IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New As opposed to shrub's penchant for major revenge?
Saddam threatened his daddy, so shrub manages to kill Saddam, his evil kids (yes, they all had it coming), and a huge chunk of the population of the country, combined with all the dead and wounded USians? (don't forget Poland! hehe).

And yes, I attribute ALL of the deaths to him. And there will be many more.

And you consider Clinton and Bush cut from the same cloth?

I'm trying to resist name calling.
..
..
..
..
eh, screw it.

You're a fucking idiot.
Sigh.

You prefer Edwards?
That's nice, I'm sure you also believe in the Easter bunny. Because both of them have the same chance of showing up at the White House.

You think Hillary's lust for power means she will extend the Iraq war more than anyone else?
WTF?
Again, sigh, one name calling is enough.

When I say throw the money around, I mean for medical and other social programs. If you are dumb enough to equate money for Doctors and shots to humvees and mililtary contractors, again, WTF?

So next, you fall on Thompson? Screw that, he's a more polished Bush. With absolutely no plans. He talks in warm fuzzy generalities. So really he's the anti-candidate. He might be your anti-christ.

You have not said one bit of anything other than you hate her, and will support anyone else, and only given absurd accusations.

Look into the mirror and say hello to Philbot V2.

New Fred still says Saddam had WMDs and a nuke program.
[link|http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/thompson_saddam_clearly_had_wmd_and_a_nuke_program.php|TPM Election Central].

Cheers,
Scott.
New box doesn't care
He's not Hillary.
New Perhaps boxley is like me.
I haven't voted for the winner yet. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New I did, once :-)
Say what you will, but Bill could still get elected today.
Smile,
Amy
New exactly
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Heck, alot of folks said that
until it was politically expedient to forget they did.

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York also spoke on the issue of the Iraq resolution:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.


[link|http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009637|An op-ed about the leftward drift].
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New she's a whatever it takes kind of guy
get that thumb into the air and listen for wind sheer, wait until after the election for payback central.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New He said it *two days* ago. He hasn't been paying attention.
She has.

Did you read the TPM link?

Cheers,
Scott.
New the same she who admits she didnt read the intel report?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New How many did?
Too many people trusted the Bush administrations talking points and presentations and felt they didn't need to read the full report.

Nobody can change the past. What matters now is the future.

Thompson's comments are yet another illustration to me that he's a lightweight who's running on slogans. It's good to see that he's not very inspiring on the stump in Iowa: [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/us/politics/04thompson.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin|\ufffdCan I have a round of applause?\ufffd]:

Still, Mr. Thompson at times seems to be looking for his sea legs. In an interview with Kay Henderson of Radio Iowa on Wednesday, in talking about Iran, he referred to the \ufffdSoviet Union and China.\ufffd (Ms. Henderson, at the end of her blog post on the exchange, wrote: \ufffdNo, I did not mistype. Thompson said Soviet Union rather than Russia.\ufffd)

On the first day of his visit here, he attacked the Medicare prescription drug plan signed into law by Mr. Bush in 2003 as too costly. That bill was \ufffdwritten and championed by Iowa\ufffds popular Republican Senator Charles Grassley,\ufffd as was tartly noted in a front-page story in The Des Moines Register, referring to the senator who all the Republican presidential candidates are assiduously courting for an endorsement.


See Fred Run! Run Fred Run!

Cheers,
Scott.
New a lazy dimbulb is what we need
gridlock, government of champions
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Yeah look at what Reagan did for the country
Huge deficits, Iran-Contra, Star Wars etc.

Yep, a lazy dim bulb is exactly what we need.
Seamus
New dot com era, end of cold war yup all bad things
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Like the other Bill(Hmm,has anyone seen them both together?)
...you are perfectly correct on all points you make, except two:

1: Reagan had zippy-zilch-nada to do with the "dot com era", and

2: It wasn't his doing that it happened to be his watch when the sclerotic Soviet Empire finally ran out of wind.

But, as I said, on all the other things you mentioned you are perfectly correct.


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Reagan had nothing to do with the dot com era
Who sponsored the legislation that funded the creation of the internet? Oh yeah, Al Gore: [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_and_Communication_Act_of_1991|wikipedia] 

As to how much Reagan's military spending increases led to the fall of the Soviet Union and whether it could have accomplished with costing American taxpayers as much as it did, that's a whole different argument.
Seamus
New of course lowering taxes hurt the economy...right
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Reading for comprehension - try it some time
The issues being discussed are your mistaken impression that Reagan caused the dot com era and collapse of the Soviet Union. Lowering taxes wasn't mentioned. But then again, when has irrelevance keep you from posting.
Seamus
New Macroeconomics - study it sometime.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Wasn't the issue
Seamus
New reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the sovs
right, it wasnt his insistance on star wars and defence spending that pushed the sov economy over the edge the nobel folks were wrong as well as all contemporary historians and you the mighty seamus was right.

the dot com bubble was a product of rising middle class incomes and the 401k both attributable to reagan's tax cuts and rewriting the 401k guidelines. People had money to invest in the market like never before and did so against all common sense.

People tend to blame presidents for faltering economies, as Im sure you blame bush for the current one, so good economies should also be "blamed " on the presidents that caused them.

thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Did you even read the paper by Yegor Gaidar?
He was there and he has presented a strong case in his paper. What evidence do you have?

On to Reagan:
the dot com bubble was a product of rising middle class incomes and the 401k both attributable to reagan's tax cuts and rewriting the 401k guidelines. People had money to invest in the market like never before and did so against all common sense.


No, without the baby boomers, a strong dollar and the so-called peace dividend Reagan's tax-cuts would have looked like Bush's taxcuts are looking now.

Seamus
New You must have something against
full employment and increasing fed collections.

The taxes don't look that bad. Its the SPENDING that is the problem.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New No, its believing that you can cut taxes, increase spending
for an ill conceived war and get an economic expansion as happened in the 90s without the same flukes of history as point out by [link|http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/bilmes_reagan_wp_021004.htm|Linda Bilmes] 
Seamus
New HOW ROBUST IS THE CURRENT ECONOMIC EXPANSION? (new thread)
Created as new thread #294286 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=294286|HOW ROBUST IS THE CURRENT ECONOMIC EXPANSION?]
Seamus
New The issue was did Reagan cause the collapse of the USSR
According to [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar|Yegor Gaidar]  the main cause was Saudi Oil policy:

In the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet leadership, however, was not intellectually prepared to heed lessons from the School of Salamanca. The shortest quotation about the intellectual capacity of the Soviet leadership came from the Politburo minutes: "Mr. Zasiadko has stopped binge drinking. Resolution: nominate Mr. Zasiadko as a minister to Ukraine."

While intellectual capacity was not the strongest quality of the Soviet leadership, they still understood the need to manipulate the oil market. Excerpts from Politburo materials indicate that the head of the Committee for State Security (KGB), Yury Andropov, facilitated contacts between the KGB and the Arab terrorists, who sought assistance for terrorist attacks on oil fields in order to keep energy prices high.[5] The general resolution was that the Soviet Union should support the Arab terrorists in this battle.[6]

Yet one of the Soviet leadership's biggest blunders was to spend a significant amount of additional oil revenues to start the war in Afghanistan. The war radically changed the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. In 1974, Saudi Arabia decided to impose an embargo on oil supplies to the United States. But in 1979 the Saudis became interested in American protection because they understood that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a first step toward--or at least an attempt to gain--control over the Middle Eastern oil fields.

The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.

As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive. The Soviet leadership was confronted with a difficult decision on how to adjust. There were three options--or a combination of three options--available to the Soviet leadership.


From [link|http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25991,filter.all/pub_detail.asp|AEI] . If the Reagan administration hadn't tried to force the USSR to keep up with our military build up, maybe his deficits wouldn't have been so big.
Seamus
New can you say disinformatsya? probably not
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New I forgot the AEI is all about spreading Russian
disinformation.

The talk was about what the current Russian government is doing to keep from repeating past mistakes, so it has got to be disinformation. Couldn't possibly be anything else.
Seamus
New if they are trying not to repeat past mistakes
they are hiding that activity very well while appearing to rebuild the apparachik machine

the invasion of afghanistan had fuck all to do with the price of oil, if you had studies history you would know that.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New A fear of Soviet control of the middle east wasn't a
big concern for the Saudis? And they certainly have never used oil prices as a political weapon. Get real. It makes more sense than the arms race made the USR collapse. The USSR had options in the arms race, it didn't when it came to the price of oil and a loss of market share.

The power of the free market causing the collapse of the USR, I would have thought you would have appreciated the irony in that.
Seamus
New not for the saudis
the oil options for the Sovs were wasted by refusing to invest in infrastructure and exploration until AFTER the collapse of the communist system. It was the arms race that broke them, not oil prices.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Yeah the huge loss of oil revenue
which they couldn't do anything about didn't cause the collapse, but spending on the arms race which they could choose how to respond to did cause the collapse. Boy, you sold me on that one.
Seamus
New hate to break it to you
but in the 70's and 80's russia was a net importer of energy, not a producer, but hey, dont let facts bother your worldview
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New The idea is that the fall of oil prices
and loss of market share cost them hard currency without which they couldn't buy grain, let alone guns or other forms of energy:

The Search for Loans

The money was suddenly gone. The Soviet Union tried to create a consortium of 300 banks to provide a large loan for the Soviet Union in 1989, but was informed that only five of them would participate and, as a result, the loan would be twenty times smaller than needed. The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits.

In 1985 the idea that the Soviet Union would begin bargaining for money in exchange for political concessions would have sounded absolutely preposterous to the Soviet leadership. In 1989 it became a reality, and Gorbachev understood the need for at least $100 billion from the West to prop up the oil-dependent Soviet economy. According to chairman of the State Planning Committee Yury Maslyukov:

We understand that the only source of hard currency is, of course, the source of oil. . . . If we do not make all the necessary decisions now, next year may turn out to be beyond our worst nightmares. . . . As for the socialist countries, they may all end up in a most critical situation. All this will lead us to a veritable collapse, and not only us, but our whole system.[7]

Ryzhkov commented at the same meeting:

The Vneshekonombank's [Soviet Foreign Trade Bank] guarantees are needed, but it cannot provide them. . . . If there is no oil, there will be no national economy.[8]

It is fascinating to hear now the opinion that Eduard Shevardnadze, then foreign minister, "betrayed" the interest of the Soviet Union--especially when documents that were prepared for him at the time are available. In reality, a number of Soviet agencies urged him to secure at any cost these "politically motivated credits."[9]

In the meantime, the Soviet Union started to have severe food shortages, and grain deliveries were not being made to large cities. One of Gorbachev's closest associates, Anatoly Cherniayev, described the situation in Moscow in March 1991:

If [the grain] cannot be obtained somewhere, famine may come by June. . . . Moscow has probably never seen anything like that throughout its history--even in its hungriest years.[10]


From the Soviet Collapse article.

Seamus
New The other issue was that Reagan caused the dot com era
It has already been shown that Al Gore sponsored the legislation that created the funding that led to the creation of the internet. But, on the off chance that you mean to imply that Reagan's policies created the economic boom of the Clinton years, don't bother. [link|http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/bilmes_reagan_wp_021004.htm|The historical flukes that caused the Clinton era boom] .
Seamus
New Maybe a more neutral source
For one thing, the Reagan tax cuts were offset by a series of subsequent tax hikes, implemented by Congress in the early 1980s, by the first President Bush in the late 1980s and by President Clinton in the early 1990s.

Contrary to the fears of supply-side economists, who have supported the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, the economy grew despite these tax hikes, while spending discipline in the 1990s helped turn deficits into surpluses.

And an April 2000 study by Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman for the National Bureau of Economic Research said Commerce Department data showed that, contrary to popular belief, the Reagan deficit did not lead to an investment boom -- all rates of domestic investment actually slowed down in the 1980s.

"The familiar conclusion that sustained government deficits at full employment depress private capital formation has stood up well," Friedman wrote.


[link|http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/02/news/economy/budget/index.htm|CNNMoney] 
Seamus
New Wow, a complete ignorance of globalization
I'd expect better from Harvard.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New So, what is it you're saying here?
That President Reagan personally invented globalization and thereby ushered in an era of prosperity?

And if that's not what you're saying, then what does (whatever it is you are saying about) globalization have to do with Seamus' point, namely (to remind you) that the American economic prosperity of the nineties was not necessarily Reagan's personal doing?


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Re: So, what is it you're saying here?
Ok, here is the quote

And an April 2000 study by Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman for the National Bureau of Economic Research said Commerce Department data showed that, contrary to popular belief, the Reagan deficit did not lead to an investment boom -- all rates of domestic investment actually slowed down in the 1980s.

"The familiar conclusion that sustained government deficits at full employment depress private capital formation has stood up well," Friedman wrote.


And this is being used to support a claim that the econ policies of the late 80s had nothing to do with the boom in the 90s.

The only indicator mentioned is >private< capital formation on a domestic basis. It ignores the HUGE impact that the credit facility put in place invited unprecedented foreign investment in the US. During that time, all major asian auto manufacturers build facilities in the US, it ignores the influx of billions in foreign real estate investment etc.

It also ignores, and I can't imagine it being anything but purposefully, PUBLIC capital formation, which is what deficit government spending gives you. More guns, more government jobs, more infrastructure etc.

Was the prosperity the direct result of one act of cutting taxes? Absolutely not. Did Al Gore have something to do with it by helping fund tech? Sure...him and everyone who made sure it passed. Did the massive gov't spending programs make sure it happened. You bet.

Does any of that have anything at all to do with private capital formation. No.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New The claim was that the Reagan deficits produced the
dot com era. That is what I was refuting.

Before you decide what the author ignores and what he is claiming you should read the [link|http://www1.worldbank.org/wbiep/fiscalpolicy/friedman.pdf|whole paper] 
Seamus
New A chaired professor and former Dept chairman
is completely ignorant of globalization? Much easier to hand wave then to try to show that he was wrong.

Seamus
New dunno, alternate theories by walter williams are offered
he is also a prof especial.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Yes, a supply-sider. There the only ones left who
argue the deficits don't matter.
Seamus
New well listening to hillary giving away money
if she is elected she must be a supply sider as well.
that 5k per kid has to come from somewhere.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New A supply sider is someone who thinks stimulating
the suppliers will somehow increase demand. She is not talking about giving to the supply side.
Seamus
Expand Edited by Seamus Oct. 5, 2007, 01:24:23 PM EDT
New Yes.
I was busting your chops. Fred is Ronnie redux with a smoother accent.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Not hardly. Fred's an out of touch lightweight.
New We'll see if the party machinery can mold him
into something more presentable.


Right now they have Rudy as front runner...and I don't think the machinery thinks he can win.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New I think the R machinery knows that none of them can win. ;-)
New They won't get a chance to mold him
if he doesn't start climbing in the polls, which doesn't look likely. It is probably already down to Rudy and Mitt.
Seamus
New Apparently
if he has to forget what he said 2 days ago.
New In his defense, from all the transcripts I've seen, he...
...actually said "Saddam HAD HAD weapons of mass destruction".

And that's true: As of the invasion, in 2003, Saddam probably didn't have any WMDs (and certainly no nuclear ones!). But it was known that he HAD, at some earlier point (like in the 1980s), HAD at least chemical WMDs: It was those he had used to massacre Kurds with.

So I must say it looks to me as if the left hemiblogosphere was overreacting in this case.


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Hmmm...
[link|http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/02/thompson-saddam-hussein-clearly-had-wmd/|CNN] (the original source in the TPM link):

"Saddam Hussein, today, had we not gone in, would be sitting on this [powder] keg and be in control of the whole thing," Thompson predicted. "He would have been the new dictator of that entire region in my estimation. He is\ufffdwas\ufffda dangerous irrational man who, by this time, would have been well on his way to having the nuclear capability himself."

In remarks delivered earlier in a caf\ufffd, Thompson said Hussein "clearly" had weapons of mass destruction prior to the beginning of the war.

"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD," Thompson said. "He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program, and in my estimation his intent never did change."

"By today," Thompson continued, "[Hussein] clearly would have had that rejuvenated; especially looking at what Iran says that it's doing."


He's confusing March 2003 with January 1991. He's trying to argue that the evidence found after the 1990-1991 Gulf War described the capabilities of Iraq in 2003. He's ignoring the sanctions. He's ignoring the investigations. Saddam wouldn't be "controlling the whole thing" if we hadn't invaded. Intent isn't a WMD, and intent isn't a WMD or nuclear program. Saddam was not reconstituting his WMD programs under the sanctions. Even if the sanctions had been lifted later in 2003, he still wouldn't have been able to build WMDs by this point (there probably would have still been an embargo on precursors and nuclear materials).

Fred's intent is clear in:

"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD," Thompson said.


He wants to replant the seed in peoples' minds that the WMDs are there, we just need to look some more. A rusty 20 year old mustard gas shell buried in the desert, or a home-made chlorine gas truckbomb, isn't a WMD, though some have argued otherwise. We didn't go to war because there were some old, unusable, munitions from the Iran-Iraq war scattered about, or because people can blow up tankers filled with Clorox mixtures. We were told by Bush and Cheney that we had to go to war because Saddam was a deadly threat to us.

He's trying to justify Bush's decision post hoc and ignoring everything we've learned since March 2003.

He's just wrong. He's refusing to acknowledge that what Bush and Cheney said about Iraq in justifying the war was wrong.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Ok, yup, in *that* sense he was wrong.
But then much of the left hemisphere is wrong in describing him as a totally senile old dodderer who claimed that "he HAD [*one* 'had'] WMDs so we had to invade!"; what he was actually doing was, as you point out, typical political double-speak.

So he actually seems still to have most of his faculties; he's still as glib as any other politician. Come to think of it, he's really pretty slick -- or many of the left-wing indignerati must be rather thick -- since he either managed to *give* them the impression he said the easily-disproven single-'had' version, or they got hold of the wrong end of that stick all by themselves.

That's all I was saying; that what he actually said wasn't quite the totally-braindead version some seemed to be arguuing against. (OK, I admit, he's *so* slick he even had me "defending" him there for a while, by dropping the context you have now so conveniently gathered together for us in one place. Sheesh! :-)


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New I'm not willing to give him a break.
You were right about the double-had. I missed that the first time around, and the reporter apparently did as well. But I wouldn't be surprised if that was just a typo. ;-)

In cases like that I'd generally like to see what he said unedited, but Fred's said so many wacky things in the last month or so that I'm not willing to give him a break on this issue.

He's not all that slick compared to [link|http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/27/document_shows_romneys_strategies/?page=full|Slick Dancing Mitt] Romney. Mitt is a master, yet even he's finding it difficult to finesse his changing positions.

Cheers,
Scott.
     More betrayus.... - (Simon_Jester) - (108)
         Is he calling our generals traitors? - (Seamus)
         a little long on hyperbole - (boxley) - (96)
             I don't usually agree with you - (Seamus) - (95)
                 petraus like macnamara - (boxley) - (94)
                     What duties are those, Box? - (jb4)
                     Talk about chicken shit - (Seamus)
                     Your "will do what his boss tells him" kind of chicken... - (CRConrad) - (91)
                         so, they are loading iraqis into ovens now? -NT - (boxley) - (90)
                             No, not as far as I know. Why, does that somehow make... - (CRConrad) - (89)
                                 try reading my original post - (boxley) - (88)
                                     SIGH...It gets more and more wrong. - (CRConrad) - (87)
                                         naw, the germans were cheering all the way thru 1941 - (boxley) - (86)
                                             Uuh... Yes. Logic much, mr Sequitur Strawman? - (CRConrad) - (85)
                                                 were you not comparing a point in time? if not - (boxley) - (84)
                                                     Two, actually: Germany, 1932, and USA, 2007. - (CRConrad) - (83)
                                                         long as we dont invade russia in winter - (boxley) - (82)
                                                             WTF is WRONG with you? Are you stoned out of your... - (CRConrad) - (81)
                                                                 Now THERE is a funny non-seq -NT - (bepatient) - (80)
                                                                     Non? Seemed to follow pretty directly, dinnit? How not? -NT - (CRConrad)
                                                                     Nah - (crazy) - (78)
                                                                         the lady's penchant for petty revenge with all the - (boxley) - (77)
                                                                             Nope, that still doesn't explain WHY you're so mad. - (CRConrad) - (17)
                                                                                 isnt isnt 28 years of clinton bush enuff? - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                                     Re: isnt isnt 28 years of clinton bush enuff? - (Seamus) - (2)
                                                                                         yer right, it just seemed like 28 years -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                             It will seem like alot longer, heaven forbid. -NT - (bepatient)
                                                                                 It's because of the pronoun - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                                                                     bullcrap - (boxley)
                                                                                 ms I dont know in charge of the gummint? - (boxley) - (10)
                                                                                     Um, her senior thesis isn't sealed any more. - (Another Scott)
                                                                                     Bravo! Yeah, that's *exactly* what I mean. - (CRConrad) - (8)
                                                                                         Hey, back in the day - My Gramma used to get reams of those - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                                             Reminds me of a passage in NDCC. - (Another Scott)
                                                                                         funny, you seem ready to convict the current - (boxley) - (5)
                                                                                             When was she named an unindicted co-conspirator? -NT - (Seamus)
                                                                                             Uhh... "slim evidence" for the lies that got you into Iraq? - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                                                                 you gargle yer koolaid this am? - (boxley) - (2)
                                                                                                     You're wrong AGAIN! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                                                         :-) -NT - (boxley)
                                                                             As opposed to shrub's penchant for major revenge? - (crazy) - (54)
                                                                                 Fred still says Saddam had WMDs and a nuke program. - (Another Scott) - (53)
                                                                                     box doesn't care - (crazy) - (3)
                                                                                         Perhaps boxley is like me. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                             I did, once :-) - (imqwerky)
                                                                                         exactly -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                     Heck, alot of folks said that - (bepatient) - (48)
                                                                                         she's a whatever it takes kind of guy - (boxley)
                                                                                         He said it *two days* ago. He hasn't been paying attention. - (Another Scott) - (46)
                                                                                             the same she who admits she didnt read the intel report? -NT - (boxley) - (35)
                                                                                                 How many did? - (Another Scott) - (34)
                                                                                                     a lazy dimbulb is what we need - (boxley) - (33)
                                                                                                         Yeah look at what Reagan did for the country - (Seamus) - (32)
                                                                                                             dot com era, end of cold war yup all bad things -NT - (boxley) - (31)
                                                                                                                 Like the other Bill(Hmm,has anyone seen them both together?) - (CRConrad)
                                                                                                                 Reagan had nothing to do with the dot com era - (Seamus) - (29)
                                                                                                                     of course lowering taxes hurt the economy...right -NT - (boxley) - (28)
                                                                                                                         Reading for comprehension - try it some time - (Seamus) - (7)
                                                                                                                             Macroeconomics - study it sometime. -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                                                                 Wasn't the issue -NT - (Seamus)
                                                                                                                             reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the sovs - (boxley) - (4)
                                                                                                                                 Did you even read the paper by Yegor Gaidar? - (Seamus) - (3)
                                                                                                                                     You must have something against - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                                                                                         No, its believing that you can cut taxes, increase spending - (Seamus)
                                                                                                                                         HOW ROBUST IS THE CURRENT ECONOMIC EXPANSION? (new thread) - (Seamus)
                                                                                                                         The issue was did Reagan cause the collapse of the USSR - (Seamus) - (8)
                                                                                                                             can you say disinformatsya? probably not -NT - (boxley) - (7)
                                                                                                                                 I forgot the AEI is all about spreading Russian - (Seamus) - (6)
                                                                                                                                     if they are trying not to repeat past mistakes - (boxley) - (5)
                                                                                                                                         A fear of Soviet control of the middle east wasn't a - (Seamus) - (4)
                                                                                                                                             not for the saudis - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                 Yeah the huge loss of oil revenue - (Seamus) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                     hate to break it to you - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                         The idea is that the fall of oil prices - (Seamus)
                                                                                                                         The other issue was that Reagan caused the dot com era - (Seamus) - (10)
                                                                                                                             Maybe a more neutral source - (Seamus) - (9)
                                                                                                                                 Wow, a complete ignorance of globalization - (bepatient) - (8)
                                                                                                                                     So, what is it you're saying here? - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                                                                                                                         Re: So, what is it you're saying here? - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                                                                             The claim was that the Reagan deficits produced the - (Seamus)
                                                                                                                                     A chaired professor and former Dept chairman - (Seamus) - (4)
                                                                                                                                         dunno, alternate theories by walter williams are offered - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                                                                                             Yes, a supply-sider. There the only ones left who - (Seamus) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                 well listening to hillary giving away money - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                     A supply sider is someone who thinks stimulating - (Seamus)
                                                                                             Yes. - (bepatient) - (5)
                                                                                                 Not hardly. Fred's an out of touch lightweight. -NT - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                                                     We'll see if the party machinery can mold him - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                                                         I think the R machinery knows that none of them can win. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                         They won't get a chance to mold him - (Seamus)
                                                                                                 Apparently - (Simon_Jester)
                                                                                             In his defense, from all the transcripts I've seen, he... - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                                                                 Hmmm... - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                                     Ok, yup, in *that* sense he was wrong. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                                                         I'm not willing to give him a break. - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Thank youm thank you, thank you! :) - (a6l6e6x) - (3)
                                                                                 Are you sure it wouldn't be...? - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                                                                     It's a legacy of the "Song Title Game". It's not recent. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                                     I'm a native European. - (a6l6e6x)
         Main difference - (bepatient) - (9)
             How much of a difference is this? Not much. -NT - (Seamus)
             Actually, I don't believe that... - (Simon_Jester) - (7)
                 You don't believe an easily recognizable fact? - (bepatient) - (6)
                     <man type=straw /> - (jb4)
                     Re: You don't believe an easily recognizable fact? - (Simon_Jester) - (4)
                         You know... - (bepatient) - (3)
                             And you determined that how? - (hnick) - (2)
                                 Simple really - (bepatient) - (1)
                                     I do think some of your analysis is correct (new thread) - (Simon_Jester)

This looks like the output of a Markov bot that's been fed bus timetables from a city where the buses crash constantly.
456 ms