JayB Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Well - that's an interesting way to look at it. Just for the sake of argument, if we carry this analogy forward a bit more, wouldn't the "cop" in question also have to realize that he'll be found out and accept the inevitable consequences of such an outcome? Ponzi Schemes. Please research. Not everyfraud in life is exposed, not every crime is discovered or punished. Profound maxims aplenty in this thread. But we're talking about a concrete situation here. The administration made the presence of WMD in Iraq one of the central platforms that the case for invading Iraq rested upon, and made an on-the-ground search for WMD to validate those claims an essential part of their post-invasion plans. If you *know* that there are no WMD in Iraq, there is no plausible post-invasion scenario in which the absence of WMD will not be documented if you fail to discover any there - unless you plan to put them there yourself. Occam's razor time - hell, Occam's stone tool/primate-digging stick time - they thought they'd find WMD there, and they didn't. Quote
rob Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 No. The cop thinks he's too smart and won't get caught. See "hubris". Exactly, why would he get caught since he "knows" the guy is guilty anyway? Quote
Hugh Conway Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 But we're talking about a concrete situation here. The administration made the presence of WMD in Iraq one of the central platforms that the case for invading Iraq rested upon, and made an on-the-ground search for WMD to validate those claims an essential part of their post-invasion plans. If you *know* that there are no WMD in Iraq, there is no plausible post-invasion scenario in which the absence of WMD will not be documented if you fail to discover any there - unless you plan to put them there yourself. Occam's razor time - hell, Occam's stone tool/primate-digging stick time - they thought they'd find WMD there, and they didn't. Or they thought people would be so overjoyed at the changed world they wouldn't care. Not really sure what your point is arguing what W the delusional believed. We don't need hindsight to see he was wrong. They made no pretense of listening to dissenting opinions, no pretense of post invasion planning, and paid little thought for how to fund it. Occam's razor suggests they are idiots. Quote
underworld Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 We don't need hindsight to see he was wrong. right, we only need speculation Quote
Hugh Conway Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 right, we only need speculation some of us thought the evidence was bullshit at the time based on available facts. some of us were proved right. why don't you run along and talk to the Americans who believe WMDs were found in Iraq? Quote
underworld Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 speculation: invading iraq was worse than not invading iraq Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 speculation: invading iraq was worse than not invading iraq all that matters is the impact on those expensive international vacations. Quote
Hugh Conway Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 speculation: invading iraq was worse than not invading iraq We were told we should invade Iraq based on certain criteria. Those criteria were bullshit. That's not speculation. Quote
Jim Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Well - that's an interesting way to look at it. Just for the sake of argument, if we carry this analogy forward a bit more, wouldn't the "cop" in question also have to realize that he'll be found out and accept the inevitable consequences of such an outcome? Ponzi Schemes. Please research. Not everyfraud in life is exposed, not every crime is discovered or punished. Profound maxims aplenty in this thread. But we're talking about a concrete situation here. The administration made the presence of WMD in Iraq one of the central platforms that the case for invading Iraq rested upon, and made an on-the-ground search for WMD to validate those claims an essential part of their post-invasion plans. If you *know* that there are no WMD in Iraq, there is no plausible post-invasion scenario in which the absence of WMD will not be documented if you fail to discover any there - unless you plan to put them there yourself. Occam's razor time - hell, Occam's stone tool/primate-digging stick time - they thought they'd find WMD there, and they didn't. Come on. You're being as intellectually dishonest as the Idiot. The WMD story was found to be false as they were trying to persuade the public. They twisted the intelligence. They lied. Powell's UN speech was riddled with holes within an hour of completing it. The whole WMD, mushroom cloud thing was great and effective theater. Their assumption was that everything post-invasion would be great and they could skirt around the justification issue and just say "see, the bad guy is gone and democracy is flourishing where a dictatorship used to be". It didn't quite work out that way. Any critical analysis of the facts points to 1) they were lying, 2) they knew they were lying, and 3) they thought it would be forgotten in the thrill of victory. That said - it could not have been accomplished without the approval of the democrats in Congress. Many of who, including Hillary, made a calculated decision to vote for the war, even with all the retoric they knew was BS, because they were chickenshits and were afraid of being called to task for their vote. Quote
mattp Posted May 29, 2008 Author Posted May 29, 2008 I was going to respond to your original, and much more sensible statement by saying that while of course discussions of motives have to be left on the table of public discourse, not every idea concerning either is equally sound, beneficial, and useful - nor should anyone expect them to be treated as such. There seems to be a generalized notion floating around there that any idea that anyone puts forward concerning a public figure's motives or methods should be treated as a noble contribution to the national well-being, irrespective of the actual content or merits of the said idea. This is simply not the case. When and if Obama is elected, and if people on the right issue "questions" about his motives or methods on par with what you've introduced for the past eight years ("Bush started the war to enrich Halliburton, etc..", we'll see a tacit admission of this fact immediately when you and others respond to them with the withering critiques that they'll deserve. What are you trying to say here? Who is talking about nobility and when did I say that Bush started the war so that Haliburton could get rich? Do you seriously disagree with the idea that Bush and Co shaded the truth, even if you bristle at the word lie? Or are you just being JayB and punching at straw men again. Quote
Fairweather Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Check this out White House Officials Decry McClellan Claims About Administration According to Fox, McClellan didn't say Bush lied; and McClellan didn't say Bush lied; and oh yes, McClellan didn't say Bush lied. In an article about the White House decryimg McClellan's claims, there is no mention of what the claims were - like that Bush used propaganda to sell the war or that Bush, Cheney, Rove and Armitage mislead him so McClellan gave false statements about the Plame story. Have they actually denied any of the specific allegations made by McClellan? You seem to regularly border on suggesting some sort of government intervention when it comes to the reporting of news and/or entertainment. I believe in one case you actually suggested--or agreed with someone here who suggested imprisonment of network execs with whom you disagreed re a certain Clinton Administration documentary. Are you suggesting the same here? If not, what is your "solution" to what you view as FOXNews bias? Would you apply the same test to sources you peruse like Huffingtonpost.com or The Stranger? Separately; I think it's funny that this isn't the first time someone named McClellan has stabbed a Republican president in the back. Quote
mattp Posted May 30, 2008 Author Posted May 30, 2008 Weren't you just the other day calling me names and accusing me of making things up when I actually acknowledged that I was guessing, Fairweather? I don't read Huffington Post or the Stranger, and I have not "regularly" called for government intervention in news reporting -- if anything I have complained about our government's too much intervention in news reporting for the last seven years or so. Yes, I did (once) say that somebody should have been held responsible for deliberately putting distortion in a broadcast that was presented as a documentary on national television. Whether it should be in the form of some kind of civil liability, fine, or criminal sanction, I believe there should be some incentive against this. Hell: I believe the President and his men should be held responsible for their lies, too. But don't worry: I'm not calling for Fox News to be shut down because their story I cited at the start of this thread was so clearly spin that it was a joke. Quote
Bug Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 Republicans good. Democrats bad. FW summary. No need to engage. Quote
mattp Posted May 30, 2008 Author Posted May 30, 2008 If we didn't engage with anybody who had a predictable opinion, there wouldn't be much traffic around here, Bug. After five years, I agree that some of the novelty is worn off but even FW can come up with some pretty interesting stuff now and then. Here, however, he just reminded me that I haven't seen anyone in this thread or on radio or TV say that Bush, Rove or Cheney are denying any specific allegations that McClellan made. Hmmm. Quote
Bug Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 I just tire of the lunatic fringe articles he pulls out and touts as the "obvious" truth when they are so easily proven wrong. Bush/Cheney etc ARE liars. That is easy to document. Do a search on "liar" on this board alone and you will find many articles and videos of lies in action. In fact it IS treason to out a CIA operative. Thanks for all the help George. But hey, no blow jobs allowed for Democrats. Global warming is an accepted FACT amoung 99% of the worlds' scientists and 100% amoung those who make climatology their primary focus yet he pulls out an article written by a gym teacher or something and thinks it is the holy grail. My wet dream is for Obama to get elected and have George and his cronies indicted for treason just for starters. Then let's get into collusion with oil companies. TAX BREAKS for oil companies while they are making RECORD profits but hey, we aren't selling out to oil companies says George. They are LIARS, THEIVES, and TREASONIST bastards. They will stop at nothing to gather more money and power. They embody EVIL. They will go down in history as the worst nightmare at a crucial juncture in history. We all followed them down the path of the biggest lie just like in Nazi Germany. Time for a regime change pronto. As Eisenhower said, the biggest danger to the next president and beyond will be controlling the US military/industiral complex. They won. They own the "liberal media" adn now have their own open agenda showcased on Fox. Everything we hear is as suspect to me as what China feeds through it's gov controlled media. The corporations own DC. "By the people, for the people" now means those people who own stock. The rest are cannon fodder - men, women, and children - in the name of "Fiduciary responsibilty". Engage all you want. I am disgusted with Bush supporters at this point. Quote
Fairweather Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 I don't read Huffington Post... That's funny. You posted one of her stories just the other day. Quote
Fairweather Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 I just tire of the lunatic fringe articles he pulls out and touts as the "obvious" truth when they are so easily proven wrong. Bush/Cheney etc ARE liars. That is easy to document. Do a search on "liar" on this board alone and you will find many articles and videos of lies in action. In fact it IS treason to out a CIA operative. Thanks for all the help George. But hey, no blow jobs allowed for Democrats. Global warming is an accepted FACT amoung 99% of the worlds' scientists and 100% amoung those who make climatology their primary focus yet he pulls out an article written by a gym teacher or something and thinks it is the holy grail. My wet dream is for Obama to get elected and have George and his cronies indicted for treason just for starters. Then let's get into collusion with oil companies. TAX BREAKS for oil companies while they are making RECORD profits but hey, we aren't selling out to oil companies says George. They are LIARS, THEIVES, and TREASONIST bastards. They will stop at nothing to gather more money and power. They embody EVIL. They will go down in history as the worst nightmare at a crucial juncture in history. We all followed them down the path of the biggest lie just like in Nazi Germany. Time for a regime change pronto. As Eisenhower said, the biggest danger to the next president and beyond will be controlling the US military/industiral complex. They won. They own the "liberal media" adn now have their own open agenda showcased on Fox. Everything we hear is as suspect to me as what China feeds through it's gov controlled media. The corporations own DC. "By the people, for the people" now means those people who own stock. The rest are cannon fodder - men, women, and children - in the name of "Fiduciary responsibilty". Engage all you want. I am disgusted with Bush supporters at this point. Quote
Hugh Conway Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 don't you have hippies to harass and scientists to mock? Quote
Fairweather Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 Only hippies and true believers around here. Quote
Hugh Conway Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 Only hippies and true believers around here. hows the koolaid, bitch? Quote
Fairweather Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 No no no no. You DO NOT want to go there with me. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.