Facing disaster in 2008, are Republicans Looking to the Terrorists to Revive Their Party's Chances?
Democrats have often been accused by conservatives of secretly wanting to lose the war in Iraq because it would benefit them politically. Given the difficulty in even defining the meaning of "win" and "lose" in the quagmire that is Iraq, it seems a rather specious charge.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Roger Whidden
Doug #8
Wow! This is weird in soooo many ways. Where do I begin?
1. Words matter.
2. I accused no one of treason. I used the word "treasonous", and adjective that imparts the nature of treason to an act; i.e., "Hoping harm comes to America..."
3. I made the statement to point out the implication (unspoken) of your blog.
4. I have never understood an adult attempting to defend their behavior by citing examples of questionable behavior commited by others. The only word I can think of to describe those attempts is "childish".
5. Are you assuming I'm a Republican?
6. Just what was it I dished out in my previos post (#6), and what is it I can't take?
27 - Nancy
Bush & Cheney are already traitors to this country. It's just a matter of time before they act to stage a coup. Has it occurred to anyone else here that one reason Bush is holding so tight to Gonzales is that he's trying to retain the one AG he knows will carry out his directives (or Cheney's, probably, in reality) without question, or refuse to have him arrested for treason when he actually tries it? Also take a look at those who are currently holding the top Pentagon positions: all BushCo loyalist freaks. All the critics & independent thinkers have been quietly being retired, replaced, or re-assigned. So when the coup occurs, the military will be supporting Bush/Cheney against any civilian or military uprising or protests, should anyone be foolish/patriotic/quixotic enough to do so. He's already set the stage for any political critics and/or opponents to just 'disappear' ... held indefinitely by being declared "enemy combatants". He tried it out initially with those who could conceivably actually BE enemy combatants, & few blinked, so he's banking that Americans will remain equally apathetic or even supportive if he next tries it on, say, some critic like Roberts, or even an Arlen Specter who's been a pain in his rear since the inception.
I hate to be a cassandra, or worse, an RJ, & predict seemingly wild things, but I see handwriting on the wall, & it ain't spray-painted graffiti for the local gang. I hope & pray I'm wrong...but when someone like Roberts comes along & independently concludes what I have - & he's in a far better position to know than I am - I suspect I'm not going to be wrong; I'm going to be disastrously correct. The additional horror is that congress is doing nothing - can do nothing because the Dems don't hold a big enough majority - to impeach these bastards & remove them in time. Even if they DID have enough people to carry out an impeachment, would they? I doubt it, considering the spineless way they've been carrying on about everything else thus far since last November.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope Dave can indeed come back & jeer at me for wearing a tin hat. I'll eat my words gladly, in that case. But I don't think I'll have to.
28 - Doug DeLong
2. I accused no one of treason. I used the word "treasonous", and adjective that imparts the nature of treason to an act; i.e., "Hoping harm comes to America..."
3. I made the statement to point out the implication (unspoken) of your blog."
Yeah, I know, I got all that. I was just having a little fun by tossing your words back at you. It was supposed to be funny.
I don't know party you belong to, but I thought your statement about partisan politics could apply as much to Republicans as to Democrats.
You know, I guess we live in a partisan world, but I think it's really interesting the way some people throw around the word "partisan" like it's an epithet of some kind (Dave, are you listening?), instead of recognizing that most people come at an issue from a point-of-view based on many different factors. But if my POV is different than yours, I'm accused of being partisan.
Well, that's fine, but my partisanship is based, as much as possible, on the available evidence. Am I biased in certain ways? Sure, but show me someone who's completely neutral on any issue, and I'll show you someone who's not much fun at parties.
29 - Nancy
You may not have accused them of treason, but I most certainly have, & I retract not a letter of it. By taking us to war using false pretenses, half-truths, & outright lies, they are already guilty of treason; likewise by knowingly violating FISA and other restriction on executive powers; & I'm convinced they're planning on bettering that list by topping it with outright establishment of a dictatorship, posing as an emergency of some kind. And if another 9/11 at the hands of foreign agents isn't in the offing, I'm also quite sure they have no problems creating one of their own to ensure the excuse to declare a military emergency & suspension of government. They certainly haven't hesitated to try to destroy anybody else who has tried to expose or stay them. Bush/Cheney imo is going to make the Nixon crew look like a bunch of girl scouts before they're through. Also, Rove has bailed. Interesting timing, that.
30 - Roger Whidden
Damn Doug, agree almost 100%. Didn't detect your humor. That's OK, sometimes I try to lighten the mood and folks think I'm agitating.
Now, back to the arena. I agree, some words are used by some folks as an accusation of wrongdoing, when in fact, the words are simply defining. Not my style. If you notice, I made no judgment call, good or bad, right or wrong. Just called it as I saw it.
You wrote, "But if my POV is different than yours, I'm accused of being partisan."
Wasn't an accusation, had nothing to do with a differt POV.
I do lament partisanship taking precedent over national interest in some of our elected leaders.
Hope I meet the high standards to be on your party invitation list. ;-)
31 - Dr Dreadful
I do lament partisanship taking precedent over national interest in some of our elected leaders.
It's not just politicians. Check out this nasty sequence of comments right here on BC following Katrina in '05.
32 - Doug DeLong
Roger,
"But if my POV is different than yours, I'm accused of being partisan."
Wasn't an accusation, had nothing to do with a differt POV.
Actually, that particular comment was directed more at Dave than at you.
33 - Roger Whidden
Doug,
Lousy aim. You're forgiven.
34 - Dave Nalle
You know, I guess we live in a partisan world, but I think it's really interesting the way some people throw around the word "partisan" like it's an epithet of some kind (Dave, are you listening?), instead of recognizing that most people come at an issue from a point-of-view based on many different factors. But if my POV is different than yours, I'm accused of being partisan.
Doug. I don't throw words around lightly and when I use them I know what they mean. If I call someone partisan it is because I detect that their position comes from a point of view based not on an objective analysis of facts, but on a political or ideological allegiance. They may have facts at their command or have used facts to justify their point of view to themselves, but they're still partisan.
Dave
35 - Doug DeLong
Dave,
People form opinions and allegiances by analyzing facts, so it's ridiculous to accuse someone of being partisan, (according to your definition). What you really mean when you throw that word around is, "I don't like your opinion because it's different than mine."
While it's true that 2 people can look at the same facts and form 2 different opinions, that doesn't mean neccessarily mean that either one is being "partisan."
I think the word "partisan" is only appropriate when someone knows the facts and chooses to ignore them, or to make up their own facts, or spins the facts to fit their own view.
36 - moonraven
If you want to consider the next smoke and mirrors caper a la 9/11, just look back to what the Nazis used as a follow-up to the Reichstag Fire.
It will become obvious.
37 - Dave Nalle
People form opinions and allegiances by analyzing facts,
People certainly CAN form opinions that way, but in practice that's rarely the case. More likely they form an opinion on an initial impression, a gut reaction, or what someone else suggested that they think.
No, what I mean is that I think your opinion is based on allegiance to an ideology which tells you how to view the subject, rather than on an objective analysis of the subject. Hey wait, didn't I already say that? A person with an open mind would be listening.
While it's true that 2 people can look at the same facts and form 2 different opinions, that doesn't mean neccessarily mean that either one is being "partisan."
Sure, I'll agree with that. But if one of them looks at the facts filtered through the lens of ideology, then he's likely to come to a partisan conclusion.
I think the word "partisan" is only appropriate when someone knows the facts and chooses to ignore them, or to make up their own facts, or spins the facts to fit their own view.
More typically a person who is partisan won't even see or acknowledge any facts which don't fit their preconceptions.
Dave
38 - Doug DeLong
Dave,
I'm rubber and you're glue
Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!
Or to put it another way...
I know you are, but what am I?
39 - Dave Nalle
Someone who doesn't listen, Doug.
Dave
40 - Doug DeLong
Oh, I listen alright. I'm just tired of your childish bullshit. Sorry. Moving on...
41 - Dave Nalle
Doug, I gave you a chance to discuss this issue on the basis of reason and honesty and you resorted to defensiveness and repeating partisan talking points. If you can't find a way to talk to people who don't just nod their heads and pat you on the back, how do you expect to accomplish anything?
Dave
42 - Doug DeLong
If you can't find a way to talk to people who don't just nod their heads and pat you on the back, how do you expect to accomplish anything?
I don't expect to accomplish anything. In fact, I'm hoping to be an utter failure. So I depend on people like you to keep me in my place. Thank you for helping me to realize my dream of becoming a spectacular waste of space, thrown aside by society, and loved by no one.
Your smugness is my salvation.
43 - Andy Marsh
I'll start by saying I'm not a bush fan...not anymore anyway...but your "opinion" piece here is most definately partisan...and after reading it, I'll say you have some big brass balls calling anyone smug!
Amazing the insider info you have here...telling us all that every time there's a terror alert or a foiled terrorist plot it's just republican bullshit is pretty amazing...I guess you just got Rove's job? Or you've been an insider all along?
And for the record that lied us into a war thing is plain old bullshit...and I'd say if you're going to insist on using the lie then at least make it somewhat believable and say that the entire world lied us into a war...because even your beloved democrats were blowing smoke up our collective asses on this one.
44 - Clavos
"Are there elements of the democrat party that would like to see our armed forces get their asses kicked big time in Iraq so Bush will suffer the ultimate (for him) failure and so they can be right about our involvement?"
Hmm??
45 - Jon
The Problem is that voters dont really choose who will be President, the elite bankers do. The problem is you cant fight absolute corruption with democracy, its just too deeply rooted and well established to be upended by something as simple as a vote. I wish it was, but it just isnt.
Stalin did make one honest comment of relevance here.... "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
You were sold out in 1913. Surely you must all know about the Federal reserve and its utterly corrupt introduction by an elite few on Jekyll Island. If not you should read 'The Creature from Jekyll Island -by G. Edward Griffin'.
Warburg, JPMorgan, and others with only self-interests drafted what would be the Fed Reserve and sneaked it in with bribes and threats to support the opposition of those who didnt 'agree' with them. This isnt speculation, this is a known fact if you care to research it.
Imagine how deep and widespread the corruption has become as it has had almost a Century to firm its roots into most aspects of the powers running our society, including the Mainstream media which is now a huge propaganda machine.
People should be looking at the Rockefellers and Rothschilds very closely as they are among the main puppeteers behind the scenes, although these dynasties are pretty much untouchable nowadays.
The funny thing is im not even an American or living in the USA, im from London, but i am concerned as we`re all in the same boat and we are all heading down a dead-end road.
Just you wait and see... someone in power is going to do something incredibly stupid soon (like start a war with Iran). The only profiteers from these wars are the cartel of bankers above the Government.
Please wake up - Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely
46 - REMF
"More typically a person who is partisan won't even see or acknowledge any facts which don't fit their preconceptions."
- Dave Nalle
Um...might be time to take a peak at the mirror, Nalle.
47 - Nancy
Jon, I don't think it's just the bankers; it's the multinational corporations these days. Those who sit on the boards, or own the stocks, are the same plutocrats who hold office. Gonzo provided an excellent website about this: werule.com. Check it out. Otherwise, you're right: we the people no longer decide, nor do we have the chance of a snowball in hell to make that decision. Those behind the scenes who own the parties/government do that, & then parade their choices to the sheeple/consumers (that's us) to pretend we have a choice & thereby hopefully pacify some of the rowdier elements (people like me) who can be pacified by this sort of charade. Otherwise, it would be a lot easier for a non-Dem or GOP-candidate to actually make a meaningful run for the WH...but that will never happen, because the elite wouldn't be able to manipulate &/or control a maverick independent actually elected by the people. That's how Perot got defused & derailed, remember? He was too close to making an actual bid, & he had enough $$ etc to be hard to handle/not needing their money in his pocket/uncontrollable (by them).
48 - Doug DeLong
#43 And for the record that lied us into a war thing is plain old bullshit...
Andy, I'm sorry, but anyone who says that Bush did NOT lie to get us into Iraq is just not paying attention. Whole books have been written cataloging Bush's lies and deceits.
For me, the biggest and boldest lie was the constant drumbeat of lies and insinuations that Iraq had a connection to 9/11. Bush and Cheney had had a hard-on for Iraq long before 9/11, but knew that they couldn't justify an attack, unless they could link it to 9/11 (and convince everyone that Iraq was getting ready to nuke us).
Their lies were so successful that at one point prior to the invasion 66% of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack. Bush knew this was false, but continued to perpetuate the lies.
So he attacked Iraq, a country that had NOT attacked us, was NOT a threat to us and had NO connection to 9/11. Now thousands of American soldiers are DEAD and thousands more MAIMED, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are DEAD, and BILLIONS of dollars have been spent in this criminal war.
And yet you and others continue to be Bush apologists and try to blame "the whole world" for Bush's war. It blows my mind.
The very best analysis I've seen on Bush's lies and his techniques of deceit was written by Dennis Hans just prior to the invasion. Do yourself a favor and take a look at it.
49 - Doug DeLong
Best Bush/Rove joke...
Triumph, the Insult-Comic Dog, on the occassion of meeting Karl Rove...
"So you're Bush's Brain! I was expecting a much smaller man."
50 - Dave Nalle
Andy (#43) you're wasting your time. It's become quite clear that Doug isn't interested in discussion or finding common ground or even solving problems. He just wants to repeat the talking points and gets defensive and snide when his assumptions are challenged.
Look at his last comment. It's like a collection of catch-phrases strung together, utterly devoid of any kind of thought or perspective. He has the revealed truth and you're not going to get through to him.
Dave
51 - Doug DeLong
Dave,
Instead of continuing to insult me, why don't you tell me exactly what it is my post (#48) that you don't agree with.
52 - Lumpy
Doug. Dude. That "bush lied" horseshit is for bumperstickers, not for discussions bwtween people who have more brains than the ass end of a Prius.
If your views are really that self-righteous and simplistic who's Agoing to waste their time talking to you. Read the AUMF sometime and fill me in on how big a role the al qaeda Iraq connection plays in there.
53 - Nancy
That was a good one, Doug-!
54 - handyguy
The Dave Nalle and Clavos making vicious, snide comments on this thread couldn't be the same Nalle and Clavos writing humanist, compassionate stuff on the gay marriage thread. Could they?
Although there may or may not be a Big Evil Conspiracy involved, politicians are certainly capable of using an unpleasant situation to their advantage should the opportunity present itself. The Bush administration may not have planned all their lies in advance, but they certainly didn't rush to correct the public's false belief in the connection between 9/11 and Saddam [and Cheney on Meet the Press professed to believe in the connection himself]. They certainly made lots of pronouncements about WMD in the months leading up to the war....then pretended later that the lack of WMD didn't really matter.
The Republicans have certainly used the fear of terrorism to win elections. ["A vote for the Democrats is a vote to let the terrorists win." Classic, huh?] That doesn't mean they invented the fear or secretly wish for another terror attack. But if one happened, and they won more elections, they might be tempted to keep amping up the fear rhetoric, mightn't they?
And to ask [over and over and over] if Democrats desire a military defeat in Iraq just sounds ludicrous to me. I assure you that this Democrat doesn't. I don't believe Democrats in Congress or running for president want that either. Is this just another example of rightist militarists assuming that people who are antiwar are ipso facto unpatriotic? Just a cynical, worthless caricature.
I'll once again urge everyone to see The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear, a brilliant documentary film made for the BBC in 2004 and available on Google Video and elsewhere. It completely changed my own perspective on whether governments use fear to prolong their power. Bush is Example Number One.
55 - Doug DeLong
Read the AUMF sometime and fill me in on how big a role the al qaeda Iraq connection plays in there.
Lumpy. Dude. Yep, al qaeda is in Iraq now. Were they there before the invasion? Did Hussein have anything to do with 9/11? Did Bush try to convince us that he did?
56 - Doug DeLong
If your views are really that self-righteous and simplistic who's Agoing to waste their time talking to you.
Well, apparently you are.
I'm not sure where you get "self-rightous" from a post that points out that Bush has been deceitful. That would fall under the category of "common knowledge" by this point. Simplistic? Well, yeah, either he lied or he didn't. That's pretty simple, I guess. And so is the answer.
57 - Dr Dreadful
handy, I don't see that Clavos has been making any vicious, snide comments on this thread. Unless you count his #9, which hardly seems to qualify as such.
58 - Dave Nalle
Instead of continuing to insult me, why don't you tell me exactly what it is my post (#48) that you don't agree with.
Doug, I don't agree with the idea that you think you can get away with posting talking points we've all sseen before instead of reasoned arguments with a bit of depth to them to express your points. Do you really want me to go over #48 point by point? If you're willing to post jingoistic garbage like that I can't imagine you'd pay any attention to anything I posted in response to it with any kind of open mind.
Dave
59 - Nancy
Bush/Cheney/Rove are merely following in the well-established footsteps of their role models, Hermann Goering, Machiavelli, & Sun, who long ago established the efficacy of using fake, ramped-up fear threats to steer the sheeple as they wished, stampeding them into blind obedience & support, & smearing anyone who opposed them as traitors or cowards. The problem is, most people are too stupid or ignorant to recognize it, so they fall for it - over & over & over & over. Even people who SHOULD know better fall prey to it. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Ad nauseam, it would seem.
60 - Doug DeLong
Dave,
So in other words, you can't rebut the fact that Bush has been deceitful and lied. That's what I thought.
61 - Nancy
I forgot to add, I also don't see where Clavos has been making snide comments. Dave, yes, but not Clavos. He just doesn't agree w/you.
62 - Dave Nalle
The Dave Nalle and Clavos making vicious, snide comments on this thread couldn't be the same Nalle and Clavos writing humanist, compassionate stuff on the gay marriage thread. Could they?
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? I mean, what if we're just being intellectually consistent? Then our lack of outrage over Rove might be just as valid as our staunch defense of gay rights.
Although there may or may not be a Big Evil Conspiracy involved, politicians are certainly capable of using an unpleasant situation to their advantage should the opportunity present itself. The Bush administration may not have planned all their lies in advance, but they certainly didn't rush to correct the public's false belief in the connection between 9/11 and Saddam [and Cheney on Meet the Press professed to believe in the connection himself]. They certainly made lots of pronouncements about WMD in the months leading up to the war....then pretended later that the lack of WMD didn't really matter.
Handy, this is why I'm responding to you more completely than I'm responding to Doug. You make a reasonable argument and seem to understand that it's not as simple as Bush setting out to deceive everyone to achieve some nefarious goal. You're approaching the subject with a relatively open mind and your intellect engaged, and while I don't entirely agree with you I can respect what you have to say, because you've clearly thought about it.
I think that someday down the road we'll see memoirs which make a lot of this stuff clearer than it is now. I agree that Bush was eager to go to war in Iraq. I think that he did have serious if perhaps somewhat misguided concerns about Iraq being a threat, which had very little to do with the WMD issue which was a convenient pretext which seemed to have enough substance to be useful.
Bush turned out to be wrong about the WMDs, though some will argue he wasn't as wrong as is generally believed, but being wrong doesn't make him a liar. Even not fully explaining the real reasons for going into Iraq doesn't make him a liar. There were plenty of valid reasons for invading. The real issue is where you draw the line and say the reasons are sufficient for launching a war.
The Republicans have certainly used the fear of terrorism to win elections. ["A vote for the Democrats is a vote to let the terrorists win." Classic, huh?
Now this I disagree with. I have never perceived their treatment of terrorism as fearmongering. If anything I think they've consistently softpedaled the threat and gone out of their way to make it look like they were masters of the situation when they most certainly are not. If anything I think they've promoted a false sense of complacency and security in the interest of presenting themselves as successful protectors of the nation. It's still taking advantage of terrorism for their own advancement, but it's kind of the opposite of fearmongering.
That doesn't mean they invented the fear or secretly wish for another terror attack. But if one happened, and they won more elections, they might be tempted to keep amping up the fear rhetoric, mightn't they?
Maybe what you perceive as fear rhetoric I perceive as reassurance, though that seems strange.
And to ask [over and over and over] if Democrats desire a military defeat in Iraq just sounds ludicrous to me. I assure you that this Democrat doesn't.
To be fair, it's not generally the administration asking this, but the pundits and talking heads of the more hawkish persuasion. And it really doesn't help that people like Harry Reid have said such ridiculous things that can be used as fodder to lend legitimacy to that argument.
I do think that the argument that democrats 'want' a defeat in Iraq because it would give them political clout is probably as valid or more valid than the argument that the Republicans secretly want another 9/11 because of the political advantages it would give them.
I don't believe Democrats in Congress or running for president want that either. Is this just another example of rightist militarists assuming that people who are antiwar are ipso facto unpatriotic? Just a cynical, worthless caricature.
I think that most of our leaders are not as venal as this article or the punditry suggest that they are when it comes to matters of national security or the safety of the people, but they'll certainly use whatever opportunities fall into their laps, and sadly there are a tiny number who are very outspoken and really are extremist loons - enough to make sounding even a little like them very risky for an otherwise sensible politician.
Dave
63 - Nancy
Well, I for one think our leaders of BOTH parties are every bit as venal - and more so - than this article suggests. At least, their behavior in the past decade, lower & worser, as it were, seems that way.
64 - handyguy
It was Clavos's repeating his #9 question, total of 4 times, that seemed gratuitous, pointless and aggressively in-your-face, goading, fight-picking. Maybe I just missed something, if so, sorry.
65 - Dave Nalle
Handy, I think that maybe Clavos was just faster than the rest of us to realize how dogmatic and unresponsive Doug was being.
Dave
66 - handyguy
Here's how I expressed my views in an earlier article:
"Have governments and politicians, striving to maintain their power in the post-Cold War world, latched on to a scary and mythical "War on Terror" as their means of survival?
Have they taken advantage of the fear and lack of knowledge among ordinary people to say, “Don’t worry " this stuff is too complicated and frightening for you to understand or for us to even reveal it to you " but we’ll protect you…just keep voting for us”? Does the Republican rhetoric of the last two elections (“A vote for the Democrats is a vote to let the terrorists win”) lend credibility to this theory? Do the Democrats offer any kind of viable alternative, or just a craven me-too-ism?"
67 - Dave Nalle
You know, the 'War on Terror' is only mythical to the extent that it is a euphemism for the real war, which is a war on Islam.
Dave
68 - handyguy
I think of "The War on Terror" as an advertising slogan, or as John Edwards has called it, a bumper sticker. Calling it a "war," and claiming that it will not end in the foreseeable future, provides putative justification for Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping of citizens, and invading any number of countries.
However, I'm happy to say that I think the expiration date on "war on terror" as a useful political phrase has passed or will pass soon. Unless there is another big attack. Which leads us back to Doug's article, a good piece that has been unfairly attacked here.
69 - REMF
"And for the record that lied us into a war thing is plain old bullshit...because even your beloved democrats were blowing smoke up our collective asses on this one."
- Andy Marsh
Hey Marsh, Colin Powell disagrees with your claim the lie about WMDs was a lie (for the record):
"Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell finally acknowdged that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Yet Powell said on Meet The Press, "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.
On Meet the Press, Powell said of the bioweapons claim, "I am disappointed and I regret it.""
(from the nation.com website, 5/17/04)
------------------------------
With all due respect to your 20 years of peaceful Navy service, I'm afraid Colin Powell's military record slightly trumps yours...
** Two tours in Vietnam;
** Wounded in a helicopter crash landing, Powell managed to go back into the burning wreckage and save his commanding general and two others;
** Received two Purple Hearts, one Bronze Star, the Soldiers Medal, and the Legion of Merit;
** 35 years in the U.S. Army;
** A Four Star General, Powell served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert Storm.
(MCH)
70 - Dave Nalle
Have to disagree. The War on Terror may mostly be a slogan, but the underlying problems are just not going to go away. They're going to come back again and again in different forms, often including terrorism for a long, long time to come. We can probably largely ignore them for quite a while, but others will suffer for our safety.
One might have thought the even more ridiculous 'War on Drugs' would have faded away after 30 years, but it's still with us.
As for Doug's article, it's still inflammatory claptrap, but at least it generates discussionl, and that's always a good thing.
dave
71 - handyguy
Powell's UN speech, and some convincing editorials in The Economist, led me to ambivalently and reluctantly support the Iraq invasion in 2003.
Needless to say, those scales have since fallen from my eyes. I'd guess I'm not the only one.
72 - bliffle
One might well be astounded at Daves shockingly bald assertion that "You know, the 'War on Terror' is only mythical to the extent that it is a euphemism for the real war, which is a war on Islam."
Did you know that all the time, Dave? Whence comes this insight?
73 - bliffle
Dave goes overboard again: "Just for the record, the fact that Paul Craig Roberts is a RIGHT wing loony ..."
For what record? Do you mean the same Paul Craig Roberts as served in the Reagan administration?
74 - Dave Nalle
Did you know that all the time, Dave? Whence comes this insight?
Yes, I did know that at the time, and I blogged about it as early as 2003 when I first started blogging. And the insight comes from having been born in and having lived in the middle east and having spent time in central asia (the 'stans) as well, plus growing up with a father who ran the Middle East desk of USIA and regularly had Arab and Persian friends to visit.
The earliest surviving article I can find where I wrote on the subject is from 2004 on my old blog.
For what record? Do you mean the same Paul Craig Roberts as served in the Reagan administration?
Yes. And my point was that not all loonies come from the left as the original comment implied, but that many of them, like Roberts come from a right wing perspective.
Dave
75 - bliffle
Colin Powell LIED to everyone when he said he had "incontrovertible proof..." of Iraqi WMD. He did NOT have incontrovertible proof.
"Incontrovertible" means "impossible to deny or disprove; "incontrovertible proof of the defendant's innocence"; "proof positive"; "an irrefutable argument""
Irrefutable. Impossible to deny.
"Incontrovertible" does not mean "gee, I have a Real Strong Feeling..."
or, "rumor has it that..."
or, "one of my cronies says..."
it means that the statement is irrefutable, impossible to disprove.
When Colin Powell said "...incontrovertible proof..." he was LYING, and HE KNEW IT!
He didn't say, "...this guy i trust says so...", he said "...incontrovertible proof...".
It's NOT a detail of grammar. the word "incontrovertible" is not just a modifier that adds strength to an assertion, it, in itself, is an assertion of proof positive, of undeniable certainty.
Colin Powell KNEW at the time that he did not have such proof. HE LIED!
And notice that the lie is not just about whether Saddam had WMD, it was about the nature of Powells own knowledge. It has NOTHING to do with whether Saddam had wmd or not (altho the lack of WMD proves that Powell was lying because there could thus have been NO such proof. Modus ponens.).