saddam had WMD... No mention that the governments of France, Israel, Russia, Australia and the U.N. itself all said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Of course no mention Saddam himself said he had weapons of mass destruction but then later said he didn't. And certainly no mention Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at one point and even used them on his own people.

Perhaps what is most disturbing however, is the perpetuation of logic a 3rd grader would reject. If someone said something that later turned out to be incorrect then they had to be lying. The intelligence couldn't have been simply wrong. Of course Bush knew -better than the combined intelligence services of the entire planet- that Saddam had no weapons but he lied. We know because we have a poorly cut video.

There is no other way to say it. It's sad these people are just so damn stupid.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22804.

Comments (105)

Thanks Paul that was awesom... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Thanks Paul that was awesome.

First you send them to publ... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

First you send them to public schools then you sit them down watching all those mindless sit com have them watch endless THE SIMPSONS reruns and have them join groups like PETA,SIERRA CLUB,GREENPEACE,ENVROMENTAL DEFENSE,WORLD WILDLIFE FUND,NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,BRADY CAMPAMAIN,and have them elect HILLARY CLINTON

Is there a problem? Have y... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

Is there a problem? Have you any facts, figures
or videos which would refute? Who is being stupid here?

Most of us were stupid before we knew the truth,
some insist on remaining stupid.

It certainly isn't adult be... (Below threshold)

It certainly isn't adult behavior we're observing here Paul. But that's consistent.

Paul, I am not ever shocked... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Paul, I am not ever shocked about the illogical ranting of the left. The problem is THEY KNOW the truth, but their hatred of GW Bush, that goes back to 2000, overwhelms them. They are actually obsessed with hating anything that concerns GW and anyone who supports GW. I have said it many times on this site, I cannot trust anyone that is motivated by hate. It IS a sickness. ww

I had a long comment ready ... (Below threshold)
kim:

I had a long comment ready for that thread, and finally, I just deleted it. What amuses me is the outrage over being fooled, and they weren't even fooled.
================================

I thought giving the trolls... (Below threshold)
vaildog:

I thought giving the trolls their own page at wizbang was supposed to make them more responsible. At what point do the creatos of wizbang have an editorial responsibility to ensure the posts over there comport with the facts?

The sad truth is that the m... (Below threshold)
MunDane:

The sad truth is that the majority of Democrats are against anything, ANYTHING, thathas the possibility of making the Republican case stronger.

ASk you favorite liberal this question: Imagine a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda had a nuclear weapon. Which ending would you prefer: American Law Enforcemnt publically captures the weapon before detonation on the basis of Bush era determined intelligence assets, and enhancing his image. Or the bomb goes off and along with killing hundreds of thousands or even millions in the long run, allows you to righteously demand his, and VP Cheney's resignation. Which they do.

So would you trade 2-3 million American lives for your political fantasy?

PS I will answer your hypotheticals after you answer mine in the same fashion.

WWI think hate put... (Below threshold)

WW

I think hate put them in motion, but their tactics are remarkably Stalinist and that was a machine that just plowed over lives without regard for anything, accept maintaing its own power. "Fortunately", the only thing these dhimmi wits can kill is reality and a few trillion brain cells. Unfortunately, if you have a loved one who succumbs to their hate based tripe, it must be as painful as it was for some poor Russian who had to live with the fact that his kid was sniffing out "enemies of the state" back when Walt Durante and the NY Crimes were getting awards for praising mass murderers.
Almost makes you wonder how much longer the truth can hold out. Personally, I'd like to see W go all Abe Lincoln on their asses and start the deportation process. Problem is, who the hell would want most of these lying bastards ?

Of course the who... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Of course the whole thing is predictably devoid of any reason or thought. No mention of the various times Bill Clinton and a plethora of Democrats said Saddam had WMD

Since you saved me 7 minutes of my life, I'm assuming there was no mention either that Clinton bombed Iraq four days in a row attacking suspected WMD sites.

Coincidentally this action took place a mere 12 hours before impeachment proceedings began. The Democrats then used their podium time to denounce the impeachment of a "war time president". (That makes you wonder how long Clinton would have sustained that action if they could sway others with that argument of holding off impeachment until hostilities were over)

This action also pissed off ALL of the permanent members of the Security Council except Great Britain. Gee, a Democrat pissing off the world by unilateral actions against the sovereign nation of Iraq. (That's just another lesson of hypocrisy from the left)

Three days later Saddam Hussein gave a speech in which he appealed to all Islamists to rise up in Jihad against Americans and the British.

Osama Bin Laden then issued another call for Jihad against the Americans and their allies-specifically citing the Clinton attacks on Iraq as a reason for the Jihad.

Then attack after attack against our interests continued leading up to 9-11.

About half of the lefties out there like to play stupid when they know these things happened, while the other half are just plain stupid and will goose-step just to stay in good graces with the others.

Pathetic but true.

In a nutshell, with all the stupidity that abounds from lefties......we're doomed.

I saw Moore on television (... (Below threshold)

I saw Moore on television (I'm sure it was by accident) talking about "Bush Lied." I don't remember who he was talking to but the interviewer asked him flat out, "Is it a lie if, at the time, you believe it is the truth."

Moore said absolutely it was a lie even if you thought you were right when you said it. And he said something about 7 year olds knowing that.

Is it that people really don't understand the difference between lying and being mistaken? Maybe they really don't. Maybe that explains stuff like the "fake but true" garbage where people apparently *know* something is fake but don't think it matters because it's some underlying truth that matters.

Turn that around and thinking that information is accurate doesn't matter because of the underlying falseness. Not-fake but a lie?

To me a *lie* requires an element of purpose to deceive. That's what the word means. "Lie" means dishonesty. If someone is being honest but is wrong, it's obviously not a lie.

I don't want to believe that people really and honestly don't know the difference because that would be frightening.

So I think they are deliberately lying about it when they say that "lying" is saying what you believe is true. That no one can be wrong or mistaken, they can just be a liar.

Other people *will* learn this lesson though, and you can bet that any mistake a Democrat makes is going to be called a lie and the person a liar. This is the standard we've learned.

Sort of how Democrats are getting called racist for the things they call Republicans racist for. Imagine that.

Cleo, go read Joe Wilson's ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Cleo, go read Joe Wilson's op-ed in the 2/6/03 LATimes, about a 'Big Cat'. In it he argued that we shouldn't attack Saddam for fear he would use his Weapons of Mass Destruction on our troops. In the light of subsequent events, that editorial marks him, and by extension most similar anti-war people, as either cowards or traitors.

Furthermore, if we made mistakes because of poor intelligence, and I don't think deposing Saddam was a mistake, the CIA unit at which Val Plame hung her shingle was the poor performer.
=============================

What amazes me is the "vast... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

What amazes me is the "vast" number of comments that show up on each post over at blue (lee ward, steve cri,p.ham larkie,lee ward, steve, p., ham,). After awhile you end up talking to yourself.

Again, there only motivatio... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Again, there only motivation for the foundation for the belief system is they hate GW. Just look at the absence of the lefty commenters. They know they cannot debate this issue on the merits and/or facts. So, they cannot comments. Should a lefty show up, watch how soon he/she labels someone, calls someone a name, etc. There playbook is old. ww

This is precisely why I hat... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

This is precisely why I hate gameshows and tests. Anyone that gives a wrong answer is apparently not mistaken, they're just lying.

Sorry, I don't think the in... (Below threshold)
Brad:

Sorry, I don't think the intel was wrong; I think we failed to find the WMD was because it was moved within the vacuum of time between the wind-up to war and actually punching the "go" button.

You see, I have teenagers and when they act guilty they usually are. Okay, this level of evidence won't get you on a court docket. And, the Left would just shout you down for making the point that not finding something doesn't mean it wasn't there in the first place (like the car keys that my wife playfully moved on me). But if you are going to make the argument that the WMD weren't there then it would seem incumbent upon the arguer to present some plausible rational for why Hussein would embark on a suicidal military adventure for nothing. Especially when you imagine the "egg on the face" guided tour he could have led the UN inspectors on just days before the coalition was to pounce.

In fact, I think that the missing WMD was the canard chosen by the Left in the inevitable deconstruction of the war effort. Perhaps it was a multiple choice thing and this WMD issue is just the one that won the vote of: "which talking point will most help us achieve our twin goals of getting revenge for the impeachment of OUR president and extracting ourselves from our unfortunate (and unnatural) involvement in a war to advance American interests?"

Even if Bush didn't lie, wh... (Below threshold)
Rob:

Even if Bush didn't lie, which I don't think he did, being "mistaken" about the pretext of a now 4.5 year war is simply not good enough. The fact that a war was launched when there was a possibility that we could be wrong about such a thing is shameful. We were told the case was iron-clad and that war was the only option left. Being "mistaken" is just doesn't cut it and it sickens me that so many Americans would rather take up the role of apologists rather that voice their concern that so many American lives and so much American treasure is being wasted because someone was "mistaken".

The only reason I would ven... (Below threshold)

The only reason I would venture back to Wizbangblue was for comic relief. But each time I did, there could be no such relief as I was always reminded that too many people actually believe that clap-trap, and that tends to take all the fun out of it.

I agree, Bob. We should ha... (Below threshold)

I agree, Bob. We should have waited until he used it on us so we could be absolutely sure.

Rob, not Bob.Where... (Below threshold)

Rob, not Bob.

Where are my glasses?

Synova,I ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Synova,

I agree, Bob. We should have waited until he used it on us so we could be absolutely sure.

Yes, but then it would have been Bush's fault for not knowing it was coming. It's conveneient, if you're not omnipresent you're pretty much a liar. Unless you're a Democrat.

~

Rob,

so many American lives and so much American treasure is being wasted because someone was "mistaken".

That's what it comes down to though, either your wrong or your right. What you're saying is that only the latter is ever acceptable or understandable. Unless your a Democrat.

You know, the positive side... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

You know, the positive side of thinking like this is that everyone we've ever tortured either provided useful information, or was lying because they didn't know the useful information.

Oh, the lefty asserted the ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Oh, the lefty asserted the old "apologists" argument. Meaning we, as conservatives, continue to apologize for GW and the war in Iraq. I do not aplogize for myself or him. Simply put, GW is doing the right thing and I have done the right thing supporting him. GW never based the war on WMD only. To think so would make you ignorant or stupid. When we were bombed on US soil and 3000+ citizens were murdered in a most inhumane way not counting the 100,000's of people traumatized, I wanted to take the fight to them. I needed to take the fight to them. They started this war. They decided to get us into it. Now they are reaping the consequences. What is really happening is the left are apoligists for the terrorists. Now lefties, prove me wrong. What have you done to not promote what the terrorists want? ww

There are at least two logi... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

There are at least two logical errors on which the whole 'Bush lied' is prop'd:

(1) If the WMDs aren't there now, they never were.
(2) If someone states something that proves to be false, it's a lie.

On (1) if you were to go my home now, my car is not there. It doesn't mean it wasn't there this morning. Whether it's there now or was there previously are completely independent events...

On (2), the distinction between a lie and a false statement is that a lie includes intent. Using the word 'lie' as some 'Liberals' do, meteorologists (aka weathermen) are the biggest bunch 'liars' to ever walk the earth.
Given that large number of politicians that were claiming Saddam had WMDs (even prior to '00), the logical conclusion is that the claims were based on intelligence estimates. The difference in Presidents Bush and Clinton wasn't the estimate of Saddam's threat, it was the manner in which it should be handled. Given these facts, no reasoning person would conclude that the most likely scenario was that Bush lied.

Paul, your analysis of this... (Below threshold)

Paul, your analysis of this Wizbang Blue feature is indeed an inch deep and very shallow. There were of course no real weapons of mass destruction ever found in Iraq since this new war unless you consider the evidence of one single mustard gas shell left over from the war with Iran in the 1980's and an old expended sarin shell casing discovered since the 2003 war. General Georges Sada of the Iraqi Air Force had written in a book that chemical warfare agents, which were mainly only peticide based agents, were sold to Syria in 50 gallon metal drums in passenger aircraft with the seats removed long before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Do you have any more evidence of this very meager Iraqi WMDs to share that I did not include? Nothing that was found in Iraq constituted a significant threat. And the U.N. efforts to destroy any longer range Iraqi missiles seemed to certainly work, along with years of economic sanctions and a military equipment embargo to Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War until the 2003 invasion.

When George Bush ran for office in 2000, he publicly claimed that he opposed "nation building" on the campaign trail and during a televised debate with Al Gore, yet as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill claimed, this new White House was completely obsessed with invading Iraq under some pretext since day one after their January 2001 inauguration.

The new 2001 Bush White House involved 43 members associated with the oil industry such as former CEO's, executives, major stockholders and others, and also 33 members with similiar interests to defense contractors. All of this helped to fuel a new foreign policy doctrine where a corporate expansionist drive to seek to gain some control over the vast oil reserves in Iraq would become a central cornerstone of the Bush foreign policy as well as one in which military contractors would seek to profit by the creation of a new war created solely to create a vast new market for their war and defense goods. Cheney's former company Halliburton profited from huge no-bid contracts from the Pentagon for reconstruction of buildings that other American defense contractor companies profited that sold $1 million dollar cruise missiles profited from by destroying. And the American public has paid the $2 billion a week bill for this war in taxes rather than using the money for their own families and paying for this corporate war with the deaths of over 3,600 Americans and more than 20,000 more wounded, often seriously.

Certainly Saddam Hussein was not a very nice guy, etc. and all the other laundry list of White House explanations and evolving reasons to invade Iraq that can be paraded out. But it seems wise to continue to question this entire foreign policy so that the nation can attempt to learn something from it. Entering a nation like Iraq with a history of a failed British occupation that lasted from 1922 to 1958 to control due to centuries of sectarian fighting didn't seem wise. Even the first George Bush drew a line against occupation in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War specifically because of this long history of sectarian warfare. But neither the Bush White House or the American public even debated this important issue during the 2003 run-up to the latest Iraq War.

Lack of an educated public debate on Iraq, ignorance of the long bloody history of this region, and many other factors only served to set this up as one America's biggest foreign policy mistakes to be made in recent times. And the aggravation of terrorism created by this war radicalizing many Muslims who are now opposed to what they see as the Mideast occupation of Islamic territory by both Israel and now the U.S., will only threaten American security for years and years to come as well. Looking for any real positives to counter the huge negatives created by this Iraq War are difficult to find. The U.S. oil companies were not able to secure more oil as they had hoped due to the security nightmare, but defense contractors have done very well, but little more has been achieved in Iraq so far. A Shiite sectarian religious government is in power now, that only promises to be a real thorn in the side of the U.S. as it cements strong relations with Iran. Little real good has come from this Iraq War.

To paraphrase a famous quote in modern English: Those that don't learn anything new from an understanding of history are only doomed to repeat those mistakes. Future Iraq situations can only be avoided if we continue to examine how we got involved there and what went wrong with that invasion. Otherwise, the U.S. will only get involved in more of these situations.

...the video opens with ... (Below threshold)
jim:

...the video opens with that well known political scientist Jon Stewart.

As opposed to Nobel-prize-winner Rush Limbaugh?

...it comes down to Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction because we did not find them.

YOu mean, because he and his administration said it was a **fact*** - a certain, locked-down, non-assertion, with no doubt - and then it turned out that it ***wasn't*** a fact, because none were found?

Please explain how, exactly, that is not deception.

No mention of the various times Bill Clinton and a plethora of Democrats said Saddam had WMD...

Probably because Clinton didn't invade Iraq, using WMD as his rationale. Oh, and neither did Bush Sr.

No mention that the governments of France, Israel, Russia, Australia and the U.N. itself all said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Sure - because they said that at one time in the 1990s. After the UN Weapons Inspections in 2002 and 2003, these nations and the UN no longer believed Saddam had the WMD.

Why do those current statements not count?

If someone said something that later turned out to be incorrect then they had to be lying.

If I say I know something for a ***fact***, and that I have ***evidence***, and then it later turns to ***not**** be a fact and I have ***no*** evidence, then that's lying.

Please explain how that's ***not*** lying.

The intelligence couldn't have been simply wrong.

The problem is, the intelligence was **right*** - there was no evidence that Saddam still had WMD. But the Bush administration didn't want to believe this.

I can provide all the evidence you need for this, if yuo're really interested.

Of course Bush knew -better than the combined intelligence services of the entire planet- that Saddam had no weapons but he lied. We know because we have a poorly cut video.

You mean, because it looks at what Bush said?

I mean, wow.

Why do you guys continue to support this President? What's it going to take? Seriously.

When is something Bush does, actualyl going to be Bush's fault? Ever?

I get the feeling that if Bush were caught screwing a young boy, the first question would be "Well, was the boy a Democrat?"

Paul Hoosen could observe a... (Below threshold)

Paul Hoosen could observe a demolition derby and interpret it as an evil plot by General Motors to take perfectly good cars out of the market to increase sales.

I can provide all... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
I can provide all the evidence you need for this, if yuo're really interested

Whatever, most moonbat truthers have plenty of archived "evidence". The only thing you fail to mention and it was pointed out clearly is the fact that "DEMOCRATS" said the same exact things to include the previous CiC.

The reason there will never be impeachment for President Bush is because too many witnesses for the defense are Democrats that would have to justify their own words and their votes for H.J.Res. 114.

Impeachment is merely a lefty chant meant to keep the nutroots sending in their milk money.

Trust me, if the left thought for one second they had a impeachable offense it would be brought up by now by the Democratic leadership. You don't have squat and neither do your lefty masters that spoon feed you your reguritated propaganda.

Whatever, most moonbat t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Whatever, most moonbat truthers have plenty of archived "evidence". The only thing you fail to mention and it was pointed out clearly is the fact that "DEMOCRATS" said the same exact things to include the previous CiC.

The only thing you and others fail to mention,and which I already pointed in my previous comment, is that:

a) this was said ****before**** the weapons inspections of 2001-2003, which proved there were no longer WMD's - after which Bush invaded anyway,

b) this was said as a reason to keep an eye on Saddam Hussein - NOT to invade Iraq.

Please respond to those two points.

Also, in addition, members of Congress and the Senate said they thought that Saddam had WMD's, after Bush told them the evidence indicated there was. And most importantly, Bush withheld ***all*** information from Congress and the Senate that indicated there were ***not*** WMD's.

Impeachment is merely a ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Impeachment is merely a lefty chant meant to keep the nutroots sending in their milk money.

Let's say for a second that's true.

If it turns out that Bush ***did*** lie to the American people, do you think he ***should*** be impeached?

If not, what do you think constitutes an impeachable offense?

I really should not be s... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

I really should not be surprised by the lack of critical thinking skills by the folks on the left.

I'll add that a leftist with critical thinking skills can only exists in a temporary state. Eventually, either the leftist dogma will rot their critical thinking skills (as we have adequate demonstrations of above) or their critical thinking skills with rid them of their leftist beliefs. So, the leftist that remain are immune to reason and logic... their dogma has cemented an is impervious to reason. To wit, jim.

If not, what do you thin... (Below threshold)
mantis:

If not, what do you think constitutes an impeachable offense?

I know this one! Treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

What is the lefty obsession... (Below threshold)
vaildog:

What is the lefty obsession with impeachment? It boils down to this. We couldn't beat GW in 2 elections, so we will have an 8 year temper tantrum about it. Get over it. In 16 months there will be a new president. When did an impeachable offense becaome the president does something we don't agree with. If making a bad judgement call was an impeachable offense, most president's would have a short tenure in office.
And you people on the left can spare me the concern about what is going on in Iraq, it's not like you know anyone over there or could be bothered to ever serve your country anyway. You are safe on the sidelines wallowing in your snark knowing that in the end if some soldiers get blown up the only mind you will pay it is as a rhetorical club to beat the president with. Well played!

"YOu mean, because he an... (Below threshold)

"YOu mean, because he and his administration said it was a **fact*** - a certain, locked-down, non-assertion, with no doubt - and then it turned out that it ***wasn't*** a fact, because none were found?

Please explain how, exactly, that is not deception.

Gee, I don't know. Why don't you ask Hillary and all those Democrats that agreed wholeheartly, went on the lecture circuit and affirmed it over and over and then voted to invade? You know, all those Democrats that are somehow always excluded from your rethoric.

"You mean, because it looks at what Bush said?"

No. Because it ONLY looks at what Bush said and consistently excludes those with whom they agree politically.

These are the same people who will never yell, "SADDAM LIED!"

When did an impeachable ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

When did an impeachable offense becaome the president does something we don't agree with.

1867-8, Andrew Johnson.

I know this one! T... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
I know this one! Treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

LIAR!!1!

Mantis, So it's fa... (Below threshold)
vaildog:

Mantis,

So it's fair to say that you agree with the impeachment of Andrew Johnson? Its hard to analyze from a historical perspective, because the Civil War is such an anomaly in US history.
If you are making the case that Johnson was nearly impeached based on trumped up charges, and that the congress should emulate that in regards to president Bush I'll have to vehemently disagree.

this was said ****... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
this was said ****before**** the weapons inspections of 2001-2003, which proved there were no longer WMD's - after which Bush invaded anyway,

Not true according to the former CiC:

Can we re-impeach him for lying to the American people even after he left office?

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003

And the UN agreed.

Remember? Saddam was missing WMD that the UN accounted for but was still waiting to destroy. Saddam claimed the Iraqi's went ahead and destroyed it them selves. (How convenient wouldn't you say?)

Here is what Han Blix said:

The Iraqi side suggested that the problem of verifying the quantities of anthrax and two VX precursors, which had been declared unilaterally destroyed, might be tackled through certain technical and analytical methods. Although our experts are still assessing the suggestions, they are not very hopeful that it could prove possible to assess the quantities of material poured into the grounds years ago. Documentary evidence and testimony by staff that dealt with the items still appears to be needed.

Then Blix said in a interview 2 weeks later: 26 February 2003:

Hans Blix stated that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation.

Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said

Wow jim, Former President Clinton and the Chief UN inspector both confirm that Saddam was still in possession of WMD but out of the goodness of Saddam's heart he destroyed it with out UN supervision (as mandated by the ceasefire agreement) and just made the tiny mistake of not documenting the dumping in the desert thing.

Wow...just wow.

How did President Bush lie again....I forgot since I'm being reminded how the Democrats lied to us about Saddam's WMD even into the year 2003.


LIAR!!1!You... (Below threshold)
mantis:

LIAR!!1!

You're right, I should have been using the special Sandra Day O'Connor version of the Constitution. It lays out the "President is a meanie" rationale for impeachment. In the impeachment penumbra, that is.

Vaildog,Not sure w... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Vaildog,

Not sure why I'm responding to you, since you seem so uncorked, but what the hell.

So it's fair to say that you agree with the impeachment of Andrew Johnson?

No, that is not fair to say. Put away your jump to conclusions mat.

If you are making the case that Johnson was nearly impeached based on trumped up charges, and that the congress should emulate that in regards to president Bush I'll have to vehemently disagree.

I'm making the point that impeachment has been used before because of a disagreement and not a crime. You seem to have a rosy-eyed view of American political history, or are ignorant of it. In any case I'm not arguing for impeachment of President Bush at all.

Oh, and btw, I'm pretty liberal, and I know a number of people who have served or are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. So get bent, asshead.

mantis, Why aren'... (Below threshold)
vaildog:

mantis,

Why aren't you over in Iraq then? Guilty much?

When you run out of arguments there's always the old asshead bomb to drop.

Gee, I don't know. Why d... (Below threshold)
jim:

Gee, I don't know. Why don't you ask Hillary and all those Democrats that agreed wholeheartly, went on the lecture circuit and affirmed it over and over and then voted to invade? You know, all those Democrats that are somehow always excluded from your rethoric.

Oyster, I already answered this at 3:48. To recap:

a) these statements that were made before 2000, were based on outdated evidence AND were not used as part of any rationale for invading Iraq.

b) these statements which were made after 2000, were based on deliberately filtered evidence presented by the Bush administration, AND were not made after the inspections in 2002 nad 2003, when no WMD's were found and Bush decided to invade anyway.

"When I left office, the... (Below threshold)
jim:

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003

Bill Clinton said in 2003, that were WMD's ***unaccounted for**** when he left office, which was in ***2001***.

We're clear on this, right?

So Bill Clinton saying they still believed there were extant WMD's when he left in 2001, actually ***supports*** my argument - Clinton is simply confirming that this was the state people believed things were at, in 2001 - ****before the 2002-2003 inspections****.

Now on to your Hans Blix quotes.

Why aren't you over in ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Why aren't you over in Iraq then?

Are you seriously using the chickenhawk argument? Hilarious.

Guilty much?

What do I have to be guilty about?

When you run out of arguments there's always the old asshead bomb to drop.

That wasn't an argument, and I certainly haven't run out of those. It was a statement of fact. You are an asshead.

Here's your first Hans Blix... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here's your first Hans Blix quote:

The Iraqi side suggested that the problem of verifying the quantities of anthrax and two VX precursors, which had been declared unilaterally destroyed, might be tackled through certain technical and analytical methods. Although our experts are still assessing the suggestions, they are not very hopeful that it could prove possible to assess the quantities of material poured into the grounds years ago....

It basically is boiled down in the concluding sentence:

Documentary evidence and testimony by staff that dealt with the items still appears to be needed.

So Blix is saying, in Feb. of 2003, that we want to see paperwork that the WMD's are actually destroyed. Which is reasonable.

But it in no way implies that the Iraqis were not cooperating. How do I know that?

I looked up the same report, and read further. Here's some other statements Blix makes in that same report.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

"...Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.

This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences. "

So much for that quote.

mantis, Your frien... (Below threshold)
vaildog:

mantis,

Your friends, people you love are risking their lives in Iraq for a lie! The only aid you offer them is posting inane comments on wizbang. Wow, you must be so proud. You are sticking it to the man daily from the safety of your comfy chair.

Bottom line , Democrats "... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

Bottom line , Democrats "ARE" a Perpetual Fraud. The Party is a farce and it's leaders are nothing but gutless lying criminal frauds.

Jim, why do you support such garbage? I suspect he is either being paid well or he himself is seeking a leadership position if not already in one.

Isn't it pathetic how the dirty rats always mention "what if's" many of which the democrats actually have done?

"I get the feeling that if Bush were caught screwing a young boy,"

No silly faggot , that would be Gerry Studs or Barney Franks. One of who actually did rape a young boy , thumbed his nose at Authority and who stupid democrat continued to reelect.

So tell us Jim, why do continue to accuse Republicans of what in fact democrats are guilty of?

Save us the lies, the short answer is because you are a DEMOCRAT. It really is that simply

Hooson:There w... (Below threshold)
marc:

Hooson:

There were of course no real weapons of mass destruction ever found in Iraq since this new war unless you consider the evidence of one

Congrats... you commented without pimpin' a two wheeled vehicle.

Note the bold face... incorrect, it wasn't a NEW war it was a continuation of the 991 war after Saddam failed to meat even one of the requirements of the ceasefire agreement.

And the U.N. efforts to destroy any longer range Iraqi missiles seemed to certainly work, along with years of economic sanctions and a military equipment embargo to Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War until the 2003 invasion.

Can you explain why (if the embargo worked so well) Saddam could so easily repair/replace the radar/anti-aircraft facilities after they were taken out by U.S. A/C and after said A/C were locked on to or in the parlance, "lit up?"

Just how was it possible that Saddam performed this trick of getting French and Russian equip in country for the repair work to be done?

As for the rest.... it's typical leftest pablum... it's about THEOIL! (Psssttt... China just signed to explore the largest southern oil field)

ADDED BONUS:

Can any of you Hans Blix sycophants explain why as late as 2004 he had a "gut feeling" Saddam had "retained weapons of mass destruction."

Hans Blix stated that Ir... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hans Blix stated that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation.

Which is an AP shortening of Blix's full quote, which gives a mistaken impression of his statement.

His full statement is in the same AP article, thankfully:

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/bfeb/27_blix.html

Asked Wednesday whether there was any evidence that Iraq wants to disarm, Blix said:
"I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision, but there is some evidence of some increased activity."

So Blix is saying he hasn't seen any evidence of a fundamental full commitment of disarming, but he has seen evidence of ***inceased activity*** in disarming.

Blix then went further:

He said an important test of Iraq's cooperation will be whether Saddam complies with the order to start destroying his Al Samoud 2 missiles by Saturday.

As we all know, Iraq passed this test by agreeing to the fully supervised destruction of these missiles - which weren't even listed as the WMD's they were looking for.

And as we all know, by this point no WMD's had been found.

I would say that lack of evidence indicates, well, a lack of evidence.

Wouldn't you?

Your friends, people you... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Your friends, people you love are risking their lives in Iraq for a lie!

They are? What's the lie, exactly?

The only aid you offer them is posting inane comments on wizbang.

You know nothing of what I do for them.

Wow, you must be so proud. You are sticking it to the man daily from the safety of your comfy chair.

Whereas you are just typing while you reload your M-16, no doubt.

Don't any of the conservatives/Republicans here want to respond to vaildog's chickenhawk argument?

Bottom line , Democrats ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bottom line , Democrats "ARE" a Perpetual Fraud. The Party is a farce and it's leaders are nothing but gutless lying criminal frauds.

Well. There you have that. Why need I argue any more?

Jim, why do you support such garbage? I suspect he is either being paid well or he himself is seeking a leadership position if not already in one.

Close, Rob; actually I'm a brain-slaved alien mutant from the Streisand compound. Excuse me while I go drink some Heinz ketchup mixed with human blood.

Isn't it pathetic how the dirty rats always mention "what if's" many of which the democrats actually have done?

Feel like listing a few? Since I'm sure there's so many...

"No silly faggot ,"

Show me the way to compassionate conservatism, why dontcha...

that would be Gerry Studs or Barney Franks. One of who actually did rape a young boy ,

You do understand there's a difference between consensual sex and rape, right?

Try it some time.

thumbed his nose at Authority

- by voluntarily confessing?

So tell us Jim, why do continue to accuse Republicans of what in fact democrats are guilty of?

You've cracked the secret! CLINTON invaded Iraq and blew up the budget. With his powers of mind control. Shhh. Fourthbranch has classified tgus double-super-secret. I'd tell you more about it, but first you have to step into the Cone of Silence.

Don't any of the c... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
Don't any of the conservatives/Republicans here want to respond to vaildog's chickenhawk argument?

I would, but I have to go enlist.

Plus, it's the height of retardation to sling that one out. Keep arguing with him and he'll probably compare you to Hitler.


"a) this was said ****be... (Below threshold)

"a) this was said ****before**** the weapons inspections of 2001-2003, which proved there were no longer WMD's - after which Bush invaded anyway,"

jim, they never "proved" there were no WMD. They just couldn't find any. I've read many accounts of people who were there; chemical engineers, atomic demolitions munitions experts and others who stated emphatically that there was little coordinated effort to find these things. The inspections were haphazard and incomplete. Numerous sites were never inspected at all. There were accounts of offers of bribes to back off. Delay tactics were regularly employed. There were "spot checks" and at times the Iraqis were allowed to "self-declare". At one point inspectors were completely thrown out.

Now that Saddam is gone and we have unfettered access to all these sites we've had difficulty proving the intel stated before the war started. But by no means should you or anyone else use subsequent information for your 20/20 hindsight assertions.

Jim, Jim, Jimmy. You are su... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim, Jim, Jimmy. You are such an apologist for the terrorists.

GW witheld evidence of there being no WMD? I won't even ask how you know this.

It comes down to your side of the aisle is too stupid to over see what is going on. Your side of the aisle votes to go to war without knowing what they are voting for. No wonder their approval rating is at an all time, historic low.

Jim, you are a pre 9/11 guy living in a post 9/11 world. You need to get with the times. People want us to die. Not just republicans, but lefty nuts also. ww

Mantis, I thought... (Below threshold)
vaildog:

Mantis,

I thought you believed we are only in Iraq because the president lied about WMD. So are your friends involved in an honorable mission or not?

I served my country as an Army officer so I get to pass judgement on your lack of military knowledge, honor and patriotism. It's only consistent of me according the the left wing talking you've been so faithfully spewing on wiabang lo these many years.

Note the bold face... in... (Below threshold)
jim:

Note the bold face... incorrect, it wasn't a NEW war it was a continuation of the 991 war after Saddam failed to meat even one of the requirements of the ceasefire agreement.

Marc, that's just crazy. Really. I mean that's kind of like saying WWI and WWII were the same war, because Germany violated the treaties of WWI. They're still separate wars, in all reality - different purposes, different President, different soldiers, different nations as allies, different circumstances, fought on different territory, etc. etc. etc.

And furthermore, as per Saddam's the ceasefire agreement - we found no WMD's. You know this, right?

jim, they never "proved"... (Below threshold)
jim:

jim, they never "proved" there were no WMD. They just couldn't find any.

Maybe they've never proved it to your satisfaction.

But I think no evidence of any WMD's or any WMD program after ****five years*** since 2002, and four of those years we ***owned the country*** - I think that's pretty conclusive evidence.

I've read many accounts of people who were there...The inspections were haphazard and incomplete. Numerous sites were never inspected at all. There were accounts of offers of bribes to back off. Delay tactics were regularly employed. There were "spot checks" and at times the Iraqis were allowed to "self-declare". At one point inspectors were completely thrown out.

And how much of this was in 2002 and 2003?

But let's say for the sake of argument that all those accounts are true, and that they were given in 2002 and 2003.

How about the 4 years since we invaded? Not a trace of the WMD's we invaded for, or even ***any*** evidence of a reconstituted ***WMD Program*** in that time??

Because I think that since all the evidence has backed up their statements, and no evidence has been found to contradict it, that's a pretty strong indicator that the 2002 and 2003 inspectors were right.

But by no means should you or anyone else use subsequent information for your 20/20 hindsight assertions.

Aggh!!

My whole point, and the statements of the 2002 and 2003 inspectors, show that this was ***not hindsight***.

The inspections were made in 2002 and up to March of 2003, right? Then we invaded after that, in March of 2003, right?

That shows the inspectors statements were not hindsight. They were ***foresight***. And they were right. And nothing since has proven them wrong.

"Show me the way to compass... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

"Show me the way to compassionate conservatism, why dontcha..."

How should I know , I'm registeded democratic you stupid F**K.

"You do understand there's a difference between consensual sex and rape, right?

Try it some time."

You obviously don't. A minor let alone a drunk one cannot consent you idiot.There is obviously alot you don't know about or the difference between.Which is why you sound like a petulant whiner being a lying democrat and all.

I thought you believed w... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I thought you believed we are only in Iraq because the president lied about WMD.

And you based this on what, exactly? The voices in your head?

So are your friends involved in an honorable mission or not?

My friends in uniform serve their country, and that is honorable. In any case my objection to the Iraq war was never that it was "based on lies," but that it was a bad idea, and the consequences would outweigh the benefits. Even if it were "based on lies," it would not make their service any less honorable.

I served my country as an Army officer so I get to pass judgement on your lack of military knowledge, honor and patriotism.

Well, so far you have not identified my lack of military knowledge, honor, or patriotism. Better get moving.

It's only consistent of me according the the left wing talking you've been so faithfully spewing on wiabang lo these many years.

Not that what you wrote there made any sense, but you obviously haven't been paying any attention to what I've been "spewing," as you don't seem to have a clue what I've said.

But please, continue your incoherent rant against the lefty that lives in your head. It's much easier than dealing with real people.

Jim, actually the Duelfer r... (Below threshold)

Jim, actually the Duelfer report proves them "wrong" to the extent that you interpret Blix' work as claiming that there were no WMD programs. Amusingly, Blix knew better than to state that. And the fact remains that Iraq could not account for what it had done with quite a bit of material that it was required to account for. While Blix claimed that there was "increased activity" there were still concealing activities going on that have been documented. Blix deliberately soft pedaled these as he opposed a renewed war, but they still existed.

So you need to return to reality, and reduce the frothiness.

In terms of hindsight, bipartisan intelligence committee reviews conclude that the Bush administration did not hide evidence as you claim.

jim, Boo hoo. Thi... (Below threshold)
vaildog:

jim,

Boo hoo. This is all academic because there was no legitimate reason in your mind for invading Iraq.

"How about the 4 years sinc... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

"How about the 4 years since we invaded? Not a trace of the WMD's we invaded for, or even ***any*** evidence of a reconstituted ***WMD Program*** in that time??"

How conveinantly you choose to omit like your democrat Media first hand accounts of where they were moved. After all one eye witness doesn't beat a pack of lying democrats.

Jim, what part of "SAY ANYTHING" or "DO WHATEVER IT TAKES" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

Oh ya , you understand perfectly well, you are implementing it right now. CDTPOPF enough said.

Bill Clinton said ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Bill Clinton said in 2003, that were WMD's ***unaccounted for**** when he left office, which was in ***2001***.

Oh I get it. After Clinton left office in 2001 and with ZERO inspectors on the ground, Saddam destroyed the WMD that Clinton claimed he had prior to inspectors going back in during the Bush administration.

Brilliant move on Saddam's part.

This was also brilliant on Saddam's part.....

Saddam interview during the inspections:

The Egyptian opposition weekly Al-Usbou' published yesterday an interview with Saddam Hussein. According to Al-Usbou', which has a very strong pan-Arab orientation, this was the first interview given by Saddam to any media outlet in the last 12 years.

Nassar: "Mr. President, do you think that time is working in your favor, or against you?"

Saddam: "No doubt, time is working for us. We have to buy some more time, and the American-British coalition will disintegrate because of internal reasons and because of the pressure of public opinion in the American and British street. (Useful idiot reference) Nations know the truth and are more capable of understanding than the leaders who are preoccupied with the Zionist conspiracies that are hatched by the media, conspiracies that blind those leaders."

mantis, Your hist... (Below threshold)
vaildog:

mantis,

Your history of posts on Wizbang, and their content is evidence enough that you have no honor.
As for your military knowledge, the left says that if one hasn't served, they are not qualified to comment on the war. Seems to me your lack of service means your comments on the war have zero weight and no merit.

Jim, Jim, Jimmy. You are... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, Jim, Jimmy. You are such an apologist for the terrorists.

No, you are.

GW witheld evidence of there being no WMD? I won't even ask how you know this.

By reading.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm

"The Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) today summed up the committee's 511-page report as follows: "[T]oday we know these assessments were wrong. And, as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available evidence." National Security Archive director Thomas Blanton commented, "The CIA's continued secrecy claims on a document that has been widely and publicly discussed by top CIA officials, and now by the Senate, is wrong, unreasonable, and largely unsupported by the available evidence.""

As you know, the CIA is part of the Executive branch, and it's head reports directly to the President. It reported this information to the President, including the many caveats, such as entire sections of unreliable info by the information who's intel was so bad he was nicknamed "curveball".

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html

"Five top German intelligence officers say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly ignored warnings about the veracity of the information that an Iraqi informant named 'Curveball' was giving about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

That whole article is worth reading.

Also, read this, while you're at it. It's quite fun.

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

It comes down to your side of the aisle is too stupid to over see what is going on.

They should have seen what was going on, instead of just believing what Bush told them. I'll grant you that.

No wonder their approval rating is at an all time, historic low.

It is no wonder. The voters put them in both houses to oppose Bush, and they caved in on demanding real timetables for pulling out of Iraq.

I'm mad at them too, with the rest of the voting public. That doesn't mean the Republicans in Congress are any more trusted - quite the contrary.

Jim, you are a pre 9/11 guy living in a post 9/11 world.

ww, I am a post-9/11 guy, and you are a post-9/11 guy. We are all post-9/11 people. We need facts and logic to get out of these messes and improve our nation. Please read, really read, the links I posted for you. They present a different look at your President than he and the GOP want you to believe - and this different side is backed up by facts and the historical record.

a) these statements that... (Below threshold)

a) these statements that were made before 2000, were based on outdated evidence AND were not used as part of any rationale for invading Iraq.

jim, you're just making stuff up now. The evidence was not outdated. The intel was gathered over a long period of time right up to weeks before the invasion. "These statements" were absolutely used as part of the ratonale to invade. When Congress gave the authority to invade it was clear that it was not an authorization to "keep an eye on Saddam". We'd already been doing that for years!

b) these statements which were made after 2000, were based on deliberately filtered evidence presented by the Bush administration, AND were not made after the inspections in 2002 nad 2003, when no WMD's were found and Bush decided to invade anyway.

Two commissions have ascertained that the intelligence was not manipulated or filtered.

How can you say - "AND were not made after the inspections in 2002 nad 2003, when no WMD's were found and Bush decided to invade anyway," with a straight face?

Hillary Clinton to Code Pink activists(March 6, 2003): "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming... And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part this decision. And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition."

Now before you try to twist that, I want you to read it very carefully.

That's just Hillary. There were others.

Bush did not "decide to invade anyway". He had authorization from Congress. Which, by the way, included Democrats. What do you think an authorization is? "Well, Mr. President, we're giving you authorization to invade, but you may not do so until we REALLY give you authorization." ??

Your history of posts on... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Your history of posts on Wizbang, and their content is evidence enough that you have no honor.

Do elaborate.

As for your military knowledge, the left says that if one hasn't served, they are not qualified to comment on the war.

I don't say that; it's a stupid argument. You, on the other hand, do use that argument. Hmmm.

Seems to me your lack of service means your comments on the war have zero weight and no merit.

Seems to me you are using the chickenhawk argument. Pretty weak, chum.

I get it. After Clinton ... (Below threshold)
jim:

I get it. After Clinton left office in 2001 and with ZERO inspectors on the ground, Saddam destroyed the WMD that Clinton claimed he had prior to inspectors going back in during the Bush administration.

If that's what you get, you're getting it wrong.

First, there were no weapons inspections from 1998-2001.

Second, we know that there were WMD's, and we know that none were found. And we know that there is evidence Iraq destroyed them.

And we know that no evidence of any program to create new ones was found; and no evidence of any WMD's being moved or hidden ****anywhere*** was found.

How could this be?

It would seem the clear conclusion is that the WMD's were destroyed as the result of inspections before 1998, and that this destruction continued as the Iraqis said it did.

There is simply no credible evidence for any other conclusion.

mantis, Thanks fo... (Below threshold)
vaildog:

mantis,

Thanks for reinforcing my point. The chickenhawk argument is meaningless and stupid. Next time one of your fellow leftist troll uses it here on wizbang, I expect you'll be the first to condemn them.

jim, you're just making ... (Below threshold)
jim:

jim, you're just making stuff up now. The evidence was not outdated. The intel was gathered over a long period of time right up to weeks before the invasion.

No, you're just shutting your ears and refusing to hear what you don't want to.

The evidence was outdated for several reasons. These reasons included the fact that there were no on-the-ground inspections from 1998 to 2001.

"These statements" were absolutely used as part of the ratonale to invade.

Good, we're agreed there.

When Congress gave the authority to invade it was clear that it was not an authorization to "keep an eye on Saddam".

Right - it was an authorization to ***defend the US*** against Iraq, ***if it was a threat*** to the US.

The inspectors found no WMD's.

Bush invaded anyway.

That's history.

Thanks for reinforcing m... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Thanks for reinforcing my point. The chickenhawk argument is meaningless and stupid. Next time one of your fellow leftist troll uses it here on wizbang, I expect you'll be the first to condemn them.

I have pointed out on numerous occasions that the chickenhawk argument is stupid, like here and here. But you would know that, since you've been following what I write here and have such a keen insight into my positions. Right?

Two commissions have asc... (Below threshold)
jim:

Two commissions have ascertained that the intelligence was not manipulated or filtered.

Which commission was that? It must not have been the commission that said this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html

A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."

Also, here's an interesting article for you to read:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html

Quote Hillary all you want ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Quote Hillary all you want to - the record shows that she and the rest of Congress did not have access to the full information that Bush had, before he decided to invade anyway.

I personally wish she and other Democrats had stood up more, themselves, and opposed Bush more directly. The UN WMD inspectors' lack of findings were obvious to me.

Second, we know th... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Second, we know that there were WMD's, and we know that none were found. And we know that there is evidence Iraq destroyed them

We know there is evidence Iraq destroyed them? The only proof Blix was given was Iraq's word without documentation.

So basically we have the "because Saddam said so, that's why" argument going on here.

Thanks for that clarification.

Also, read this, w... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Also, read this, while you're at it. It's quite fun

This is good too.
Downing Street Memos Wizbang

I never get tired of... (Below threshold)
dr lava:


I never get tired of taking in the breathtaking ignorance here at Wizbang.The new polls on Bush are down to a 25% approval. Nixon numbers.

I know no one that isn't horrified by the Bush regime. Who the fxxk are you people?

We know there is evidenc... (Below threshold)
jim:

We know there is evidence Iraq destroyed them? The only proof Blix was given was Iraq's word without documentation.

Uh, no. That is not the only proof. At all.

You see, all the other proof is - ***no WMD's were found.***

***No program was found.***

***No evidence of a program was found.***

And most importantly,

***No evidence of any Iraqis trying to find anything was found.***

You get this, right?

Ahem. Above should read "ev... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ahem. Above should read "evidence of Iraqis trying to hide anything was found".

Maybe I value American soldiers' lives too much, but I think they shouldn't be sent to die unless we've actually got some evidence of a threat. Especially when we're already in one war, Afghanistan, and we have yet to catch the guy who actualyl killed 3,000 of our citizens.

The new polls on B... (Below threshold)
The new polls on Bush are down to a 25% approval.

Oh, and where are the numbers for this new Democrat-controlled Congress that everyone was supposed to love?

Right.

Lower.

Hey, Jim... how about <a hr... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Hey, Jim... how about this story from your own CNN?

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons have disappeared from Iraq, the chief of the U.N.'s atomic watchdog agency has warned.

Now, for it to have been missing in 2004, it would have had to have been there prior to the 2003 invasion, since Saddam was in no position to have it made after the invasion.

Nuclear weapons, or the materials to make them, are considered by most people who don't have their head up their rectum to be WMDs.

Now go back to DU for new talking points, Jim.

The entire nation of Iraq w... (Below threshold)
Robin Roberts:

The entire nation of Iraq was dedicated to hiding the evidence of their WMD programs and jim thinks that failure to find anything proves it wasn't there.

Logic is definitely wasted on jim.

CCG, what do you actually t... (Below threshold)
jim:

CCG, what do you actually think that quote proves??

I put that text into Google, and found the actual article it came from.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/index.html

It contained some further information:

In the letter, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said that though some radioactive equipment taken from Iraq after the war began has shown up in other countries, none of the high-quality, dual-use equipment or materials that is missing has been found.

The U.S. government prevented U.N. weapons inspectors from returning to Iraq -- thereby blocking the IAEA from monitoring the high-tech equipment and materials -- after the U.S.-led war was launched in March 2003.

The Bush administration then deployed U.S. teams in what turned out to be an unsuccessful search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The IAEA said in its letter that U.S. and Iraqi officials have not reported dismantling any sites relevant to Iraq's nuclear program.

So, these sites disappeared all right -

AFTER THE US INVADED.

I mean, come on, man! What's going on here?? Are you accusing Saddam Hussein of reaching forward in time to remove WMD's after the US invaded???

"The only proof Blix was gi... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

"The only proof Blix was given was Iraq's word without documentation."

Remember the word of one other individual , BJ Clinton? Got proven to be a lying pos. That's what democrats are, that's what you are Jim.

The party that lies for a living, destroys classified documents a week before having to testify?
Where do you get your credibility ? A Cracker Jack?

Robin, you know what's also... (Below threshold)
jim:

Robin, you know what's also missing - sexy laser-headed Amazon robots that are 30 feet tall.

We haven't found evidence they were destroyed either. They must have been moved to Syria! Send me $40 for more details.

Rob, you're absolutely righ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Rob, you're absolutely right. Because Clinton lied about a blow job, there definitely are WMD's.

Jim says: <blo... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

Jim says:

"You see, all the other proof is - ***no WMD's were found

No program was found

No evidence of a program was found

Blix wrote his book in 2004 called:

Disarming Iraq

This is what he said about that:

"the absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence of WMD." But, Iraq could have done what Libya did some nine months later: invite the inspectors in to examine all of its facilities, give them complete access to all personnel previously involved in prohibited activities, and undertake to destroy whatever remaining programs, material and means to deliver WMD still existed, all under U.N. supervision and continued monitoring.
Jim, you miss the point.</p... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Jim, you miss the point.

Or, more likely, you deliberately ignore the point.

The UN, that holy of holies for all lefties, says the material that could be used in the manufacture of bombs, was missing in 2004.

In order for something to be missing, it has to exist in the first place.

Now, suppose you are Bashar al-Assad of Syria. You've received a shipment of nuclear material from Iraq between the time that Colin Powell went to the UN on bended knee and the time that the US actually invaded. You know that Saddam was not supposed to have it. You have something in excess of 100,000 US troops Just across your border in Iraq.

Do you really think it's safe to announce to the world at large that you have that stuff?

Mind you, I am not saying that Syria does have it, but it's easy to see why whomever does have it (and if it's missing, it's gotta be somewhere) is keeping mum about it.

Paul Hooson you used an aw... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Paul Hooson you used an awful lot of words just to say "I'm a moron."

Next time just post "I'm a moron" and save me reading the proof. I'll take your word for it.

"Because Clinton lied about... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

"Because Clinton lied about a blow job, there definitely are WMD's."

If you say so Jim. By the way wasn't it "sexual Relations"? What haven't the Clintons lie about? Oh ya they are not done yet, none of you democrats are done lying so long as you fiend for power. Democrats are simply incapable of being honest and telling the truth just as Mrs BJ Clinton just today proved for us once again. When asked about being a liberal she went on redefining a few words then proceded to reinventing herself for the umpteenth time.

Rob, you're absolutely righ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Rob, you're absolutely right. Also Jane Fonda is plotting with Hillary Clinton to take your precious bodily fluids. Better do something about that.

Sure, Blix said the first s... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sure, Blix said the first sentence of that: "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

But he did not even mention this hypothetical Syria situation; that was stuck in there by the reviewer.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2004_07-09/book/book_blix.html

Blix also said this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2032008,00.html

"I would never dare to accuse any statesman of bad faith unless I had absolute evidence of it. I do think they exercised spin," Mr Blix told Sky News.

"They put exclamation marks instead of question marks. There were question marks but they changed them to exclamation marks."

Mr Blix said the US used UN security council resolutions as cover for a "clearly illegal" war.

He said his inspectors could have confirmed the lack of weapons of mass destruction if they had been given more time.

"I think if they'd allowed us to carry on the inspections a couple of months more, then we would have been able to go to all the sites suspected of by intelligence - British, American or other," he said.

"And since there weren't any weapons we'd have come with that answer: there are no weapons at all the sites that you have given us."

This message, he said, would have run counter to what both the US and some of their sources, such as Iraqi defectors, wanted: "They wanted invasion."

Do you agree with those Blix quotes too?

Somehow I bet not...

Jim:Marc, that... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

Marc, that's just crazy. Really. I mean that's kind of like saying WWI and WWII were the same war, because Germany violated the treaties of WWI.

Not crazy at all. What IS crazy you can conflate a Germany that surrendered in Berlin on a day that was subsequently known as "V-E Day" on May 8. The Soviet Union celebrated "Victory Day" on May 9 due to time zone differences; the final cessation of German military activity happened at one minute past midnight by their clock.

On the other hand Saddam signed a ceasefire agreement (UNSCR 687) where he promised to abide by certain tenets contained in it.

So my question to you is, do you feel he lived up to that agreement? Do he pay reparations to Kuwait? Did he return all prisoners of war or account for those killed in action? etc.

I guess you have conveniently forgotten the Security Council on Friday, 8 November 2002 "Deplored the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material...",

The UN, that holy of hol... (Below threshold)
jim:

The UN, that holy of holies for all lefties, says the material that could be used in the manufacture of bombs, was missing..[so]...it has to exist in the first place.

Uh-huh. And this equipment was known to the public before the invasion, and was already tagged known and tagged by the inspectors - and most importantly, weren't WMD's.

Now, suppose you are Bashar al-Assad of Syria. You've received a shipment of nuclear material from Iraq between the time that Colin Powell went to the UN on bended knee and the time that the US actually invaded.

We can hypothesize all day and not.

You know that Saddam was not supposed to have it.

I'll stop you right there.

Saddam had these potential dual-use machinery, and these nuclear materials - and we knew it, and it was tagged and monitored ***before the invasion***.

That's because these materials were not WMD's.

Right, Jim. A nuclear bomb-... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Right, Jim. A nuclear bomb--or the parts for one--isn't a WMD if it is in the hands of a totalitarian dictator like Saddam.

Your head is so far up your rectum that it's not worth wasting the bandwidth on you.

I've posted this elsewhere,... (Below threshold)
Ravenshrike:

I've posted this elsewhere, but I think I haven't posted it on wizbang. If I have, I apologize.


The sandbox conundrum:

A hypothetical exercise with sand, lots and lots of sand.

Your objective: Find 20 grains of white sand.

The place: A yard with 4 seperate sandboxes with black sand in it, all connected to at least one other.

The details: Our Wily Bastard will have 6 days to hide the grains of sand in any of the four sandboxes, which for convenience we will label L,S,Iq,In. During the 6 days, you will be able to get an overhead view of the sandboxes, but occasionally they will black out for minutes at a time, and even more often, will be obscured by the fog from strategically placed fog machines, which will activate randomly. At the end of the 6 days you will be allowed to search for the grains of sand. But you will only be able to actually physically search in the sandbox labeled Iq. You will only be able to search the other sandboxes with the Mark I eyeball. Moreover, you must search the Iq sandbox with a pair of tweezers and are limited to picking up one grain of sand at a time.

The question: What is the probability, given that a Wily Bastard hid the grains, that you'll find any of them?

Aaak, sorry for the triple ... (Below threshold)
Ravenshrike:

Aaak, sorry for the triple post, computer futzed.

"we have yet to catc... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:


"we have yet to catch the guy who actualyl killed 3,000 of our citizens"

Jim you are fricken retard, do not speak , do not reproduce do not do anything. You do nothing nothing for Americans or the Country. The best you could do is just drop dead. The Country will be better off with one less lying asshole disgracing and betraying Her.

Who am I trying to kid , these are the same morons who claim this Country is not worth dying for.

The CIA is full of democr... (Below threshold)

The CIA is full of democrats and yet Bush was able to
"filter" the War intel to trick all of the super intelligent liberals in Congress.The CIA has been leaking information to damage the Bush administration for years but they didn't leak the bombshell information that would have prevented the Iraq war.
Jim, are you serious with this [email protected]#t!!
The 9/11 commission was one of three that found Bush
did not lie or manipulate war intel.
If what you say about the "lies" is true,all of congress would vote to impeach.
There will be no impeachment because all the left has
is spin and incredible ignorance.
Your leading anti-war candidate has voted for two
wars in the last six years.
Jim,there is no other way to view you except that you
are a complete idiot.
Bill Clinton,Al Gore,John Kerry and the rest of your liberal heroes yelled and screamed about WMD's and terrorist links and finally passed a resolution for Regime change in Iraq.
Intelligence agencies around the world said Saddam had
Wmd's and links to terrorism.
John Kerry,Hillary Clinton,John Edwards,Harry Reid,and the majority of your liberal heroes in the
Senate and Congress agreed that Saddam had not disarmed
and was a serious threat.
They also agreed that Saddam had committed human rights violations(you know,genocide,the mass slaughter
you liberals are okay with all of a sudden),fired on
American aircraft in the no-fly zone,and that sanctions
had failed(remember Oil-for-food jim,you know millions
of dollars in Saddams pocket so he could restart after
the inspectors left).
Jim you can cut and paste and spin all you want,but
the facts are your liberal heroes voted to send our brave Soldiers to war and have turned their backs on
them for political gain.
You have accused President Bush of war crimes,torture,illegal wiretapping,exposing a covert agent,and lying about pre-war intel.
All of these major crimes yet your liberal heroes
cannot impeach or show any evidence that would hold up
to reality or a court of law.
Jim,you and your useful idiot friends are so stuck on
stupid I can't believe your parents let you stay up this late.

Right, Jim. A nuclear bo... (Below threshold)
jim:

Right, Jim. A nuclear bomb--or the parts for one--isn't a WMD if it is in the hands of a totalitarian dictator like Saddam.

Your head is so far up your rectum that it's not worth wasting the bandwidth on you.

No, YOUR head is so far up YOUR ass that you're a poopyhead. Poopyhead with poop in your pants. And you poop like you have a little pee for a pooper.

Now that we're done with that part of the debate...

Don't blame me for the WMD definition. Blame the Bush White House. Because those dual-use equipment and Saddam's leftover nuke stuff was ***known and not considered WMD by the Bush administration****.

WHy do you think that might be?

You can go ask them - you're a conservative, so they might answer you. But the reason is: those plants and materials were known and monitored, by the IAEA, so not even the Bush administration could make the case that they were a threat.

That's reality and history.

Rob, blah blah blah.... (Below threshold)
jim:

Rob, blah blah blah.

Duelfer showed that Saddam ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Duelfer showed that Saddam had the will to WMD and Rossett that he had the means. Jim, your head is in the sand, but your BDS is wagging around for all to see.
=====================================

The one thing you have to k... (Below threshold)
Jim Watcher:

The one thing you have to know about Jim is that he's a liar and a fool. He will lie to make a political point and you can't make him admit the truth no matter how hard you try.

"You know the video is a... (Below threshold)
WarIsPeace:

"You know the video is a loser by who links it (Wizbang Blue and Andrew Sullivan)"

This is one of the dumbest, most brain dead posts from a shrieking screeching jingoistic war-hugging neocon Pavlovian who would stand reason on its head to deny reality.

Clearly, Paul's brain-dead IDS (Iraq Derangement Syndrome) has left him far limper than a severe EDS sufferer.

How anyone can watch Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney lie again and again and deny the reality before his eyes reflects that his IQ is sub-amoeban.

Paul'e post is an example of How to Create a Blind America.

WarisPeace[ofdung]... (Below threshold)
marc:

WarisPeace[ofdung]

How anyone can watch Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney lie again and again and deny the reality before his eyes reflects that his IQ is sub-amoeban.

Would you care to specifically delineate what those lies were?

Paul, I merely disagree wit... (Below threshold)

Paul, I merely disagree with you on this matter. Don't sell yourself short. I still respect you and your right to your opinions and views on Iraq or other topics. I merely offered some facts and history to illustrate that many who are so critical of the Iraq situation have given it a great deal of critical thought and are constantly evolving their opinion as new facts continue to surface.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy