What Ariana thinks

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tragedy

I was bamboozled. I thought, based on claims of this administration, that Iraq presented a nuclear weapons threat.

They said Iraq wanted to get nuclear materials. Wilson's report made it clear they had approached Niger about it. I never thought there was an immediate threat of nuclear attack. I did realize that once sanctions were lifted that Saddam would likely turn Iraq into another North Korea but right in the middle of the muslim world. My guess is that you also know this is true.

So, were you really bamboozled? Were you "that guy"?

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tragedy

They said Iraq wanted to get nuclear materials. Wilson's report made it clear they had approached Niger about it. I never thought there was an immediate threat of nuclear attack. I did realize that once sanctions were lifted that Saddam would likely turn Iraq into another North Korea but right in the middle of the muslim world. My guess is that you also know this is true.

So, were you really bamboozled? Were you "that guy"?

Yes, I really was. Your description of what they said about "want[ing] to get nuclear materials," though used to bolster the case, was not the compelling, imminent threat that was posited as the reason to attack at that time, while sanctions were still in place, while inspections were underway.

Bush wanted a war in Iraq, come Hell or high water. And people like me, who would not normally support going around invading other countries, were convinced or at least quasi-convinced by the tale of a real threat.

Yes, I was bamboozled.

What did you think during the run-up to the war? Was the case that Iraq was out looking for nuclear materials enough to justify this war for you? Is it still?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: The tragedy

Isn't the real tragedy that thousands have died in a pointless war which the country was bamboozled into starting?

No.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The only person I know who was bamboozled was Richard Hatch on Survivor:All Stars. He even said so himself.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tragedy

Yes, I really was. Your description of what they said about "want[ing] to get nuclear materials," though used to bolster the case, was not the compelling, imminent threat that was posited as the reason to attack at that time, while sanctions were still in place, while inspections were underway.

See, I don't remember it this way at all. And the transcript backs me up:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript.8/index.html
"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."

Bush argued, rather explicitly, that we must act BEFORE the threat becomes imminent. And I agreed with him. I wasn't bamboozled at all. But perhaps I understood his argument better in the first place, or maybe I just remember the original debate better.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Yes it is.

No it's not...oh look, this isn't an argument.

No it's not.

It's just contradiction.
(Don't you know the rest of the sketch?)

No, you've just asserted that there is a conspiracy. What evidence do you have that there are people who tell her what to say? AKA a conspiracy.

No, you've asserted that I've asserted a conspiracy. This just makes you a liar. Glad we've got that little misunderstanding cleared up.

I don't think every time political special interest groups speak amongst themselves it qualifies as a conspiracy. They are just doing what they do. As for evidence that Sheehan is manipulated? Well how about blogging with Michael Moore, staying in the Crawford Peace House and having better road support than the Pope and the Rolling Stones combined (including geriatric medical equipment). This is what we call an inference or a reasonable conclusion reached from observation. I'm afraid I don't have her International Communist Conspiracy check stubs on file here at headquarters.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: Re: Re: The tragedy

It's a tragedy if you're stupid enough to believe this. Since when is the point of a war predicated on how many people die fighting it?

Ah well, if thinking I'm stupid makes your personal fantasy world more fuzzy and secure you go right ahead on. I won't stop you.

The point of the war (for those tuning in late) is to attack international terrorist organizations and the states that support them.

I know, you want to talk about WMD's and dubya's lying attempt to make us believe that peaceful innocent uncle Saddam had them. The problem is that all the people who complain that no WMD's were found don't know the first damned thing about WMD's and wouldn't know one if they tripped over it.

<unpopular facts>
Point one: WMD's have been found in Iraq. Several binary nerve agent artillery rounds have been recovered as well as stocks of blister agent (mustard gas). 55 gallon drums of sarin and blister agent were identified by Army mass spectrometry scans. These were afterwards classified as agricultural chemicals by the ISG. There appears to be a significant difference in classification methodologies there.

Point two: Chemical agents are usually stockpiled as component chemicals not as the actual active agents. In many cases there is little to distinguish them from commercial chemicals. The army jumped on every stockpile of chemicals it found to test and in some cases came to conclusions quite different from the ISG. According to our own specialists we have found ample supplies of precursor chemicals that can create nerve, blister and choking agents.

Point three: A large stockpile of bilogical weapons may be placed inside the refrigerator of a mobile home. Sufficient quantities of Ricin and Botulism toxins were found that would enable the production of a biological weapon in short order.

Point four: hundreds of tons of yellowcake were captured.
</unpopular facts>

So go ahead and repeat the no WMD's mantra until you feel better. But it will only work if you don't look too closely at the evidence.

 

[Tony]

No, you've asserted that I've asserted a conspiracy. This just makes you a liar. Glad we've got that little misunderstanding cleared up.

Please, shut up. You're making my state look dumber than it already looks.

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
synonym see PLOT

Main Entry: con·spire
Pronunciation: k&n-'spIr
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·spired; con·spir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conspirer, from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe
transitive senses : PLOT, CONTRIVE
intransitive senses
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b : SCHEME
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>

So yes, you were alleging that there was a conspiracy.

I don't think every time political special interest groups speak amongst themselves it qualifies as a conspiracy.

Edit out the part that says "every time political special interest groups speak amongst themselves it qualifies as a conspiracy" and you're right.

Well how about blogging with Michael Moore, staying in the Crawford Peace House and having better road support than the Pope and the Rolling Stones combined (including geriatric medical equipment).

Blogging for Michael Moore? Evidence please?

And how is the above evidence that Sheehan is manipulated?

 

[Tony]

But not by the laws of the victors. Nuremberg was victor's justice. I recognize that quite completely, but I also have no qualms about it.

Whoa. This is really pathetic. Not only are you moving the goal posts, but you’re expecting soldiers to see into the future and predict to what “laws” the possible victors are going to hold them accountable. Well guess what? If the insurgents win the “war”, most of things we’re doing would, most likely, be considered illegal by them (aka the victors). By your own logic, our soldiers, since they have a legal obligation to disregard illegal orders, should be refusing to do anything over there because, should the insurgents win, their actions will be deemed illegal.

What if Saddam was a saint. Then we'd be living in a different world. I'd like to keep this conversation grounded in reality, if you please.

Nice way to dodge the issue. It’s ok, I understand why you’re afraid to answer the question.

In other words, you hope that soldiers would refuse illegal orders (bombing Houston would be illegal).

Now I know why you expect soldiers to use ESP to predict a possible future, you have that ability yourself.

Irrelevant.

No it’s not. It completely debunks your claim that “refusing illegal orders is not political dissent.”.

Soldiers are obligated to refuse illegal orders BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. Political principle has nothing to do with that obligation. If they are politically opposed to the order they refuse, that's convenient. If they are politically in FAVOR of it, they are still obliged to refuse (I wouldn't want a soldier opposed to abortions following an order to attack an abortion clinic, for example). This knife cuts both ways, though: if the order is legal, they must obey. That's the whole bloody point about taking the oath of service: you obey orders which are legal, regardless of your personal feelings. Remove that, and you don't have an army, you have a gang of armed men.

Cue Frank Burns: “without discipline, an army is just a bunch of guys wearing the same color clothes”.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whoa. This is really pathetic. Not only are you moving the goal posts, but you’re expecting soldiers to see into the future and predict to what “laws” the possible victors are going to hold them accountable.

No, I'm not. I'm simply recognizing a reality that you want to pretend doesn't exist, namely that this is, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN, an intractible problem. There is no solution, there is no way to prevent victor's justice. Never has been, never will be.

We can and do establish standards of conduct for our own troops. Our troops have legal obligations, including the obligation to disobey illegal orders. They are not allowed to use their political opinion to refuse legal orders. They are not allowed to refuse legal orders because another country considers them illegal. Likewise, they are not allowed to OBEY illegal orders based on their political opinions, or because another country considers them legal. In short, they are not allowed to refuse legal orders on ANY grounds, or to obey illegal orders on any grounds. And the relevant standards of legality or illegality are OUR standards, not anyone else's. This is the reality of the situation. Do you deny this, or is this just not how you WANT it to be?

Let me draw another distinction for you. I know this may be hard, given the shallowness of your thinking on the matter, but give it a try. I expect soldiers to follow their conscience. However, I ALSO expect that the US military and legal system will demand of soldiers that they follow all legal orders, using US law as the basis for that determination. If soldiers disobey a lawful in order to follow their conscience, then I expect them to be punished accordingly, EVEN IF they are right. This is the moral burden they accept when taking the oath. If a soldier really believes that taking part in the Iraq war is monstrously immoral, then he should refuse to go, and he should accept the jail time that would result from his refusal. If he is merely politically opposed to the idea, well then, he can suck it up.

 

[Random]

Well personally I won't assume that Arianna speaks for anybody but herself. While I'm sure there's many who share her views, it's for them to say they agree rather than for you to say that they do.

I'm not even going to preface this with the usual "I feel sorry for her loss and thank her and her son for their sacrifice". That's all trite dribble and nonsense at this point said merely to try and disarm the inevitable backlash of "How can you dare to criticize a grieving mother" accusations. Well, I can criticize a grieving mother. It's easy, watch me.

First off, I believe that Sheehan is handled by an expert team of spindoctors who have her speaking only the things already outlined in the propoganda playbook. While maybe she agrees with the things she says, they are no more her opinions than the opinions of Hamlet were those of Laurence Olivier. She is part of a well orchestrated attack on the administration by a special interest group who leverage the death of her son as a means of stifling honest debate on the topic. She is not only letting these people use her, which is bad enough, she is letting them use her dead son which is despicable. Her actions are neither courageous nor principled in my opinion, but merely the actions of a money-grubbing, publicity whore who obviously thinks much less of her son and his memory than anything we could possibly accuse of dubya.

I expect I'm going to catch hell for this one.

[OReilly]Absolutely. If your child dies in a pointless war, the only correct thing to do is to hide in your basement and quietly fade away. Actually talking about your loss is pure selfishness, and trying to push some kind of political agenda to prevent the deaths of other children shows a profound disrespect for the political system that sent your child to die in the first place. Ms. Sheehan, you are only one person. Shut up.[/OReilly]

Seriously, what actually is the argument here? Sheehan has support from the left therefore she can’t protest? Sheehan wants to make a political statement? Sheehan wants to stop a war that her son died in? Sheehan needs to lose weight? What?

Yes she’s trying to be political. Duh. Politics and money are pretty much the only things the current president cares about. It is unlikely that she would be able end the war in Iraq by appealing to W as a grieving mother, so she is trying to do it through political means. Why is this so wrong?

 

[Tony]

No, I'm not. I'm simply recognizing a reality that you want to pretend doesn't exist, namely that this is, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN, an intractible problem. There is no solution, there is no way to prevent victor's justice. Never has been, never will be.

So, "I was following orders" is only an bogus defense if it is in the context of victor's justice?

We can and do establish standards of conduct for our own troops. Our troops have legal obligations, including the obligation to disobey illegal orders. They are not allowed to use their political opinion to refuse legal orders. They are not allowed to refuse legal orders because another country considers them illegal. Likewise, they are not allowed to OBEY illegal orders based on their political opinions, or because another country considers them legal. In short, they are not allowed to refuse legal orders on ANY grounds, or to obey illegal orders on any grounds. And the relevant standards of legality or illegality are OUR standards, not anyone else's. This is the reality of the situation. Do you deny this, or is this just not how you WANT it to be?

I don't deny that that's how you think it is. I, however, can see through the smoke and mirrors.

However, I ALSO expect that the US military and legal system will demand of soldiers that they follow all legal orders, using US law as the basis for that determination. If soldiers disobey a lawful in order to follow their conscience, then I expect them to be punished accordingly, EVEN IF they are right.

Then you're a moron.

This is the moral burden they accept when taking the oath.

No it isn't. It is funamentally amoral. They could be given the order to rape children, and if it's legal and if they happen to refuse, they still get prosecuted. AND YOU'RE OK WITH THAT. So much for "casting off tyranny".

If a soldier really believes that taking part in the Iraq war is monstrously immoral, then he should refuse to go, and he should accept the jail time that would result from his refusal.

No he shouldn't. You're no better than people who support Saddam. If he refuses to go, and if he is persecuted for it, he is then a political refugee and if he goes to jail, he is a political prisoner. You hate what this country stands for.

If he is merely politically opposed to the idea, well then, he can suck it up.

This is twice you've channeled Frank Burns today.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Please, shut up. You're making my state look dumber than it already looks.

Request denied.

Bet it must hurt to find out how impotent you really are.

...(some definition stuff)
So yes, you were alleging that there was a conspiracy.

The point being that you said that I was alleging there was a conspiracy and that is not what I said. If you want to say what I said use the damn quote button and don't reword it to suit your own agenda.

Edit out the part that says "every time political special interest groups speak amongst themselves it qualifies as a conspiracy" and you're right.

Ooooh you're so clever. You just can't get past the idea that I don't personnly like the way Sheehan is acting to read the actual content of my message can you? I think you'll find that Texas IQ sinkhole a lot closer to home.

Blogging for Michael Moore? Evidence please?

You'll have to find whoever said that to ask for evidence. I said blogging with Michael Moore (one of those guilt by association things, not exactly pristine proof, but if you'll actually read the posts before going into crazy defense mode you'll see I never said I had proof, merely that it was what the evidence I had seen leads me to believe.)

the above evidence that Sheehan is manipulated?

I never claimed to have evidence...see above. Read my posts and stop trying to be clever. You're clearly incapable of it.

 

[Tony]

Why is this so wrong?

It's wrong because she isn't conforming to the role of goose-stepper like all god-fearing, patriotic Americans should. She should also know her place as a woman. The president is a man, HOW DARE she question him.

 

[Tony]

Request denied.
[/B]

I suspected I was talking to a robot.

The point being that you said that I was alleging there was a conspiracy and that is not what I said.

Yes it is. You're just trying to backpeddle.

If you want to say what I said use the damn quote button and don't reword it to suit your own agenda.

I never said you alleged it word for word. But it's clear, from your baseless assertions, you think there are people behind Sheehan conspiring to achieve some political goal. Hell, you may even be right, but you have yet to even attempt to support your claim.

You just can't get past the idea that I don't personnly like the way Sheehan is acting to read the actual content of my message can you?

LOL

You'll have to find whoever said that to ask for evidence. I said blogging with Michael Moore (one of those guilt by association things, not exactly pristine proof, but if you'll actually read the posts before going into crazy defense mode you'll see I never said I had proof, merely that it was what the evidence I had seen leads me to believe.)

What evidence have you seen?

I never claimed to have evidence...see above.

So you're lying when you say:

As for evidence that Sheehan is manipulated? Well how about blogging with Michael Moore, staying in the Crawford Peace House and having better road support than the Pope and the Rolling Stones combined.

 

[Tony]

Ah well, if thinking I'm stupid makes your personal fantasy world more fuzzy and secure you go right ahead on. I won't stop you.

The point of the war (for those tuning in late) is to attack international terrorist organizations and the states that support them.

I know, you want to talk about WMD's and dubya's lying attempt to make us believe that peaceful innocent uncle Saddam had them. The problem is that all the people who complain that no WMD's were found don't know the first damned thing about WMD's and wouldn't know one if they tripped over it.

<unpopular facts>
Point one: WMD's have been found in Iraq. Several binary nerve agent artillery rounds have been recovered as well as stocks of blister agent (mustard gas). 55 gallon drums of sarin and blister agent were identified by Army mass spectrometry scans. These were afterwards classified as agricultural chemicals by the ISG. There appears to be a significant difference in classification methodologies there.

Point two: Chemical agents are usually stockpiled as component chemicals not as the actual active agents. In many cases there is little to distinguish them from commercial chemicals. The army jumped on every stockpile of chemicals it found to test and in some cases came to conclusions quite different from the ISG. According to our own specialists we have found ample supplies of precursor chemicals that can create nerve, blister and choking agents.

Point three: A large stockpile of bilogical weapons may be placed inside the refrigerator of a mobile home. Sufficient quantities of Ricin and Botulism toxins were found that would enable the production of a biological weapon in short order.

Point four: hundreds of tons of yellowcake were captured.
</unpopular facts>

So go ahead and repeat the no WMD's mantra until you feel better. But it will only work if you don't look too closely at the evidence.

You're going to have to provide sources on all this stuff. And you're going to have to show that whatever was found, matches what the president alleged Iraq to have.

 

[Dan Beaird]

...Who is this "special interest group?" Give it a name and give evidence that they have enough leverage over her to get her to spout their line.

You didn't read my post either did you? I said that this is what I believe to be true. It fits the observations I've made. See, it's called forming an opinion. Frankly I don't care about Sheehan enough to bother trying to identify the groups and people hiding with her behind her dead son.

Name some of the "expert team of spindoctors" who have control over her words. Name the names and give evidence that this control exists.

See above. Sheesh, try reading a post for once. I'm usually pretty clear in differntiating my opinions from fact.

How have her efforts had the effect of "stifling honest debate?" How in the world could Sheehan do this.

By the simple mechanism of using the death of her son as an instant counter to any criticism of her position. If she has a valid position she should be able to support it without an appeal to emotion. Lawzy, you could pick up that much logic from comic books, do I really have to explain it?

Please provide evidence that her actions are "money-grubbing." How is she making a lot of money off this?

How could she not be? You don't think the lady has book deals and appearance fees? This is another inference which I feel comfortable making based on the simple fact that I am not an idiot.

The rest of your last sentence is gibberish.

I'll make sure to write in smaller words just for you.

In other words, you have lobbed some very powerful accusations at Sheehan. I think you should be able to substantiate these assertions given how strong and charged they are.

I have expressed an opinion. I couldn't hold much lower an opinion of Sheehan than I do now, but it seems there's no shortage of folks wanting to join her down there.

 

[Dan Beaird]

(skipping the O'Reilly quote, the only O'Reilly I read publishes computer books)...
Seriously, what actually is the argument here? Sheehan has support from the left therefore she can’t protest? Sheehan wants to make a political statement? Sheehan wants to stop a war that her son died in? Sheehan needs to lose weight? What?

Nope, at least I'm not making any of those arguments. I'm arguing that Sheehan is hiding behind her dead son to do these things...well except the lose weight part, I don't see how hiding behind anybody can help with that unless you're trying to hide behind Kate Moss.

Yes she’s trying to be political. Duh. Politics and money are pretty much the only things the current president cares about. It is unlikely that she would be able end the war in Iraq by appealing to W as a grieving mother, so she is trying to do it through political means. Why is this so wrong?

What I see wrong with this is the way she uses the death of her son as a means to forward her political agenda and as a means of stifling the opinions of others.

In all fairness I have to say this: I have never heard Sheehan say that she has a better right to have her opinion heard because of her son's death, although that is the logic she is using in demanding a second audience with dubya. It may be that others around her and reporting on her are merely trying to leverage the fact that her son died to inflate the newsworthiness of her opinion. If that were a problem to her, then I would expect her to distance herself from the people who are using the death of her son, so it's an easy guess to say she probably approves of it.

 

[Dan Beaird]

You're going to have to provide sources on all this stuff. And you're going to have to show that whatever was found, matches what the president alleged Iraq to have.

Nuke 'yellowcake' from Iraq found?

'Nerve gas bomb' explodes in Iraq

Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell

Mustard gas found by Iraq weapon hunters

And of course the most damning evidence of all:

YELLOW CAKE FROM NIGER FOUND IN IRAQ

As for what dubya said maybe you should go back and read it again.

 

[Random]

Nope, at least I'm not making any of those arguments. I'm arguing that Sheehan is hiding behind her dead son to do these things...well except the lose weight part, I don't see how hiding behind anybody can help with that unless you're trying to hide behind Kate Moss.

What I see wrong with this is the way she uses the death of her son as a means to forward her political agenda and as a means of stifling the opinions of others.

In all fairness I have to say this: I have never heard Sheehan say that she has a better right to have her opinion heard because of her son's death, although that is the logic she is using in demanding a second audience with dubya. It may be that others around her and reporting on her are merely trying to leverage the fact that her son died to inflate the newsworthiness of her opinion. If that were a problem to her, then I would expect her to distance herself from the people who are using the death of her son, so it's an easy guess to say she probably approves of it.

But the fact that her son is dead is the story isn’t it? Sheehan is PO’ed because her son died in what she believes is a pointless war. If she protests against the war, and someone asks her why she is against the war, what is she supposed to say? “I’m sorry, but it would be impolite for me to talk about it?” Your argument seems to be that she is using the death of her son to rally support against the war. What else should she be doing?