Vermont votes to impeach
POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Friday, March 9, 2007 02:42
VIEWED: 5496
PAGE 7 of 9
I have much existential angst concerning the extent to which we agree, Khyron... 
(Then again, what's that old saw about great minds...?)
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
2) He said the existence of WMDs was conclusively proven and if the US didn't invade now, now, now there'd be a lot of trouble ahead.
Well, the latter part is predictive and as such doesn't constitute knowledge per se, and so I'm not really sure we can say he was lying as much as inflaming public opinion (which he was definitely doing). I, for one, don't think Hussein posed near the threat that Bush said he did. Say what you will--containment actually worked.
As to the former part, I'd be curious to see where he said that "the existence of WMD was conclusively proven." He might have, but if he did, I missed it.
Also, my assessment at the time, based on the intel that I saw, was that it was "almost certain" that Iraq had the goods. Turns out I was wrong, too. Maybe Bush, not being aware of the finer points of intel analysis, confused "almost certainly" with "certainly." After all, that later would definitely have fit not only his worldview, but his intention to take us to war in Iraq (which, I think, he wanted to do for reasons wholly beyond the question of WMD).
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the difference is that Bush had access to intelligence from the DOE nuclear experts saying the aluminum tubes were completely unfit for centrifuges, from Joe Wilson saying the uranium claim was not true, from intelligence analysts who said 'curveball' was a nutcase and so on. There was all this credible information which DIDN'T support the case for WMD.
In the first place, yes, I think there were some things that he out-and-out lied on (e.g. the yellow cake and Sudan business mentioned above). So did he lie? Yup. But that's different than the global assertion that he lied in every particular.
In the second place, if there was "all this credible information which DIDN'T support the case for WMD," I never saw any of it. The consensus of the intel community was something along the lines of, "He almost certainly has WMD capability, but we're not sure of the exact nature of that capability." Now, part one supports the president. Part two does not, given how confidently he asserted everything. But don't skip too easily past part one.
Quote:
And if I may point out - IF Iraq had CW, US troops would have suffered a 20-80% casualty rate. Do you think Bush would have sent troops in to that scenario?
Well, I'd be curious where you got the 20-80% casualty rate figure, but that's beside the point. Actually, I think that he did send us into what he thought was that scenario. Hence the elaborate training we received with all our chemical protective gear and the exhaustive drills and precautions we took while in-country. As I said, I was scared shitless the first time we had real in-coming because I thought those suckers would belch out CW. I was convinced of that on the basis of intel I'd seen going back 5 years before Bush. So, yeah, I think he did send us into an environment that he thought had the potential for the deployment of WMD. That's part of the reason I'm sore at him.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wish I could remember where I got the 20-80 % numbers from. A small portion of my work as a chemist involves CW detection so I had to do some research into that area.
The dissent from DOE experts etc all hit the news VERY briefly and then went - POOF ! and disappeared. It was extant and you could probably dig it up - but it was not after the fact. It was at the time.
Many soldiers - most soldiers - didn't have proper CW gear. You were lucky.
Anyway, I gotta get back to work, so I'd love to continue this later. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My son wanted to go to the local toy store for a special toy the other night. It was after 7:00pm, and I asked him if he was sure it was still open. He stated in no uncertain language that it was definitly open! I called ahead, instead of just rushing out, and found it closed at 6:00pm.
Was my son lying?
In his experience, that store was certainly open into the dark hours. But he had no cause to be so definite in his assertion that it WAS open at that particular late hour, other than his juvinile need for immediate gratification.
Let's just say he was being overzealous.
In light of this example, was Bush lying?
Yes.
Why?
He's not an eight-year-old. And Iraq is not a toy.
OK, the overzealous thing I'll grant you. But let's get closer in the analogy to something like intel. Say instead of your son, it was your wife. She wants you to take her to a nice restaurant, quite a swanky one. And you ask her, "Does it require reservations?" And she, on the basis of a conversation with a co-worker, says, "No, definitely not." Suppose further that this co-worker is wrong, that indeed, you do have to have reservations. Is your wife lying? I would say, no she's not. She doesn't know that what she's saying is an untruth. Her addition of "definitely" isn't warranted on the basis of the credibility of the information she has, but that's not enough to constitute a lie. I have to stick to my guns here, and say that I think that a person lies if-and-only-if they knowing speak an untruth with the intent to deceive.
Quote:
Do not attempt to apply logic to this administration Chrisisall
This administration may not think logically, but that's no reason why I shouldn't!
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm...everybody I worked with (so various SOF units, as well as Marine and Army infantry) had adequate MOP gear. I'd be curious about your source on the claim that "most soldiers" didn't.
And for the sake of due diligence, you're right, there were dissenting voices on the nuclear side of the question--sorry I didn't pick that up earlier. I thought you were making a broader claim. I didn't think he was getting close to nukes, not based on my info. But Nukes are just one component of CBR.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, actually the co-worker is usually correct, it's just my wife has a habit of cutting peeps off when she thinks she's heard enough, and never quite seems to get the whole picture, ergo the mis-understanding...
Originally posted by Causal:
Say instead of your son, it was your wife. She wants you to take her to a nice restaurant, quite a swanky one. And you ask her, "Does it require reservations?" And she, on the basis of a conversation with a co-worker, says, "No, definitely not." Suppose further that this co-worker is wrong
Now that analogy works for me Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup, that'd be about right.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Just so we know you have a point to make and are not as much of an asshole as you appear.
Excuse me Oh Grand Idiot of These Boards.....but who the fuck are you to call ANY Firefly Fan an asshole? Grow the fuck up!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Oh Vermont...well it fugures...right? There are about 24 people living in that state, all either pot-smoking ex-hippies, or ex-draft dodgers....and they certainly have a proud history of things they've "voted" for :
Voted to ban the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus
Voted to have maple syrup replace gold as our monetary standard
Voted to secede from the Union and call their new country Assholia.
Voted to remove crosses from every church.
Voted to make Maui Wowie the official state flower.
Voted to give condoms to fetuses
Voted to declare Howard Dean's brain a waste management area
Voted to make Pat Buchannan the winner in their primary & Presidential front-runner
Voted to declare Star Wars...Revenge of the Sith the greatest movie of all time
Voted to authorize a Britney Spears appreciation day.
Voted to decide when their next vote would be
and a zillion other meaningless, fu**ed-up votes over the years....oh, you thilly state!
ShinyEd ......this is truly a classic & I love it, but you omitted their most proud liberal acheivement which is basically LEGALIZING PEDOPHELIA & CHILD RAPE....all the judges in Vermont let these despicable & un-speakably vile animals who have SEXUALLY ABUSED young children for months, years...well these fucking judges, ALONG WITH OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR SUPPORT OF ALL THESE FINE UPSTANDING, BUSH-HATING, GOD-HATING LIBERAL RESIDENTS... well they let these bastards off with either NO PRISON TIME or less than a YEAR!@!!!!!!!!!@!@!@!@!@!!!!!!...Vermonters "feel" that these Democratic Voters" are ...well they're just a little off on their meds..a wee bit tweaked, so to speak..and that they need "help". "Well I say FUCK THEM & A BIG fuck them!, to FUCKING ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM FUCKING VERMONT!...but I digress.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME