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 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)

Reillusionment... what a concept.
104 ms