Rambling Rhodes

Hysterical! This is just what I needed to get me thru Friday afternoon. And yes, you do have a very wise ass.

It just wouldn't be a friday without a visit from the Dirty Mushroom.

Wow - it is amazing what your come up with!
Thanks for the Friday laugh.

The dreaded dirty mushroom strikes again. I swear I smell poo right now.

Indeed he is a very wise ass.

Now you've done it. That's the last straw.

{right click}| Block Images from ramblingrhodes.mu.nu

ahhhhh. much better.

It's no longer dragons that make me crazy, it's Ryan's ass..... Ryan's ass? Ryan's ass makes me crazy..... Crazy? I was crazy once. I saw a picture of Ryan's ass. Ryan's ass? Ryan's ass makes me crazy.... Crazy? I was crazy once.....

My ass has eeerrie powers. It's a crying shame I have to sit on it so much each day.

And the worst part is that you're not even gay, Ryan. Broken hearted men all over the world now.

Maybe there should be a Ryan Rhodes Ass Appreciation Ass-ociation?

The ass makes some sense but there are some stretches in there and omissions of truths like the fact that the committer of the 9/11 crimes is still at large and we took down a regime based on a faulty connection and invisible WMD's, sure it needed taking down but basing it on lies alienates a global audience and it is important to keep in mind the global perspective.

America is the soft western land of decadence, filled with fat, happy fools who barely know that they are gobbling up more of the planet's resources than populations ten times our size. Hello? We're the world's bullies, we're the world's gluttons and that'll tend to piss someone off.

First off Johnny, I'm pretty sure the "committers" of 9/11 pretty much died on 9/11. OBL is still at large, but so are a lot of the so-called "masterminds" of 9/11. If OBL was captured tomorrow, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference in the whole scheme of things, beyond robbing al Queda of their beloved figurehead. I still harbor my suspicions that the man is already a corpse. Second point, as to your faulty connection thesis, there's plenty of evidence out there that al-Queda had made entreaties to the Ba-athists, and found a pretty receptive ear, and that's beside the point anyway. It's almost as if the "Bush Lied" crowd won't be happy until they see a treaty signed by Saddam and OBL, complete with a photo of them shaking hands to seal the deal.

What's aggravating to me are all the people who keep pointing to al-Queda as if they're the only terrorist organization out there. Terror connections turned up all through Iraq, from training camps, to harboring known terrorists, to furnishing a nice commercial airliner for practicing hi-jackings. And invisible WMDs? I guess the sarin and mustard gas we've turned up isn't WMD enough for you: keep pushing those goalposts back. And by global audience I assume you mean France, which was up to its armpits in kickbacks to Saddam to keep that Iraqi oil flowing their way. Follow the UNscam fiasco a little and you really start to wonder why people feel compelled to defend France, Russia and Germany. Oh, and if you've followed the Joe Wilson implosion, that took a lot of credibility out of the "Bush Lied" argument. But never mind facts, those are just too inconvenient.

We're the world's bullies, eh? That must explain why we spend more than any other nation on AIDS relief in Africa. We can just never do enough for the rest of the world, damnit! We should give till it hurts and then find another vein to open up to give that much more because, let's face it, other countries are just too poor and screwed up to do the job themselves. Right? It's like Michael Moore complaining that 3 billion don't have clean drinking water, despite the technology to provide it RIGHT NOW! Never mind the logistical impossibility of it all. Again, another inconvenient reality. What-the-fuck-ever.

The most frustrating thing about being the strongest, most influential country on the planet? People can fly planes into our buildings, but WE'RE the bullies. Yes, we were certainly goose-stepping around the planet prior to 9/11, weren't we? Stomping out countries and bullying, bullying, bullying.

America is the soft western land of decadence, filled with fat, happy fools who barely know that they are gobbling up more of the planet's resources than populations ten times our size.

And, damn it, we're the only nation in the world to plant a flag on the fucking moon because we're innovative enough to use the planet's resources to do amazingly innovative shit like that. And send rovers to do some prospecting on Mars, and create fantastic computer networks that help bring the world a little closer, even the French, and create stunning works of architectural marvel, only to have them tumble to the ground because some hate-filled asshats wanted 70 virgins in Heaven.

And if some of those countries you mention with populations 10 times our size would teach some fucking restraint and promote safe sex and stop with the rabbit-fucking pushing out of babies, maybe they'd have population sizes they could support, but no, their problems are laid squarely on the feet of the U.S. See these problems we have? Fix them for us! Oh, you know what would help Somalia? Give 'em all that fucking oil we burn up so wastefully because that simply has to solve all their problems. Hell, why we're at it, give Afghanistan a big shipment of iron ore, and send a load of timber on over to India. Give them those resources! That will fix them right up!

Shame on us for thinking about. . . us.

Why yes, I am in one of my "moods."

What a smart ass you are! It's better to be a smart ass than a dumb ass.
(But I think I could have done without the picture....again)
Talking out your ass? Yeah. Keep on.
I found a bumper sticker that you can order yesterday, it said, "Who would Bin Lauden vote for?"
In that light, it's easy to figure out isn't it?

I like that. It's cute, almost as if there's a terror clerk, with a pen and paper, tallying the number of terrorists out in the world today versus the number there were on Sept. 10, 2001.

Actually, there is. Or close enough: the State Department issues an annual report of the number of terrorist incidents world-wide every year.

I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. There was kind of a buzz about a month and a half ago, when the State Department admitted that it had flubbed the numbers for 2003, and that-- rather than being a record *low* year for terrorist incidents, as the State Department had been boasting --2003 actually had more people killed in more terrorist attacks than in 2002. Also, there were significant spikes in certain kinds of terrorist attacks ("soft" attacks, resulting in a higher proportion of wounded).

Long story short: yes terrorism got worse in 2003 (and before you ask, no-- the 2003 number doesn't include incidents in Iraq because attacks against "combatants" don't figure into the total). That doesn't prove conclusively that there's more terrorists per se, but it does suggest something along those lines.

Though that reminds me of a bit from a movie. The movie's only okay, but I like the bit:

Woman: You can't say Americans are not more violent than other people.

Fred: No.

Woman: All those people killed in shootings in America?

Fred: Oh, shootings, yes. But that doesn't mean Americans are more violent than other people. We're just better shots.

Much oversimplification aside, yes the US does do an awful lot of humanitarian work around the world but does that effort in any way offset the evil that we've done?

Maybe I'm just talking out my own ass but just because we tried to feed some people and prevent genocides when the politics of the region are right or there's some thing we want in return, sure we'll help. Its not like we don't waste mountains of food every year, there's plenty to go around.

And if bin Laden were captured tomorrow and put on trial for masterminding the commission of the 9/11 attacks (and shame on you for trying to split hairs on that issue when you very well knew what I meant, that's a very weak strawman you're propping up there to kick to the ground) then yes, it would go a long way, in my mind, to putting 9/11 to rest, serving justice has a way of doing that. I don't need to see a signed contract of collusion against the west to believe in a connection between the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. But the pretext for the war was flimsy, Bush and company didn't even bother trying to find a reasonably good excuse for going to war. They latched on to WMD's and ran with it, they could have demonstrated what a sick and depraved fuckknob Saddam Hussein was and gotten national and international support for his removal. Instead we were led to war on a lie and a promise. And dead soldiers keep piling up.

Noone's ever said that the UN is perfect, you've brought more to my attention about how badly it is run. But that doesn't mean that we ignore the rules we agreed to abide by. That doesn't mean that, just because we're irritated with a country, that we ignore the laws we helped set in the first place. And we break them so cavalierly, like they don't apply to us, like the USA has some divine right to act like petulant little jerks with a goddamned big gun. (And yeah, I do mean to use all of the religious iconography since Bush is often quoted as saying that something is "God's will" which is really just pretty damnably creepy all on its own.)

And yeah, when someone assaults our nation and we attack a country that had little direct involvement in the planning, staging, execution or financing, then yeah, we are acting like bullies lashing out because we can't hit who hurt us. Oh yeah, and most of the hijackers were Saudi's but has anyone ever even considered going after the Saudi connection? No. Why is that? And why did we go after Iraq? Is it because its damned hard to attack a people without a homeland, or have we just not found Terrorisia or is it Terrovania? Yeah, it doesn't help, does it?

I'm not disputing the fact that Iraq was a horror show under Saddam Hussein. I'm disputing the fact that it was based on finding massive caches of weapons of mass destruction that were capable of destroying or significantly damaging our country. Sorry but a shell with some gas in them do not a demonstrable threat to the continued existence of the USA make. You can talk about deployments for maximum effect and whatever but its time to face the reality that there may not be any WMD's. Your pointing to them and saying "Aha" is the same as a cop finding a pot seed on the floor of your car. It means nothing and I think you actually know it but are arguing the point anyway. Maybe Saddam hid them really, really well or maybe he sold them before the inspections began. In any case, admit the fucking mistake and let's move on. Blair admitted he screwed up, why does this administration steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the fact and facts that they have bungled some pretty important events.

The US is a fertile place for innovation, that's definitely true. But the majority of this nation is fat, that's a fact. The majority of this nation thinks exercise is walking to the kitchen and back. The majority think driving a car around in the mud is exercise and that the bigger the car, the better the man. This nation's value system is so completely warped and off kilter that we've got nimrods like Rick Santorum talking about the end of existence if queers are allowed to marry each other.

I don't think you talk out your ass, I think you choose to see things in a particular way because that fits in with what you want to believe about our government. I can assure you though, that it is not about Republican and Democrat to me. It is about removing a man who is utterly unprepared for the position of running this country.

Sorry for the length of the response and I'm sure I trailed off on a point or two. Might isn't right, giving aid isn't a payoff to commit violence elsewhere, a cache of WMD's is more than a handful of shells.

Oh wait, got to respond to your last thought before your ass demanded a shave (have a nice weekend! hahaha!) about not responding after the 9/11 attacks. I agree that action was required, swift, justice delivered by supersonic cruise missiles or highly trained Seal teams. Whatever. But make for damned sure that you exact retribution of the right ones. Going out and about just stomping on worms hoping you get the right one for what was done to us is a low brow interpretation of jungle justice (its okay to punish you for this crime you didn't do because you have definitely committed other crimes). What would we be doing if Germany was doing this? What would be doing if Korea were doing what we're doing? What would we do if Mexico were doing this? We'd be bringing the smackdown on them for illegally warring on other people's without reasonable, checked and rechecked probable cause.

Oh, I heard about it, Joshua, and I read up on both accounts, and yet that doesn't change my opinion: namely, I don't think terrorist recruitment is all that different now than from what it would have been if we had just taken 9/11 in stride like a good sport and formed a committee on how best to respond to it, and then went to the U.N. to ask for permission to admonish Afghaninstan for not playing by the rules, and then asking for another resolution to admonish Saddam for being, well, Saddam, and then having the U.N. respond with, "sorry old chaps, but we're more content to stay with the status quo as it were. Appeasement, you know. We've done it before, and we're doing it again, because we believe in the better nature of human beings and all that, despite overwhelming evidence that human nature sucks. (See also, UNscam)"

Like I said, what-the-fuck-ever.

Who would you pick a fight with? A guy who you just beat up for his second wallet, knowing he has a diamond ring yet to get, or a guy you just beat up and took his wallet, and he responded by pointing a gun at you for beating him up the first time and he'll be damned if you're going to get his second wallet and his diamond ring?

By the way, for $123 billion (current total cost of the war in Iraq), the US could have fully funded all of the AIDS research world-wide for 12 years. Or fully funded all the anti-hunger efforts world wide for 5 years.

Or, possibly the best thing, we could have made sure every single child on the planet had basic immunizations for the first 41 years of their lives.

Just something to think about.

And Johnny, I think you're great, as I do Joshua, after getting through more reservations than United Airlines. That said, it's almost 2 a.m., and I have a girlfriend impatiently rubbing ;my shoulders, so I'm off to more personal things. But, I'll be sure to respond to your response later.

Oh, I heard about it, Joshua, and I read up on both accounts, and yet that doesn't change my opinion... [snip] ...better nature of human beings and all that, despite overwhelming evidence that human nature sucks. (See also, UNscam)"

Evidently you turn into a twit at midnight or something.

Ryan, do you do any original thinking? I mean, seriously. "Blah blah blah, UN doesn't do enough, corrupt bureaucracy, do-nothing centrists, blah blah blah. Only the United States has the moral courage to do what must be done! blah blah status quo blah blah once again the United States is the moral trail blazer for the free world! Blah blah appeasement!"

It reminds me of this asinine conversation I had with my cousin once where she was talking about what was important to he in the upcoming election and she actually used the phrase "family values" with no detectible irony of any kind.

What the fuck? Is there some cable service I haven't heard of where someone actually comes to your house and spoon-feeds you your opinions?

I mean, for example, what's the deal with this shit:

And invisible WMDs? I guess the sarin and mustard gas we've turned up isn't WMD enough for you: keep pushing those goalposts back.

We discussed both the mustard gas and the sarin extensively over at the Red Pages. Remember the difference between the A/P wire report on the mustard gas and the FOX News report on the same incident? Allow me to refresh your memory:

Ryan said: although Fox News is the one carrying the story, so I'm sure it will mostly be dismissed in its entirety right away

From the A/P wire (May 18, 2004):

Earlier this month, some trace residue of mustard agent, an older type of chemical weapon, was detected in an artillery shell found in a Baghdad street, a U.S. official said Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity. The shell was believed to be from one of Saddam's old stockpiles and was not regarded as evidence of recent weapons of mass destruction production in Iraq.

Oh, hey, look at that: I didn't dismiss the story in its entirety.

However, I'm noticing some differences in wording here that strike me as significant. According to FOX News, this earlier shell was "filled with mustard gas". According to the A/P there was some "trace residue". Also, FOX News version doesn't mention that the shell wasn't regarded as evidence of a recent WMD program.

So, yeah, whatever that says about FOX News and the A/P wire, I think it suggests something about the mustard gas.

Did you continue to argue the point in the Red Pages? No. Did you change your opinion? No; as far as you're concerned, the discovery of an unmarked shell with trace residue is historically significant. And the sarin? Again: all the evidence suggests that whoever deployed that sarin shell had no idea what was in it, and even the Pentagon admitted that it didn't indicate the presence of a stockpile.

Does any of that change Ryan Rhodes' opinion? No. Does Ryan have a stand-up response to any of it? No. Ryan resorts to semantic quips about how three shells can, technically, form a pile. He wants to know how many people constitute an "army".

Moving the goal posts my fucking ass.

You know what pisses me off here, Ryan? When I say that Bush fucked the economy, I back my belief up with data and explanations. When I say that Bush has mishandled the war, I cite specific examples of where I think he screwed up; what I believe the policy issues are and how they interact with each other.

Your baseline argument for your support of the Bush administration is that terrorism is your number one political concern. You're not worried about the economy, or the environment, or civil liberties, or any of that shit; you're worried about terrorism. When I post links to data indicating that terrorism has gotten worse since Bush started his "war on terror" (and, incidentally, that the State Department fucked the report up in favor of the Bush administration), you blow it off. You insist that your beef with the left is that they're living in denial. But you know what arguing politics with you reminds me of? Trying to get Layne to stop giving Lauren money. You read the news, but the only part that sticks is the data that supports your conclusions; the rest of it, you could give a shit about. You don't even bother to formulate cogent arguments against it. You just don't care.

Tell the truth, Ryan: you're Odin Soli, aren't you?

He better not be Odin Soli.

I think what Joshua is saying is that you need to either back up your beliefs with some proof or examine why you hold on to those beliefs so tenaciously.

No one's ever said that the UN is perfect, you've brought more to my attention about how badly it is run. But that doesn't mean that we ignore the rules we agreed to abide by.

You know what, though? When every other country that agreed to abide by those same rules isn't abiding by those same rules any more, you end up as a rube. If there's one thing the unfolding UNscam drama shows, it's that nobody was playing by the "rules." And, as a result, the U.S., and basically the world in general, was made more vulnerable as a result:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/27507.htm

Oh yeah, and most of the hijackers were Saudi's but has anyone ever even considered going after the Saudi connection?

I suspect we're getting to that.

You're not worried about the economy, or the environment, or civil liberties, or any of that shit; you're worried about terrorism.

You know, I was in Hawaii in December of 2000, riding with my cousin, and he was talking about how we should start up a dot.com, because that's where a lot of money can be made. Then I asked my cousin how yet another dot.com could support itself, given that companies only have a finite advertising budget, and dot.coms were basically dependant on banner advertisements and offered very little in the way of revenue-driving anything. That was in the halcyon days of a 5,000 NASDAQ, and something kept crawling into my mind that all the hype and growth just wasn't sustainable. And then, as if on cue, the bubble went and burst, while still under the Clinton watch. Yet, I don't blame the Clinton administration for the implosion, just as I don't blame Bush for the aftermath. The economy is a political hot potato that's tossed back and forth, and I don't put a lot of stock in looking at the economy as an indicator of how a Presidential administration is faring. I've read up on your explanation, Joshua, on how foreign trade policy affects the economy, and it's valid, to a miniscule degree. Just my opinion, of course. But, from a historical perspective, it's difficult to blame Hoover for the Great Depression, but that's what happened, and it's difficult to credit FDR with the recovery (a little-known war played a giant part in that), but that's generally the accepted story. I just don't buy it. Call it an impasse of thought if you want.

The environment? Thing is, I don't think we know jack-shit about the environment and how we're really affecting it. The conflicting studies and their conflicting findings can be used as political fodder until the sun burns out.

Did you continue to argue the point in the Red Pages? No. Did you change your opinion? No;

First off, arguing points with you could, theoretically, go on forever. We could go at each other, tit-for-tat, until I have a flowing grey beard. But the truth? Truth is I don't have the attention span for it. Eventually, we end up spitting out the same arguments we've spat out time and time again, so I lose interest. I would apologize for letting argument strings fizzle out, but I honestly don't feel like I have to. You yelp at me because my opinion wasn't magically changed to accept your enlightened point of view, but I'm routinely exasperated with you for not coming around to my side of the fence? Why is it that happens, do you think? Oh, right, because we have differing OPINIONS. You back up your opinions with what you perceive to be facts, and then I read them, and I think "well, that's chock full of holes" and I'll respond with "facts" of my own, and you'll respond with "well, that's chock full of holes." And on and on and on. So forgive me for not keeping argument strings such as these going on into infinity. I have bills to pay, and hapkido to train in, and porn to download. In other words, I have a life to attend to. Sort of.

Oh, what the hell:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20040719.shtml

speaking of ass-talking...

take a look at this picture:
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/hh/0744834/HH/0744834/GabrielAdamandEliRoth.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Roth,%20Eli

imagine a goatee on the guy in the ball-return slot...

remind you of anyone?

Yikes.

is Adam Roth your "stage name?"

First off, arguing points with you could, theoretically, go on forever... Truth is I don't have the attention span for it.

Oh, bullshit. You link to a FOX News article about mustard gas, I quote an A/P article that refutes the details of the FOX News story, you walk away from the discussion.

I have reasons for questioning the veracity of the FOX News story that come down to more than just my opinion: CMPA research found that FOX News consumers were significantly more likely to be mistaken about various matters of fact regarding the "war on terrorism". Hell, Lt. Josh Rushing, a Central Command press officer for the U.S. military in Iraq, compared FOX News to Al Jazeera; " It benefits Al Jazeera to play to Arab nationalism because that's their audience, just like FOX plays to American patriotism, for the exact same reason — American nationalism — because that's their demographic audience and that's what they want to see."

But whatever. I wouldn't want to strain your attention span.

You back up your opinions with what you perceive to be facts, and then I read them, and I think "well, that's chock full of holes" and I'll respond with "facts" of my own, and you'll respond with "well, that's chock full of holes."

Which "holes" are you talking bout, Ryan? That whole clever "three shells can make a 'pile', so that constitutes a 'stockpile'" argument?

And, just as a point of order; lots of what I "perceive to be facts" come from U.S. government sources. Whenever possible, I link to primary sources. I certainly wouldn't link to a New York Times article here unless I had no other way of citing something. And, even then, I'd probably abandon the argument rather than link to the Times because I know you write them off pretty much automatically. But how do you back up your views? FOX News. The New York Post. The National Review. Fucking hell, Ryan. At least I make an attempt to get objective data.

CMPA research found that FOX News consumers were significantly more likely to be mistaken about various matters of fact regarding the "war on terrorism".

Just a reciprocal point of order here, Joshua. Linking to ONE damned article does not a FOX news junkie make. On a given week, I'll maybe visit FOX news three times, so stop painting with that sloppy broad brush of yours. I get most of my news intake from links all over the place, although I'll admit that I tend to follow links from Instapundit more than any other. But nevermind that. To here you tell it, I sacrifice chickens to the folks over at FOX news. You know, for a guy who complains when I say "consider the source," you're doing a lot of source considering here.

Oh, bullshit. You link to a FOX News article about mustard gas, I quote an A/P article that refutes the details of the FOX News story, you walk away from the discussion.

Yeah, and it's not at all possible that I walked away because the discussion had all the earmarks of yet another tit-for-tat rebuttal fest that I wasn't interested in engaging in that day. *channeling Steve Martin* well, excuuuuuuse meeeeee!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html

That article, obviously, doesn't particularly work in my favor, but what I did find interesting was:

In Warsaw yesterday, Marek Dukaczewski, Poland's chief of army intelligence, told reporters: "We were mortified by the information that terrorists were looking for these warheads. . . . An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine."

Dukaczewski said the Polish unit in Iraq paid an undisclosed sum of money to buy the rockets last month after an informer there told the Poles that militant groups were seeking to buy such weapons for up to $5,000 apiece. "We bought all the shells available," Dukaczewski said.

Curious that militant groups would be so actively seeking weapons that supposedly don't exist. Gosh, it's almost as if that could be construed as evidence suggesting that whoever deployed that sarin shell had a pretty good idea what was in it.

Joshua --

Regarding the mustard gas shells, I think you're talking about two different stories. We have found a shell (which militants/terrorists/freedom-loving-iraqi-minutemen/whatever tried and faild to turn into a working roadside bomb) that was filled with SARIN gas, not mustard gas.

Sarin makes mustard gas look like Lysol. The sarin gas, if used properly (something the men who tried to use it fortunately didn't have the knowledge to do) was enough to kill 60,000 or so people. What was the first one -- we've found others. THAT'S what FoxNews was reporting on, not a shell in Baghdad with trace amounts of mustard gas.

You talking about two differetn stories and acting as thoguh they are the same story skewed different ways....

The "moving the goalposts" argument goes someting like this:

1) Liberals say "There are no WMDs"

2) We find enough sarin gas -- a WMD -- to kill 60,000.

3) You say "Well, there are no _stockpiles_ of WMDs"

4) We find a huge stockpiles of fertilizer that has no legitimate use in Iraq in the quantities found, but is easily converted to a chemical weapon, and conveniently located in a hidden bunker right next door to a _munitions factory_. (What a strange place to store innocent fertilizer!)

5) You say "Meh. 'Could be easily converted in a day' doesn't count. If it's not in it's final form, loaded into a shell, and pointeed at us with Saddam himself standing there with his finger on the launch button, it doesn't prove a thing."

See, the trick is, you all were decrying the lack of WMDs until they were found -- then the goalposts moved: only large obvious stockpiles count.

Iraq is a big place, and we're still looking, and finding things every day. Hell it was the Polish troops who found illegal missiles in Iraq that basically marked "Made in France 2003". Not WMDs there, but clearly in violation of the UN sanctions.

You talking about two differetn stories and acting as thoguh they are the same story skewed different ways....

I'm perfectly clear that I'm talking about two different stories. 'Cause, see, I know the difference between mustard gas and sarin. If you'd followed the conversation from end to end and checked the links, you'd know that. I'm not acting as though they're the same story skewed different ways; I'm addressing Ryan's unqualified statement about the discovery of mustard gas in Iraq.

See, the trick is, you all were decrying the lack of WMDs until they were found -- then the goalposts moved: only large obvious stockpiles count.

Hey, "Strider"? You want to watch it with that "you all" shit. My complaint about the handling of the WMD question has been that the issue was misused by the administration. Among other concerns, the administration made a clear effort to indicate to the American people that they were in immanent danger of a WMD attack. The magnitude of the administration's failure to produce a WMD stockpile, or evidence that one existed, was mediapathic because it suggested gross incompetence. But that's not all there was to it. Whatever else may come out of this— whether it's the CIA's fault or what —the Bush administration took us into a preemptive war on inaccurate information.

An evidentiary parallel for you:

If someone says John Doe stole a car in Boston and I say, "There's no proof that John was in Boston on the night the car was stolen," then simply proving that John was in Boston (or near Boston) on the night in question still doesn't prove that John stole the car.

Bush's justification for taking us to war included a contention that Saddam Hussein and the government of Iraq represented a clear and present danger to U.S. national security, and that, because a component of that threat was the presence of WMD in Iraq, the U.S. should engage in an unprecedented preemptive invasion of a country half-way around the world.

I have dozens of objections to that policy.

The veracity of Bush's claims that Iraq had an active WMD program is just one of the many issues I have with the Bush Doctrine. The WMD issue is a nice big target, so that's the one a lot of people have focused on. But proving the presence of WMDs doesn't prove that Iraq had an active program. Finding a few traces of past WMDs doesn't prove that Iraq had a stockpile. Finding a stockpile wouldn't prove that Iraq had the capability to deploy them to the U.S. Proving that Iraq had the capability to deploy them wouldn't demonstrate that Iraq had the intention to deploy them.

But that's just the WMD question. I also have concerns about legality; national and international. I have policy concerns. I have procedural concerns.

And so on and so forth. You're on about "moving goal posts". I haven't moved a fucking thing. They're not goal posts; they're mile posts. And there's dozens of them between here, and a place where I think Bush handled the invasion of Iraq correctly.

"You want to watch it with that 'you all' shit."

Fair enough. I was foolishly lumping you in with the people who claim there were no WMDs in Iraq, despite the fact that we have repeatedly found them. Doesn't matter if one group of terrorists who got their hands on them didn't realize how to use what they had (or didn't _know_ what they had); there were WMDs in Iraq, and we're still finding them.

"Whatever else may come out of this— whether it's the CIA's fault or what —the Bush administration took us into a preemptive war on inaccurate information."

Agreeing, for the sake of argument, that the information was inaccurate, it was information that was believed, (and acted upon), by Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, a majority of Congress, and the fifty other countries that were part of the "unilateral" coalition that attacked Iraq. There was not a country in the world that thought he didn't have them. (France claims they didn't but their motives are highly questionable in light of the billions they were making in their illegal dealings with Saddam.)

"Bush's justification for taking us to war included a contention that Saddam Hussein and the government of Iraq represented a clear and present danger to U.S. national security"

I'll take the liberty of reading "clear and present" as a synonym for "imminent". Here's what President Bush actually said in the infamous State of the Union speech:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Source: www.whitehouse.gov

He made it very clear, in this and other statements, that the threat is _not_ "imminent" but that we don't have the luxury of waiting until it is. Every single person who claims that Bush told us that the threat of Iraq was immenent is either willfully deceptive or ignorant.

As with you, I like to get such info from the Horse's mouth, when possible, and I get damned mad every time I hear one more rube insist on the "Bush lied about immenent danger" myth -- Bush said no such thing! This is especially ridiculous coming from professional reporters and commentators, considering that it took me all of ten seconds to find the text of the speech that everyone thinks they're quoting.

"Finding a few traces of past WMDs doesn't prove that Iraq had a stockpile. Finding a stockpile wouldn't prove that Iraq had the capability to deploy them to the U.S."

As already stated, we've found a bit more than "a few traces". Arguing "capability" is a fool's game -- until a couple years ago I wouldn't have thought that 17 men had the capability to blow a large whole in the middle of Manhattan.

One big advantage of the war in Iraq is the "flypaper effect" -- the terrorists are concentrating on our troops over there, who are ready and able to fight back, instead of killing civilians over here.

Can you honestly say that on September 12, 2001 you though that we would have no other attacks in the next three years? Yet here we are (getting slightly ahead of myself and hoping not to be falsely prophetic).

"Proving that Iraq had the capability to deploy them wouldn't demonstrate that Iraq had the intention to deploy them."

If Saddam could get away with it, he would have gleefully blown the entire US of A off the map. He had a very vocal loathing of the United States, and proved many times over (300,000 times and counting, not counting Kuwait) that he had not the slightest qualms about using extreme violence to realize his desires.

"I also have concerns about legality; national and international."

Noted. I'll take the opportunity to point out, however, that he asked for, and got, permission from Congress to use military force. As for International law (and frankly, I question any claims of other countries having "jurisdiction" over the United States), we pretty much would have had the "go ahead" from the UN if not for the stonewalling of France -- and again, their motives were clearly less than straightforward.

He made it very clear, in this and other statements, that the threat is _not_ "imminent" but that we don't have the luxury of waiting until it is. Every single person who claims that Bush told us that the threat of Iraq was immenent is either willfully deceptive or ignorant.

This is semantics. Bush has gone on the record to say:

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

and:

The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given.

and:

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

and Vice President Dick Cheney said:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

So let's get back to this "every single person who claims that Bush told us that the threat of Iraq was 'immanent' is either willfully deceptive or ignorant," business; I'm neither. I look at the above quotes and I see words indicating that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States. He said the danger is clear (but he didn't say "present"!). He said the danger is grave (but he didn't say "immediate"!). He said we were facing clear evidence of peril (but not "present" evidence of "danger"!)

I mean, what the fuck? The definition of the word "immanent" is "existing in or inherrient in". Which is to say, present. Right now. If the danger to our country is "growing", that means it exists, and is getting larger. If the danger to our country is grave, that means it is presently to be taken seriously and implies threat of serious harm. And on and on like that.

It's remarkable to me that someone who claims that a pile of chemical fertilizer behind a hangar constitutes a WMD program can look at the quotes above and claim that anyone who says Bush told us the threat of Iraw as immanent is either willfully deceptive or ignorant. Evidently you're just incapable of recognizing bullshit for what it is: bullshit.

If Saddam could get away with it, he would have gleefully blown the entire US of A off the map.

You were doing okay up to here. Because that is a big stinky "if".

Look at what happened after 9/11. Nineteen guys with no demonstrable ties to any government except, possibly, Saudi Arabia, carried out an ultra-low-tech attack against the United States-- and please note that, in spite of pre-9/11 availability of WMD and cash, the 9/11 terrorists not only didn't use WMDs, they didn't even use guns. Nineteen guys carry out one low-tech attack, and the United States invaded Afghanistan.

What would have happened if Saddam Hussein had used a WMD on the United States. What would have happened if there was a WMD attack and the United States even suspected that Iraq was behind it? Would Saddam Hussein who was, remember, not particularly religious-- would Saddam Hussein have gotten away with it? Would his country have survived?

No.

Any country even tangentially associated with a WMD attack against the United States will be leveled.

I mean, let's take a step back and look at the WMDs we've seen since 9/11, shall we?

Anthrax: delivered through the mail. Does that strike you as the best way to deploy anthrax? If whoever used it had more of it, wouldn't they have deployed it more generally? Into an air conditioning system, for example?

Sarin gas: the only record of sarin deployment is via an artillery shell, rigged as an IED. The shell was designed specifically to activate the sarin only when fired out of a rifled cannon; nothing else would work. And yet the shell was detonated in an open space, as a bomb. Does that seem like the best way to deploy sarin gas to you? See above re: air conditioning.

Other discoveries of WMD have been discoveries of trace quantities or improperly stored samples that could just as easily have gotten mixed in with conventional rounds. Ryan's explanation for the Polish buy-out incident is that "whoever deployed the sarin shell had a pretty good idea what was in it." I have an alternate explanation; after the one shell was unsuccessfully detonated, Iraqi insurgents realized there might be more shells like that mixed in with the conventional stockpiles all over the country and started buying them up like crazy, hoping to find the prize in the bottom of the box.

In any event, what all of this categorically isn't is, it's not a WMD program that would be any threat to the entire U.S., or even a large city. These weapons, properly handled and deployed, could kill thousands and thousands of people in the United States. And the response would be a draft, a mobilization, and, if necessary, a one-to-one troops-to-civilians ratio during an invasion and occupation the likes of which have never been imagined. There wouldn't be two stones left stacked on top of each other anywhere in the Middle East.

Now. Would Saddam Hussein who, let me reiterate, was not particularly religious and was, to all appearances, not holding out on any hope of going to heaven; would Saddam Hussein have instigated that?

No.

Bargue (bar' gyoo) - v. To whine, fuss, and complain a great deal while at the same time trying to get someone to see your point of view. Ex: The young child bargued with his father until his father gave in and let him stay up past his bedtime.

Hey Rob? I bet I can kick your ass.

"The definition of the word 'immanent' is 'existing in or inherrient in'"

Well there's your problem!

Imminent: adj. 1) Likely to happen soon; about to occur.
-- World Book Dictionary

The statement that the danger is "growing" is not a statement that "they're going to hit us any minute now", which is what imminence would suggest. All those quote you give actually seem to argue my side better than yours, as Bush keeps making statements that the danger is "real" and "growing" -- which it was -- and that we had to act _before_ it became "imminent".

There are a whole lot of people who argue that Global Warming is a danger. Right now, a danger. By your standard they are all liars because they know damned well that global warming is not going to kill us _tomorrow_, but decades or centuries from now.

Saddam directly supported terrorists, with both money and the means to train. According to the 9/11 commission he had direct ties with Al Qaeda (though not necessarily directly in planning the 9/11 attacks). Afghanistan was a cesspool of terrorist camps and training grounds. If you actively nurture anti-American terrorists and then those same terrorists attack America, you are at least partly culpable for that attack whether or not they were wearing your country's uniform.

Terrorists are not a large cohesive force like an army. The only way to fight them en masse is to, in effect, "drain the swamp" -- removing the opportunity for them to recruit, train, and plot. And that in part means convincing some countries to stop supporting them, and using "other means" to stop the ones who continue to do so.

"Any country even tangentially associated with a WMD attack against the United States will be leveled."

You're right. And they did it anyway. And now two countries that were associated with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks have had their regimes levelled.

I'm not sure that your suggestion regarding Saddam's reasoning is correct. Bin Laden pretty clearly thought that the US would tuck its tail between its legs and beg for mercy after the attacks. He was dead wrong -- but that doesn't change what was going through his head before the attacks. The last thing he expected was for us to roll into Afghanistan and take out the Taliban, as evidenced by the fact that right before 9/11 he spent beaucoup bucks building himself a mansion there, which he then never got to live in on account of having to run for his life. It has been argued that the reason Saddam defied the UN and the US right to the end was that he thought that his friends in France would be able to prevent a US attack. He was mistaken.

Of course you can never really know what Saddam was thinking. As for the question "would Saddam Hussein have instigated that?" I can only say: "not directly".

PETA got in trouble for funding an environmental terrorist organisation. Their response was "but we're not funding the terrorism, we're funding their other activities." The argument was quickly shot down, because obviously, whatever other money the environmental extremists don't have to spend on their otehr activities, they can spend on their illegal activities. So to argue that Saddam _did_ help Al Qaeda but had nothing to do with 9/11 is somewhat specious reasoning. He gave them funding; he gave them training grounds. He helped them directly, and thus helped whatever they were working on. He also knew, in rough terms, their intent: "hurt America", as did everyone else in the world.

Glibido: All talk and no action.

Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.

Doork (dawrk) - n. A person who always pushes on a door marked "pull" or vice versa.

Well, at least now we know why she massages your SHOULDERS. (A safe distance from the depicted anatomical feature.)

Does josua truly know the difference between agent GB and agent HD? Me thinks not.