Frank Rich: Slapped Down On Iran?

Frank Rich seems to have worked himself into a bit of a tizzy over Iran and Hillary, suggesting Iran could help spell defeat for the Democrats in 2008. That aside, I decided to follow a link he provided to see if it matched his rhetoric. Perhaps he's caught Glenn Greenwald syndrome, linking things that substantively don't measure up:

... a fresh arsenal of hyped, loosey-goosey intelligence and outright falsehoods that are sometimes regurgitated without corroboration by the press.

Mr. Bush has gone so far as to accuse Iran of shipping arms to its Sunni antagonists in the Taliban, a stretch Newsweek finally slapped down last week.

First Newsweek's supposed slap down:

In at least one case the administration seems to be overreaching: Defense officials tell NEWSWEEK that evidence of the Iranian government's shipping arms to the Taliban remains tentative at best.

Anonymous Defense officials? Without knowing who they are, it isn't even clear if they'd be privy to any intelligence that exists. The Washington Post did a little better than that when they covered the subject in some depth. And one of their sources was Sec Def Gates, who Rich sites as a "saner military mind" in his column linked above. Note the quote from Gates in bold that both acknowledges the shipments and their size. You'd think Rich would know what a slap down is given his history of being kicked around the blogosphere. Apparently not.

Iranian Arms Destined for Taliban Seized in Afghanistan, Officials Say
'Large' Shipment Said to Include Armor-Piercing Bombs

An Iranian arms shipment destined for the Taliban was intercepted Sept. 6 by the international force in Afghanistan in what appears to be an escalating flow of weaponry between the two former enemies, according to officials from countries in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

The NATO-led force interdicted two smaller shipments of similar weapons from Iran into southern Helmand province April 11 and May 3.

U.S. officials began to publicly accuse Iran of aiding the Taliban several months ago. R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in June that there was "irrefutable evidence" Iran was using its elite Revolutionary Guard Corps to arm the Taliban.

At the time, other officials were more cautious about earlier intercepted arms shipments. U.S. Army Gen. Dan K. McNeill, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, said there was no concrete evidence that the Iranian government was backing the Taliban. But he said it was possible that some elements in Iran were aiding the Taliban as a way of hedging their bets in Afghanistan.

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said then that it was likely that Iranian officials at least knew about the shipments. "I haven't seen any intelligence specifically to this effect, but I would say, given the quantities that we're seeing, it is difficult to believe that it's associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it's taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government," he said in June.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

Frank Rich is so clueless he couldn't find his butt grabbing with both hands.

[narciso]

That was aggressively incoherent, even for Rich. His first link references Greenwald
as to dismiss the danger. It goes downhill from there. I guess he wants to wait like Hans Blix
waited to see if his judgement about the N. Korean nuclear program was wrong. Maybe he wants to wait till the 3,000 centrifuges are operating in Natanz; so the radiation cloud from
a future strike can waft through the air. Then again, maybe he wants to wait till the nuclear
tipped Shahab missiles have blown up every military target between Camb Ubeidi AFB, Doha
and Western Tel Aviv. That's probably not enough of an imminent threat.

[Lala]

Frank Rich, a disgruntled New York Times theatre critic.

[docweasel]

Is it just me or are a lot of blogs down?
Instanpundit, LGF, Tim Blair all timing out after repeated tries
Didnt I read that the cyberjihadis were going to attack this week?

[doc weasel]

Powerline down too, and I pinged them all with Neotrace and they are indeed down

[bobInStamford]

Whoa - the patriot blogs were pinged and there was no answer! Lets hope all the heroes are ok. Sounds like terrurr to me. Time to get out the duct tape and plastic sheeting.

[redherkey]

"Defense officials tell NEWSWEEK..."

In a remarkable coincidence, Media industry officials tell us that NEWSWEEK writers make all their anonymous source quotes up, drink to excess in morning meetings, drink the blood of tortured small animals and regularly take lengthy "wide-stance" lunches at restroom stalls in nearby parks under the guise of researching Republicans.

Attributing anything to anonymous sources is an invalid practice as it lacks any measure for third-party validation. When you read of anonymous or unnamed sources, you're being told to accept the premise that the news organization is morally superior, beyond any requirement for validation that any other source would be required to present. You are expected to accept their word carte blanche as the final authority. In a sense, it's more appropriately read: "An anonymous source, c'est Moi, said ..."

This practice is discredited in nearly any other profession. A research paper without proper attribution would be rejected. Legal arguments without reference to precedent suffer and even high-school debaters understand you don't get to make claims without a reputable source. Publications that use this unethical approach need to suffer through losing the subscriptions of professionals who subscribe to a higher standard of evidence. While some publications claim they need this method to expose corrupt practices, the same standard of evidence (at a minimum) should apply and claims only published if other validating sources go on record substantiating the claim. Lacking a validated, named source, the claim lacks merit for publication.

We dumped Time, Newsweek and the Omaha World Herald because they refused to use only validated sources and I'd encourage any other professional who finds unattributed (and often imaginary) sourcing reprehensible to likewise do so.

[Worst President Ever]

If journalists start printing the names of their source in every article, a lot of those sources will soon be ex-sources. That standard would pretty much doom any investigative reporting, what little is actually done any more. Journalists use unnamed sources all the time. The standard is the information has to be independently verified.

And how many times have stories quoting anonymous "high administration officials" been taken as gospel on this site?

[Capitalist Infidel]

Whenever you read "anonymous source" it's code for whatever the journalists opinion is. Every article like that should be dismissed immediately.

Has anyone else noticed how blatently liberals are lying nowadays? They used to be at least somewhat "nuanced" in their lies, now they just outright lie, even about little things.

[Worst President Ever]

I guess them Dems finally learned something from President Bush.

I assume you're condemning stories like the following that qoute anonymous sources guises as government officials:

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

And

"Tehran is behaving like a racecourse gambler. They're betting on all the horses in the race, even on people they fundamentally don't trust," a senior administration official in Washington said. "They don't know what the outcome will be in Iraq. So they're hedging their bets.

[jj]

"Has anybody else noticed how blatanly liberals are lying nowadays?"

Why, yes, I have. The story the LAT did on the Beauchamp affair is a case in point. Even when confronted with the truth, they continue to lie. Like many liberals on this blog are want to do.

[Purple Avenger]

anonymous source == Alex Jones

[Worst President Ever]

Yeah, it's Liberal Lies that have gotten us into the mess we are today. Except maybe for that whole WMD thing. And maybe the Iraq 9/11 connection. Maybe a litany of "Iraq is getting better" claims. The whole Republicans as Fiscal Conservatives might be a stretch. Or that Conservatives don't do nation buildling. Or that they're against Big Government. Or that they'll fight to the death before surrendering our personal liberties. Then there's George Bush pledging to expand health care coverage for kids, then vetoed. Mission Accomplished. Cakewalk. Aluminum Tubes. Drones crossing the Atlantic. Saddam's Nuclear program. Bush says "Osama Bin Laden Dead or Alive". Then says "I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned. I don't really think much about Osama." We don't torture. Domestic Spying. Then Larry Craig's "I'm not gay". Jack Abramoff's "I'm not a crook". Ted Stephens "I'm not a crook.". Tom Delay charging back Scottish golf trips. Senator Family Values Vitter spreading the word amongst hookers.

[scarshapedstar]

Anonymous Defense officials? Without knowing who they are, it isn't even clear if they'd be privy to any intelligence that exists.

Funny, I could have sworn that back in 2002 the word of anonymous defense officials was slightly above that of Scripture, and anyone who questioned the slam-dunk WMD intelligence was an Objectively Pro-Saddam Stuckonstupid Traitor.

9/11 changed... wait, that was after 9/11. Flip-flop... wait, only Democrats flip-flop.

What in tarnation happened here?

[Capitalist Infidel]

jj, why do you think the liberals are lying so blatantly now? Is the new media forcing them even farther left? Their lies in the past took time to track down and by the time they were exposed for the frauds they are it was old news. But now, they link to articles that claim exactly the opposite of what they say it does. It's some kind of sick disease.

[Fred Beloit]

The Lefties on the far fringe, like the ones who post here, are still undergoing post electronic stress syndrome, and they are turning on even the moderate Left in vengeance and spite. They watched and believed as their leaders fed them lies and impossibilities like The War Is Lost and Troops Out Now. But their leaders must have known all along they couldn't fulfill their promises and disguise their lies about the war forever.

The Lefties about 40 and up are used to having their extreme views exclusively presented by the overwhelming majority of media as perfectly reasonable views. Those Leftists under 40, including the most delusional communists, anarchists, and trufers are twisted by the most propagandistic Leftist academia possible and are mere youthful victims. There is good reason to think that their eyes may eventually be opened by their peers who have not become victims of their professors.

But the media in the U.S. is no longer one-dimensional. Propaganda and lies are discovered in almost realtime and intelligent voters, the folks who really count here, are being presented with them on a daily basis through blogs, radio, and new television. Normal hard working, family raising Americans have less time to receive fairness and facts and in some places in the country are still under the thumb of broadcast and big media, but that is gradually changing.

No wonder the left is so frustrated by the truth getting out. It used to be so easy to fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. Right Frank Rich?

[Fred Beloit]

Say Frank Rich, here's more of the same, from someone who really knows:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/03/tony-snow-slams-media-freedom-speech-award-address

[Worst President Ever]

Nice spin Fred. Too bad it's not true. The public is sick of Republican rule and want a new direction for the country. And if you want to critique war spin, you gotta start with Bush. Was anything in Bush's case for war really true?

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

http://pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

http://pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm

[templar knight]

CI, some of the liberals and leftists have so much mental capital invested in their lies that they simply can't let go, some are so brainwashed that they can see no other alternative other than what they have learned, and some are just plain stupid, mentally deranged, or mentally retarded, if you will.

Add the lack of any moral standards, and you have the recipe for the Liars of the Left. A sorrier bunch of humans has never existed.

[templar knight]

Case in point, Worst Commenter Ever, aka WPE. It's nice to have a perfect example of what you were just talking about. Thanks, WPE. By the way, you are a perfect fit for the brainwashed column.

[Worst President Ever]

Reading you guys' posts might make someone think you've got Liberal Derangement Syndrome (LDS) since all you ever seem to post is hate, hate, hate of liberals. Hate and Fear seem all Bush and you guys have to sell.

[rwilymz]

"I'd encourage any other professional who finds unattributed (and often imaginary) sourcing reprehensible to likewise do so."

Nixon-lover!!

"The standard is the information has to be independently verified."

Not possible in a great many cases. It's one thing to be able to dig through police records to find independent corroboration of shady dealings in a free society, but in wars the independent corroboration typically exists on the other side of the front lines where the journalist's presence often means his death.

"it's Liberal Lies that have gotten us into the mess we are today. Except maybe for that whole WMD thing."

Which "whole WMD thing"? For there were at least two.
1] they are disbursing the ones they had
2] they are making new ones

Critics of the US and/or the specific administration of the US [I will do you a favor and not ascribe this to "liberals"] have thrown them both into the factual cuisinart and pureed them into a sluice. Needless to say, when critics now talk about "the whole WMD thing" they usually freely mix the two, and hence do not really have a valid criticism to make since they can't keep straight what they wich to criticize.

"And maybe the Iraq 9/11 connection."

The "Iraq-9/11 connection" was a broadcloth invention by [largely] these same critics.

The US never said "Iraq did 9/11". Not once. The US **did** say that an al Qaida-related group exists in Iraq. ...which was accurate. Once this was said, however, the simple-minded folks did their own dot-connecting and came up with, all on their own, "Iraq did 9/11".

"Maybe a litany of "Iraq is getting better" claims."

Most of which are accurate. You'd be hard-pressed to find one that isn't.

This is not to say that there isn't periodic backsliding, nor that "better" == "good". Those are presumptions made by the listener[s].

The rest of your bumper-sticker denunciations are either politics-as-usual [in which case you seriously need to find yourself an honest-to-god anarchy to live in if you wish to avoid it -- try Somalia], or it's even more politics-as-usual.

"What in tarnation happened here?"

Folks who would give a Democrat a break when he starts a pre-emptive war for regime change decided that Republicans only start wars to conquer the world, and that's just rude, ... and so the ground rules changed.

"The public is sick of Republican rule and want a new direction for the country."

"New direction" is just a gag-me feelgood slogan that means less than nothing. There are no "new directions" to go unless we simply wish to give the reins of first-world leadership to the swarm of gnats now swirling around our head.

We are the pre-eminent leader of the world, period, end of discussion. That brings with it a reality that most soft-skulled dinks do not comprehend: legitimate **nations** will generally leave us alone since we're too powerful to do anything about and those nations' leaders risk loss of power should they gamble and lose; but extra-national semi-political forces who have nothing to lose are going to bite our ankles every chance they get.

These forces we call, for ease of description, "terrorists". What happens when we fail to respond to "terrorism" as we would any other act of war from a "legitimate" nation is fractional loss of power, but significant loss of prestige. The more we do not do anything at all -- even if it's "wrong" -- the weaker we **seem** to those who would undertake "terrorism". The weaker we **seem**, the more "terrorism" we'll see.

However, if we react like an enraged bull and lash out indiscriminately -- as many of our modern critics believe we are doing -- the more these people will stay away from us just because we have become unpredictable.

...and the subtext running through the modern US-critic is that we are unpredictable.

Ainnit a beautiful sight?

We can't even pass the baton back to another Western Nation to lead the world by, because the groups who would ankle-bite us do not follow the financials in the Wall Street Journal; just like France was deemed until the mid-70s to be the leader of the West by these groups, so, too, will the US be deemed to be the leader of the West for decades after we are not.

"Was anything in Bush's case for war really true?"

A lot of it, yes.

But then, you're pointing at "polling data" to determine truth, and not reality. Polls are simply the *perception* of reality. And, granted, perception is often real-enough to the hoi-polloi that it becomes actionable in a mob-rule kinda way, but if you wish to intellectualize the discussion and deal with, in your words, what was "really true", then you will have to eschew the perceptions of those who are merely sympathetic. What they "believe" is less than meaningless.

Here's a rule of thumb to use when listening to, or debating, what a politicians says:
half of what he says on any given subject is true;
the other half false;
half of what he says -- including half of what's true and half of what's not -- is irrelevant to the subject.

Bush on the invasion of Iraq, before it occured, was no different. Same as Clinton before Kosovo and 'Desert Fox'; same as Bush the Elder before Panama and the Gulf War, same as yadda before blah-blah.

Unless you work in the field under discussion, you don't know enough to apply the appropriate filters, and you're left using your bias to do the filtering for you.

...which is how come we have scads of currect US-Critics who are all hot over the "whole WMD thing" when they gave Clinton a pass; about Bush's pre-emptive war in Iraq for regime change when they gave Clinton's ditto in Serbia a pass.

Et cetera.

[Worst President Ever]

The Bush Administration certainly tried to conflate 9/11 with Iraq. The may have couched their language, but the intenst was clear. That's why most Americans believed there was a connection when Bush was re-elected. A few quotes for you since you seem to have missed that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

Clinton didn't start the Iraq War, Bush did. Clinton did bomb the s*** out of them whenever he felt like it. In reality, Iraq was contained. We had weapon inspectors in country until Bush pulled them out. There was really no need to invade. Iraq wasn't a threat to us. It's been a huge distraction from the real War on Terror.

World Leadership means more than saying "My Way or the Highway". I know many on this board think the US should go it alone, but the reality is, a real War on Terror requires the cooperation of all countries. It's closer to a police operation than a war.

"Was anything in Bush's case for war really true?"

A lot of it, yes.

Such as?

Without Condi's wonderful mushroom cloud imagery, we would have never gone to war. People that think the US Public would have supported a war without some real threat to the US - the mythical WMDs / Mobile Weapons Labs / Nuclear Program - are simply delusional.

Responing to terrorist attacks by attacking a country that had nothing to do with those attacks, and wasn't a threat, might be deemed a strategic blunder. The leaders of Al Qaead are hiding out in caves someplace in the Middle East, perhaps some attention to scale would be helpful.

No New Directions to Go? Certainly there are. An occasional attempt at diplomacy would be a good start.

I've always discounted much of what politicians have to say. For Bush, I've doubled the %.

Here's your exalted Leader about the man that planned the biggest terrorist on the US ever:

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

[Fred Beloit]

"The Bush Administration certainly tried to conflate 9/11 with Iraq. The may have couched their language, but the intenst[sic] was clear..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293
" Cited by WPE.

Another statement conflating 9/11 with Iraq and from a speech doing a lot more to support the attack against Saddam. WPE/nowinker, can you guess who made this speech?

"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."

You are correct. H. R. Clinton, on Oct 10, 2002. Now I didn't insult you or your candidate. I merely showed how you are wrong, again. Now don't you feel like a horse's petoot?

[Fred Beloit]

Read her entire speech here, nowinkerworst.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[Fred Beloit]

Correcting Hillery, nowinker/wpe writes:

"Responing[sic] to terrorist attacks by attacking a country that had nothing to do with those attacks, and wasn't a threat, might be deemed a strategic blunder."

Poor Hillery, she should have passed her speech by wpe before she gave it before the Senate.

[rwilymz]

"The Bush Administration certainly tried to conflate 9/11 with Iraq."

And other politicians tried to conflate social security reform to putting granny on an ice floe, and the recent child health care veto with infanticide.

That's politics. You take it with a grain of salt -- **all** of it -- or you become a future stroke victim trying to change 10,000 years of political practicum.

"Clinton didn't start the Iraq War, Bush did."

Ooooh. Cool. A meaningless tangent. Unless you care to explain how this comes up, I'm going to have to ignore it as a desperate attempt to derail.

"In reality, Iraq was contained."

Because the US was obligated to maintain a fixed-size deployment until the UN changed its position on Iraq's "threat" to the region. Just like NKorea is "contained". We can't leave there, either.

"We had weapon inspectors in country until Bush pulled them out."

Bush didn't pull them out. Equivocative terms for the sake of stressing your point has the effect of saying: "if 2+2=4 is correct, then 2+2=4.5 is even **more** correct".

No. it's not. It means you're 100% wrong.

Bush did not pull UN inspectors; you're 100% wrong. He reduced the UN's inspection opportunities to near zero, made it far more dangerous, and warned them that they'd better leave? Okay. That's not the same thing.

"There was really no need to invade."

That can be debated. But in order to discuss the subject honestly you cannot presume prefered conclusions as axiomatic. Intellectual dishonesty comes in when you assume those axioms based on a limited fact-set, and refuse to accede to the facts you refused to include in your analysis.

For example: The US being tied to Iraq due to the '91 Gulf War Cease Fire that the UN had no intention of requiring to be enforced, nor the US relieved of its "containment" [read: babysitting] duties had the effect of hamstringing US military responses to other "legitimate" terrorist actions. We could not leave Iraq in early '03 if we wanted to. Now we can. Now **WE** choose to stay.

For another example: it is well-known that modern "terrorism" cannot exist without well-heeled sources for funding and/or military supply. RPGs do not grow on trees. Of the hundreds of individual bands of panislamist "terrorists", most are funded by a very small group of nations who do not wish to "get directly involved" -- much like the accusations against the US in the 80s for funding the Contras, not to mention the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen.

You take out one of the terrorist-funding *nations* you've just put a severe crimp in "terrorism" to conduct terror. And, well, Iraq was one of the biggest state-sponsors of panislamist hooliganging.

Instead of swatting mosquitoes, we drained a swamp.

There's two reasons right there. Now, I'm positive that they won't pass your muster, but I'm not really interested. If, on the other hand, you are truly interested in honestly discussing subjects you are interested in, then you'll pay attention; if not ... if you're only interested in dichotomizing your world into shades of black and white and demonizing those who dare to contradict you because they stress other points that you do not consider important enough, then I'd suggest that you're part of the problem this nation has with polarized politics.

"Iraq wasn't a threat to us."

Yet they attacked us half a hundred times between '91 and late '02. Awful odd "non-threat", ainnit?

"It's been a huge distraction from the real War on Terror."

Actually, as much of an argument can be made that's it's been quite the opposite -- even if unintended.

A'stan is a pain in the ass to get to for all but the most strident "terrorist"; Iraq is far more central and there's better places to live while terrorising. The US invades and therefore it becomes a lightning rod for terrorists. They now no longer have to endure the deprivation that A'stan promises. Iraq actually has utilities.

In essence, by invading Iraq we have become the porch-light to the mosquitoes we're trying to swat. Not only do we deprive many individual groups of them of the funding they need to operate, but we create a collection point for them.

"World Leadership means more than saying "My Way or the Highway"."

Eh. There's leadership by example, which works really well when there isn't a lot of dissention among the putative "good guys" on what to do; and then there's leadership by "get the hell out of my way" when there is. When you have nations like France actively supporting Iraq in funnelling millions of dollars to known terrorists, then you have our "friends" working against us. They need to get out of the way. The US is hardly the first nation in the history of the world to operate like this.

...and if you insist on holding France up as a beacon of admirable respectiability, just remember that when they were complaining about our high-handedness in re Iraq, they were doing the exact same thing in Ivory Coast.

EVERY nation does what we do, and to the degree you only complain about us doing it you are either:
1] grossly naive; or
2] the folks we're fighting.

"Without Condi's wonderful mushroom cloud imagery, we would have never gone to war."

More politics.

Look, if you're going to insist on taking politicians, you're a retard and not a lot can be done for you. You're on your own. And if you insist on repeating that face-value shinola as gospel, then everyone who has not eaten the same mushrooms are going to know you're a retard.

If, on the other hand, you're going to take politicians you *dislike* at face value while you're willing to grant politicians you like some rhetorical/political wiggle room, then you're simply a partisan hack who would argue against the "wrong" politician even if he said the sky was blue. We don't need that, and honest discourse is killed by that.

"People that think the US Public would have supported a war without some real threat to the US..."

Like Kosovo?

Like it or not, there's no real "good guy" here; there's simply the US doing what is in the US interests of the time -- just like always -- and that's not going to change until the US is snuffed out of existence.

You can continue to wet your panties about US interests that are not clearly articulated to you if you wish. That won't change anything. And it certainly won't change your wet panties. The only thing which for certain will happen is that you'll have wet panties and you'll be uncomfortable.

"the mythical WMDs / Mobile Weapons Labs / Nuclear Program - are simply delusional."

Fact: there were **at least** 6,500 chemical weapons inside Iraq's borders in late '98.

The UN had found thousands of chemical weapons in Iraq between '92 and '98, and stored them in warehouses to await destruction. 6,500 of them. In '98, Iraq compelled the UN to pull their inspectors, and they left the chemical weapons in those warehouses.

In late '02 when the UN went back in, first on the Blix agenda was to check up on what the UN had already done. Guess what? they were gone. ...just ... like ... we ... said.

You wanna know one of the things we said that was true? This is the place to start. Iraq had thousands of chemical weapons, UN-found, UN-documented, UN-stored. There in '98; not-there in '02. While the rest a-yuz were wailing and gnashing your teeth over who said what about yellow-cake and how many spies does it take to dance on the first amendment in violation of their oaths, some of us actually paid attention to the rest of it.

So, guy: where *did* those 6,500 chemical shells go?

"An occasional attempt at diplomacy would be a good start"

"Diplomacy" between non-peers is seen as weakness on the part of the superior. If the US were to negotiate with al Qaida, or Hamas, or any of the myriad swarms of skeeters in Iraq, we would be seen as inept and on the verge of losing.

Don't believe me? Negotiate with a petulant 2-year old sometime.

...and yes, "terrorists" are like 2-year olds. All instant gratification, no responsibility.

"Here's your exalted Leader about the man that planned the biggest terrorist on the US ever..."

The question was about bin Laden. I thought you said it was about the guy who planned. Bin Laden didn't plan anything that worked right.

The planner, al Qaida's "decider", as it were, is Ayman al Zawahiri. The Egyptian doctor hired away from Islamic Jihad. Everything al Qaida has done from the African embassy bombings to date have been his brain-children.

[Fred Beloit]

From President Bush's speech to the nation, 9/11/2006. Hillary and Bush agree, nowinker disagrees.

"On September the 11th, we learned that America must confront threats before they reach our shores, whether those threats come from terrorist networks or terrorist states. I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060911-3.html

[Worst President Ever]

I guess I'm not as cynical as you - yet. I think most Americans would like a little more reason to go to war than distortions and lies.

""Diplomacy" between non-peers is seen as weakness on the part of the superior."

BS. Superiority gives you a more powerful bargaining position. In fact, when you've got the more powerful bargaining position, it's stupid not to use it. Some strategic master you are.

In practice, it was a helluva lot cheaper for us to contain Saddam. We're looking at a trillion $ plus bill AND the disintegration of Iraq. It's also strengthened Iran while weakening our miliary. But things are going really well in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The top UN Weapons inspectors in Iraq when we invaded certainly don't agree with your view. And we've found no WMDs, no Mobile Labs, No Nuclear program. In fact, a big fat ZERO in the WMD column.

1998 - the UN pulled the inspectors out - Saddam didn't force them out. But why let facts get in the way of your pseudo-intellectual-wonk discourse.

Ah, the moronic negotiate with a 2 year old analogy. And, surprise, you distorted my position. I'm not talking about negotiating with Al Qaeda.

Fine, al Zawahiri then. The record's the same. Despite the tough dead or alive talk of Bush, he's alive, hiding in caves in the land of one of our allies.

"Bin Laden didn't plan anything that worked right."

At least Bush and Bin Laden have something in common.

[templar knight]

WPE, you're totally out of your league here, and you are coming across as an ignorant fool. Now that I think about it, you are an ignorant fool. Proceed, dufus!

[wor]

Hey Templar, coming from a Guy who's believed every statement George Bush has ever made, I take that as a compliment. Thanks Man.

[templar knight]

I see you proceeded being the ignorant fool. Good. You're welcome. Thanks for taking my advice.

[Lala]

wpe gets his info from democratic underground and actually tells people

[ET]

Seriously, wpe...you've had your beat-down, and we've all enjoyed witnessing your specious arguments wither in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But it is getting kind of pathetic now. You should take you toys and go home before you harm yourself further.

[templar knight]

"wpe gets his info from democratic underground and actually tells people"

LOL! I wondered where he was getting his propaganda. But that particular trait(going to DU for info) puts him into the mentally deranged category.

[Worst President Ever]

Those are quotes. Can you actually refute any of them?

[Lala]

wpe's democratic underground piece ---

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm

written by Murray Waas (affiliated with Daily Kos?)

Article is full of unnamed sources

No one picked up this article except for liberal web sites (per google search)

Bob Novak calls Waas a liar re the Plame affair

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/07/13/novak-attacks-murray-waas-on-hannity-colmes/

[templar knight]

Yep, deranged, just like I said.

[LOL]

again u guys were wrong about Iraq's WMDs. I just wonder how many have to die to prove you are wrong once again

[rwilymz]

"Superiority gives you a more powerful bargaining position."

Uh huh. How well did the bilateral treaty between the US and NKorea work out for Clinton, there?

NKorea broke the terms of the treaty in '99, the US withheld the last portion of its obligations, NKorea went whimpering to the rest of the world that the US was being a big meany, and who did the rest of the world side with?

Ans: not the US.

Big fat lotta help having that "more powerful bargaining position" was, warnit?

"In fact, when you've got the more powerful bargaining position, it's stupid not to use it."

You're living in Opposite Land, aincha? Negotiation works only when both parties have roughly equal amounts to lose. Your two year old doesn't have a job to lose, so he doesn't care if he's late for work. You do. You go into negotiations over bed time knowing that if he doesn't get to bed by 8pm he'll be a monster to get up and fed and dressed in the morning, which will make you late for work.

Once the child ropes you into "negotiating" a hard/fast rule, he's won. He knows that, because he's aware that all of the concessions you coerce out of him for later delivery are renegotiable themselves. Cleaning the room, eating the broccoli, whatever it is. So not only are you late for work which gets you yelled at and your pay docked, but he still won't eat his vegetables.

So tell me again how a "more powerful bargaining position" is a benefit here?

"Some strategic master you are."

I know. You'd do well to pay attention.

"In practice, it was a helluva lot cheaper for us to contain Saddam."

Right. $25B/yr for roughly ever. This is the same discussion you can have between renters and buyers. Rent is cheaper than a mortgage, and you don't have to hire the plumber. But owning saves you money in the long run.

"We're looking at a trillion $ plus bill AND the disintegration of Iraq."

We were over a quarter trillion just in the decade-plus of "containment", and who gives a rat's ass about Iraq? US foreign policy is notNotNOT altruism. It is absolute, grade-A, undiluted self-serving. If it wasn't, we would be committing national suicide.

"The top UN Weapons inspectors in Iraq when we invaded certainly don't agree with your view."

They agreed on the facts; they have arrived at different conclusions. "Just because Iraq broke into those warehouses and commandeered the chemical weapons and materially violated the '91 cease fire doesn't mean that you need to take military action."

And they're right. It doesn't mean we NEED to. It just means we CAN.

And, as with all policies, there are both benefits and drawbacks. Simply because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of benefits to invading Iraq doesn't mean there aren't any.

"we've found no WMDs"

Incorrect. Two of them were used as the manufactured munition base for IEDs. Possibly more. Actually, *probably* more. Who can tell anymore? Chemical weapons must be rigidly climate-controlled otherwise the chemical agent breaks down fairly quickly and becomes inert. The explosive still works though. Perfect for IEDs.

"1998 - the UN pulled the inspectors out - Saddam didn't force them out."

Why did the UN pull them out?

Come on, stop being a putz. You know the answer and you're trying to play stupid little rhetorical games.

"Despite the tough dead or alive talk of Bush, he's alive, hiding in caves in the land of one of our allies."

Despite the far-reaching conspiracy theories that have ladled Bush the Younger with more demonic powers than Satan his own self, the US is not the Unrelenting Force that his critics, foreign and domestic, make him out to be. There's a finite limit to the reach we have and can compel, even among friends -- particularly when they are m/l reluctant.

"I'm not talking about negotiating with Al Qaeda."

Who are you talking about negotiating with, then? ...that we aren't, in one way or another? I can't think of any party currently on the wet-panty radar that we aren't in some kind of negotiations with except for al Qaida and the Mehdi Army and groups like that.

[Fred Beloit]

Another sound drubbing. Bravo. I'm sure the re-answer will be just more of the same mush. Just the nature of the beast.

[templar knight]

If he comes back for more, Fred, I'll put him in the masochist category. But meantime, I'm laughing my ass off at his and his wet panties' expense. LOL!

[Supersocialisto Teat Chappers]

Fear not, brave citizens of RWV!

For soon, Comrade Supernintendo, or perhaps Comrade LOLyyyinger shall be along shortly to breathe their words of liberation and minty-fresh mouth-air like a sacred breeze across this free-market wasteland!

[Fred Beloit]

As Joe Cocker, and probably other lovers, has sung, "Ya give me reason to live". From the song You Can Leave Your Hat On.

[Worst President Ever]

Ah, rhetorical games:

********

First you write:

If the US were to negotiate with al Qaida, or Hamas, or any of the myriad swarms of skeeters in Iraq, we would be seen as inept and on the verge of losing.

Then you write:

Who are you talking about negotiating with, then? ...that we aren't, in one way or another?

Confused? Intellectually dishonest? You can't seem to make up your mind whether we're negotiating or not. Or even if we should. Or are you simply pulling a Romney - willing to chameleon yourself into any position that's convenient?

*****
Saddam had no program in place to product WMDs. Period. That's from the CIA, UN, etc.

********
Comparing starting a war to a decision between renting or buying, that's priceless. So lets take your BS analogy. First, renting can actually be smarter in some markets. Iraq is definitely that market. Buying has cost us almost 4,000 killed plus untold injured. Renting didn't incur those costs. Buying, and taking out the major check on Iranian power has immensely benefited them. Buying rather than renting has provided training and recruitment for Al Qaeda. Buying rather than renting has weakened our military to the point where it would have trouble coping with a major event in another part of the world. Or do you think our military has come through this unfazed?

The WMD inspectors agreed that Saddam didn't have an active weapons program and the US wasn't justified in invading. Is that what you agree with?

How about Pakistan? Are we going to bring Democracy to them?

Here's what America thinks about Bush, much of that thanks to his Iraq blunder:

For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they "strongly disapprove" of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.

[seekeronos]

"--- For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they "strongly disapprove" of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974. ---"

Polls:

"Figures lie... and liars figure."

Looks like Elf-Boy Kucinich ain't going to get his way with impeachifying the Dubya or the dread Darth Cheney.

[rwilymz]

"Confused? Intellectually dishonest?"

I'd say you are, yes.

We are not negotiating with "terrorist" groups, period.

We **are** negotiating with the nations that are at odds with us, specifically Iran and NKorea.

Now, you suggested that we ought to try negotiating before resorting to war. Who are we ******not****** negotiating with that we are talking about taking military action against?

Is that too difficult a question for you?

The only options are the "terrorist" groups, who you later claimed you **weren't** talking about negotiating with.

There's no one left.

"Saddam had no program in place to product WMDs. Period."

And?

That has ab-so-fucking-lutely no bearing on whether Hussein -- and for the LAST GODDAMMED TIME it is HUSSEIN and not "Saddam" -- had chemical weapons inside his borders between the two UN inspection regimes.

...that were there when the UN left in '98.

...and that were gone when the UN came back in '02.

"renting can actually be smarter in some markets."

Can be. But not for long. You need to have declining real estate values. How often does that happen?

"Buying has cost us almost 4,000 killed plus untold injured"

That is very inexpensive, actually. Sorry if you've been bamboozled into believing that military action can be sanitary, but it can't.

"Buying, and taking out the major check on Iranian power has immensely benefited them"

"Them" == Iran, I presume.

That "major check" on Iranian hegemony was nullified in '91 when the UN forbade Iraq from any and all regional military power projection.

"Buying rather than renting has provided training and recruitment for Al Qaeda"

It was happening anyway.

Again and still: what's the big deal about al Qaida? They are just one of literally hundreds like it. Why does it matter if western influence, or the US directly, is attacked by al Qaida instead of Ansar al Islam? or Hamas? or any of a handful of groups who call themselves Hezbollah? or the Mehdi Army?

Is it somehow acceptible that Americans are killed by the Philipino version of panislamism? that Hamas attempts to plant bombs in the US?

Are there "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists"?

"Buying rather than renting has weakened our military to the point where it would have trouble coping with a major event in another part of the world."

Our military is hardly weak.

Individual soldiers are burned out. En masse.

Not the same thing. Do no equivocate.

"The WMD inspectors agreed that Saddam didn't have an active weapons program and the US wasn't justified in invading."

And?

That STILL has ab-so-fucking-lutely no bearing on whether Hussein -- and for the LAST GODDAMMED TIME it is HUSSEIN and not "Saddam" -- had chemical weapons inside his borders between the two UN inspection regimes.

...that were there when the UN left in '98.

...and that were gone when the UN came back in '02.

...and which the UN inspectors, through their head, Hans Blix, reported to the UNSC in late '02. "Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs" is, I believe, the direct quote from the Blix Security Council presentation in November of '02.

"How about Pakistan? Are we going to bring Democracy to them?"

P'stan is a sovereign nation who didn't mortgage its sovereignty to us at any point, let alone in '91 like Iraq did.

"Here's what America thinks about Bush"

Whoopie. I'd advise that 50% to don't vote for him in '08, then.