"Bush Lied"

[Perd Hapley]

Lobotomy, I have always found your name well-chosen.

I did not say that Iraq was "unproblematic," and I'm not even sure what you mean by that.  Please feel free to explain using real words.  And I thought Bush's vocabulary was creative.

As to deaths in Iraq - well, it is a war.

[richyoung]

And Fistful, I don't understand how any reasonable person could consider Iraq unproblematic.

Allow me to clarify.  The world is a better, safer place without a country being led by a murderous, maniacal psycopath and his two criminally insane hellspawn.  From jury-rigged extended range SCUDs to super-cannon to nerve agents to his nuclear program, he was a threat to everone in the world, and not just the thousands he was killing each month, and the tens of thousands torured and imprisoned in his own country.  Sadaam invaded a neighboring country, tried to asassinate a former POTUS, defied UN sanctions and his own surrender documents, attacked a US navy vessel, and whether you want to believe it or not, did everything in his power to:

1. Aquire WMDs, and
2.  Fool everyone into thinking he already had them, IF he didn't.

If you think he wouldn't have provided WMDS to terorists, you need to have your thinking apparatus checked.  We are SO better off without him, even IF his absence has led to a prolonged "settling of old scores" bloodletting that he was able to temporarily suppress by the simple expediant of killing anyone who got out of line.  If Clinton could send us into KOSOVO, to kill CHRISTIANS to protect MUSLIMS, we have TEN THOUSAND TIMES more reasons to be in Iraq.

If it's not a problem, how do you explain that to the parents of the kids who are dying over there?

1. "Your children VOLUNTEERED - there is NO draft."
2.  "Your children joined the MILITARY - their job is to break stuff and kill people.  Of course, if they were foriegn aid workers or Peace Corps or students or reporters or working in New York or the Pentagon or on an airliner, they still might be just as dead, but would not have had the option of shooting back..."
3.  "Sometimes the enemy kills people back - that's war."
4.  "In this country we have CIVILLIAN CONTROL of the military.  Don't like your kids going to war - fine.  Vote the bums out that sent them, vote some appeasing spineless jerks in, and start studying the Koran and Arabic.  Can't muster enough voters to do that?  Tough.  It's called "democracy".
5.  "Its a heck of a lot better to fight them OVER THERE with SOLDIERS that to supply CIVILLIAN VICTIMS over HERE for them to attack."
6.  "We already FAILED to finish one Iraq war - thats a big part of why we are fighting a second Iraq war.  Fail to finish this one, and you are REPEATING the same mistake, and dooming future children to fight and die in a THIRD Iraq war."
7.  "Be it a man or a country, one you START to whup someone's butt, you better finish the job - and do SUCH a good job that neither he, nor his friends entertain the thought of a re-match."

[Perd Hapley]

Speaking of "kids" dying in Iraq - soldiers are not children.  At least not ours.  To speak of them so is degrading, I don't care how much older you are.

[The Rabbi]

And Fistful, I don't understand how any reasonable person could consider Iraq unproblematic.

Allow me to clarify.  The world is a better, safer place without a country being led by a murderous, maniacal psycopath and his two criminally insane hellspawn.  From jury-rigged extended range SCUDs to super-cannon to nerve agents to his nuclear program, he was a threat to everone in the world, and not just the thousands he was killing each month, and the tens of thousands torured and imprisoned in his own country.  Sadaam invaded a neighboring country, tried to asassinate a former POTUS, defied UN sanctions and his own surrender documents, attacked a US navy vessel, and whether you want to believe it or not, did everything in his power to:

1. Aquire WMDs, and
2.  Fool everyone into thinking he already had them, IF he didn't.

If you think he wouldn't have provided WMDS to terorists, you need to have your thinking apparatus checked.  We are SO better off without him, even IF his absence has led to a prolonged "settling of old scores" bloodletting that he was able to temporarily suppress by the simple expediant of killing anyone who got out of line.  If Clinton could send us into KOSOVO, to kill CHRISTIANS to protect MUSLIMS, we have TEN THOUSAND TIMES more reasons to be in Iraq.

If it's not a problem, how do you explain that to the parents of the kids who are dying over there?

1. "Your children VOLUNTEERED - there is NO draft."
2.  "Your children joined the MILITARY - their job is to break stuff and kill people.  Of course, if they were foriegn aid workers or Peace Corps or students or reporters or working in New York or the Pentagon or on an airliner, they still might be just as dead, but would not have had the option of shooting back..."
3.  "Sometimes the enemy kills people back - that's war."
4.  "In this country we have CIVILLIAN CONTROL of the military.  Don't like your kids going to war - fine.  Vote the bums out that sent them, vote some appeasing spineless jerks in, and start studying the Koran and Arabic.  Can't muster enough voters to do that?  Tough.  It's called "democracy".
5.  "Its a heck of a lot better to fight them OVER THERE with SOLDIERS that to supply CIVILLIAN VICTIMS over HERE for them to attack."
6.  "We already FAILED to finish one Iraq war - thats a big part of why we are fighting a second Iraq war.  Fail to finish this one, and you are REPEATING the same mistake, and dooming future children to fight and die in a THIRD Iraq war."
7.  "Be it a man or a country, one you START to whup someone's butt, you better finish the job - and do SUCH a good job that neither he, nor his friends entertain the thought of a re-match."

Anyone feel a chill under their feet?  I agree 100% with RichYoung.  Saddam had 30 years' record supporting terrorists.  When the americans reached Baghdad they apprehended the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking, who happened to be hiding out there.  Maybe he was attracted by the nightlife.
I can't wait to see what we turn up in Damascus.  There is a certain ex-Nazi I'd like to see extradited to Israel.

[Lobotomy Boy]

"Lobotomy, I have always found your name well-chosen."

Your witty retorts are as well thought out as your arguments.

[Perd Hapley]

Lobby, are you going to explain your bizarre response to my post #25, or will you just get huffy about my little jab?  Please stretch out your sense of humor and take it out for some exercise.

[roo_ster]

Conspiracists and BDS sufferers have no time for humor, as humor is just part of the plot used to distract us all from what is really going on.

Humor: the new opiate of the masses.

[Lobotomy Boy]

If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand, which, judging from the stunning lack of logic in your response and your proven inability to understand the evidence I've already offered, is most likely the case. And to spend any more time responding to your pathetic ad hominem attack would be to sink to your level, which would defeat the purpose of "polite" in "armed and polite."

[The Rabbi]

If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand, which, judging from the stunning lack of logic in your response and your proven inability to understand the evidence I've already offered, is most likely the case. And to spend any more time responding to your pathetic ad hominem attack would be to sink to your level, which would defeat the purpose of "polite" in "armed and polite."

Translation: I can't explain it either.

[Perd Hapley]

Is there a difference between ad hominem and teasing?

Lobotomy Boy, if I didn't respond to evidence, it's because you didn't present any.  All you laid down was your interpretation of what you've read or heard.  Besides that, I was only responding to the comments you directed at me, which related to Iraq itself, not the pre-war intelligence.  If you don't want to hear some jokes about your name, choose something less self-effacing.

[Matthew Carberry]

Why does it have to be self-effacing.  Maybe it's what he does for a living?

Maybe he's the drill man, or the "spin the probe" guy.

[Darwin]

Translation: I can't explain it either.

It seems to me Lobotomy Boy explains himself clearly and concisely, and backs himself up with concrete examples (what Fistful calls his interpretation of what he's read or heard, which is an example of abstract thought in action--you might want to try it some time, Fistful). I think what he's getting at is that if you can't understand his logical explanation, then the problem doesn't lie with his logic, but rather your lack of logic.

I find the irony of Rabbi's responding to Lobotomy Boy's refusal to engage in an ad hominem attack with another ad hominem attack bordering on the sublime. And Fistful, the difference between and ad hominem attack and "teasing" is that teasing is a form of playful jest, while an ad hominem attack is what a weak mind resorts to when he or she has been trumped by logic.

BTW, since I am not above engaging in ad hominem attacks or teasing, your name reminds me of something my grandfather said: Wish in one fist and defecate in the other and see which fist is full first. I think I know the answer in your case.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Translation: I can't explain it either.

It seems to me Lobotomy Boy explains himself clearly and concisely, and backs himself up with concrete examples (what Fistful calls his interpretation of what he's read or heard, which is an example of abstract thought in action--you might want to try it some time, Fistful). I think what he's getting at is that if you can't understand his logical explanation, then the problem doesn't lie with his logic, but rather your lack of logic.

I find the irony of Rabbi's responding to Lobotomy Boy's refusal to engage in an ad hominem attack with another ad hominem attack bordering on the sublime. And Fistful, the difference between and ad hominem attack and "teasing" is that teasing is a form of playful jest, while an ad hominem attack is what a weak mind resorts to when he or she has been trumped by logic.

BTW, since I am not above engaging in ad hominem attacks or teasing, your name reminds me of something my grandfather said: Wish in one fist and defecate in the other and see which fist is full first. I think I know the answer in your case.

The problem is that those "facts" presented by Lobotomy Boy are patently false.  It's just another re-hash of the "Bush lied" drivel.  LB denies the reality that the prevailing views pre-war were that Saddam had WMD.  The mainstream view at that time, held by nearly all politicians on both sides of the isle and including EVERY politician of note, was that Saddam had or was trying to acquire WMD.  LB tries to deny this reality, by making unverified and false claims about "Foggy Bottom" and so forth.

It's pretty stupid to try to deny this reality, too.  The very list of quotes that kicked off this thread refute what LB claims.  Go read it again.  All of the prominent Democrats believed the same things that Bush believed regarding Iraq and WMD.

LB goes on to say that the intelligence community disputed the notion that Saddam was involved with WMD, yet this is also patently false.  Intelligence agencies from most of the west, as well as Russia, Israel, and China, all either agreed with the prevailing views or declined to disagree with them.  All of the politicians (Republican and Democrat alike) saw the same intelligence reports, and all reached the same conclusions:  Saddam either had WMD or was trying to get them, and Saddam represented a threat to the United States.

It's doublethink, I tell you.  The current notion that only Bush believed Saddam had WMD, that the intelligence comunnity and the Democrats didn't believe it too:  it's the current notion.  It wasn't until after the invasion, after it became clear that no WMD had been found, that all of these Democrats suddenly and magically "knew all along" that there were no WMD.  It wasn't just that they revised their beliefs in the face of new evidence.  It was that they tried to rewrite history and revise what they had believed in the past, as if they could suddenly "wish away" all of the things they thought and said before the war.  

Well they did happen, and no amount of political posturing can change history.  If anyone lied, it's the Democrats who want you to believe that they never, ever thought the Iraq war was a good idea.  No sirree, they never thought that.  

[Darwin]

Here's the thing, Headless; LB presents examples that are verifiable by anyone with Internet access, in spite of the fact that you call them "false," "stupid," and "doublethink." Yet you present no examples to the contrary, other than your opiniated diatribe.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Sorry, I didn't think it was necessary.  But since you insist:

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=4386&p=1

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, I still don't see what LB means when he questions Fistful about Iraq being unproblemmatic.  Fistful never said Iraq was unproblemmatic.  He was pretty clear what he meant.
As for LB's main point: it is nothing other than revisionism.  This isn't something that happened 40 years ago.  We all read papers, heard news etc etc.  The consensus everywhere was that Saddam had WMD programs (which was correct) and was 3 years or 5 years away from developing nuclear bombs (which might have been correct).
To say the CIA had a consensus that differed from that view 180 degrees is just ludicrous, a re-writing of history.  In fact, Iraq was viewed as a failure of CIA intelligence and they were taken to task over it again and again.

And even if I were a septic tank worker I would not call myself "Shitman".

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful, the difference between and ad hominem attack and "teasing" is that teasing is a form of playful jest, while an ad hominem attack is what a weak mind resorts to when he or she has been trumped by logic.

I thought we could have a little innocent fun here, but apparently some people take themselves too seriously.  If Lobotomy Boy doesn't want to hear jokes about his screen name, he should not have picked one that implies he has no frontal lobe.  What is more distracting than my alleged ad hominem is the carping about ad hominem that has almost replaced any intelligent discussion from the Bush Lied group.

I never contested evidence or its interpretation from either side - I don't pretend to have studied the pre-war intelligence wars.  That is why I granted that you might be correct Darwin, and then opined that if you were it wouldn't make much difference.  Iraq needed to be dealt with sooner or later, regardless of what WMD it might have  contained at the time or what ties it may have had to terrorists in the past or present.   But LB put words in my mouth and then got upset that I didn't respond to a topic (whether BushCo lied or had bad intel) to which I have nothing to contribute.  He also impeaches his credibility by implying that a war is "problematic" if there happen to be a small number of casualties.  

Furthermore, LB did not give evidence.  Evidence would be sources; names of books, govt. reports, hyperlinks to credible webpages, etc.  Lobby only provided a narrative about things of which he has no first-hand experience, unless he is in higher circles than we know about.

[defcon5]

What Clinton, Kerry, yada, yada, yada said/believed/didn't say/didn't believe/yada,yada,yada doesn't negate the fact that whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place and whether or not we want to be there today we are there.(Whew, long sentence.) Like Brer Rabbit and the tarbaby we are in for a long exasperating tussel that will be costly - and of one thing we can all be sure, there won't be any Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. doing any of the bleeding but they will get nice returns on their investments.

[The Rabbi]

What Clinton, Kerry, yada, yada, yada said/believed/didn't say/didn't believe/yada,yada,yada doesn't negate the fact that whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place and whether or not we want to be there today we are there.(Whew, long sentence.) Like Brer Rabbit and the tarbaby we are in for a long exasperating tussel that will be costly - and of one thing we can all be sure, there won't be any Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. doing any of the bleeding but they will get nice returns on their investments.

Really?  What "investments" will they get benefit from?  Bush's approval rating sank to an all-time low as a direct result of this action.  What "benefit" do you see in that?  What investments does Paul Wolfowitz have?  How do you know this?
Stop slinging bumper-sticker garbage statements like this around and make some real arguments.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Why is it so hard for some folks to accept the simle notion that we went to war in Iraq because of the threat Saddam posed to the US?  Most everyone thought he had or wanted WMD, he was well known to be a terrorist, he supported other terrorists, and he harbored still more terrorists, he represented a tremoundous destabilizing force in the region, he violated umpteen UN sanctions/resolutions/demands, he violated his own surrender treaty, he routinely attacked American servicemen, he attempted to assassinate an American President, he tortured thousands upon thousands of innocent people...  

He was, in short, a Very Bad Dude.  It wasn't in our own interests for him to have control of an entire country.  It really is that simple.

Occams razor, folks.  The simplest explaination is usually the correct explaination.  Why are folks always trying to come up with these convoluted and conspiratorial explainations for why we went ro war?

[defcon5]

What Clinton, Kerry, yada, yada, yada said/believed/didn't say/didn't believe/yada,yada,yada doesn't negate the fact that whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place and whether or not we want to be there today we are there.(Whew, long sentence.) Like Brer Rabbit and the tarbaby we are in for a long exasperating tussel that will be costly - and of one thing we can all be sure, there won't be any Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. doing any of the bleeding but they will get nice returns on their investments.

Really?  What "investments" will they get benefit from?  Bush's approval rating sank to an all-time low as a direct result of this action.  What "benefit" do you see in that?  What investments does Paul Wolfowitz have?  How do you know this?
Stop slinging bumper-sticker garbage statements like this around and make some real arguments.

I will do that the day you cease your parroting of the Bush appologists - which means never. And, I notice you didn't take umbrage with the observation that there won't be any Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. doing the bleeding. Harummmph and have a nice day.

[The Rabbi]

What Clinton, Kerry, yada, yada, yada said/believed/didn't say/didn't believe/yada,yada,yada doesn't negate the fact that whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place and whether or not we want to be there today we are there.(Whew, long sentence.) Like Brer Rabbit and the tarbaby we are in for a long exasperating tussel that will be costly - and of one thing we can all be sure, there won't be any Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. doing any of the bleeding but they will get nice returns on their investments.

Really?  What "investments" will they get benefit from?  Bush's approval rating sank to an all-time low as a direct result of this action.  What "benefit" do you see in that?  What investments does Paul Wolfowitz have?  How do you know this?
Stop slinging bumper-sticker garbage statements like this around and make some real arguments.

I will do that the day you cease your parroting of the Bush appologists - which means never. And, I notice you didn't take umbrage with the observation that there won't be any Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. doing the bleeding. Harummmph and have a nice day.

He's baaack.

[Perd Hapley]

There won't be any Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. doing the bleeding.

I just quote this to embarass you, defcon, because it is such a silly criticism.

[defcon5]

There won't be any Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. doing the bleeding.

I just quote this to embarass you, defcon, because it is such a silly criticism.

Well when you can't attack the facts attack the speaker I guess.

[Perd Hapley]

Why would I attack that fact?  It certainly does nothing to discredit the Iraq war, George Bush or any of the hawks.  What does that fact mean to you?