Thursday, November 10, 2005
If you want to know the real reasons we went into Iraq (and no, WMD's, Saddam's links to Bin Laden, and oil are not the right answers), and how it came to turn out so badly, George Packer has some very disturbing answers. Packer, who has been covering Iraq for the New Yorker since the beginning of the war, gives you an inside view of the decision making at the White House, and it is ugly and depressing. Especially Colin Powell's last day in the administration.
If you missed Alex Chadwick's interview with Packer on this afternoons DAY TO DAY, you can listen to it HERE. I guarantee you will learn some things you didn't know before. As soon as I get through Jimmy Carter's book, I am buying this one!
Now cooking at THE CHURCH POTLUCK: Bill Knapp's ORANGE NUT BREAD
Bear, save your money on these books and buy some Leiney's. You'll be better off nutritionally. Yes, I know I'm "poisoning the well." I just wanted to know how it feels to speak in fallacies so I can understand the other side better.
Well...change! The truth is the only way to go.
You need to take a deep breath and relax. The Clinton admin. plus Senate and Congressional democrats were all calling for Saddam's ouster long before Bush came into the Whitehouse. So to say he falsified intel is stupid. Unless he was in charge of deceiving England, France, Germany, the U.N. and the Clinton Administration and the entire Congressional body all while he was Texas governor. Don't be so gullible!
What I said was that the whitehouse kept changing the reason why they went. First it was WMDs and 9/11, then it was to spread freedom, then it was for the greater war on terror... what is it now?
I never said anything about prior intel, or even manipulating intel. Do I think the Bushies "manipulated" intelligence - depends on your definition. I think they strategically selected the intelligence they wanted to focus on and ignored the rest. That seems to be their modus operandi with many issues.
Global warming: discount piles of scientific evidence and focus on a few studies done by petroleum industries.
Sex Education: Discount studies that say it doesn't work and promote your own program anyway.
The Economy: Discount the evidence that trickle down economics doesn't work, and do it anyway.
Iraq: Shenseki says we need 300,000 troops - fire him. Wilson questions the Niger claim - out his wife and smear him on national television.
It's an addiction with these clowns.
There was no manipulating the intel. Sorry. I know you'd love to see it that way, so you can justify your maniacal attacks on Bush.
Global Warming: Junk Science if attributed to greenhouse gases. If that's the case, then Mars is subject to our greenhouse gases as well, right? Hint: look up in the sky, during the day when there are no clouds. The big bright thing is the cause for global warming.
Sex education: Why spend money on stupid programs when kids are going to learn it on the bus anyway. Might as well pass out condoms and tell them to clean up their mess they're done, right?
Wilson/Plame outing: do you have info that Fitzgerald doesn't have? If so, better give him a call.
Well, this has been really not so stimulating. I'm going to step back from you bound cave dwellers and get some fresh air outside.
Real mature. Why is it that when your kind get upset you resort to namecalling? Just curious? I think it's you sir, that needs to go watch some cartoons. You take yourself WAY too seriously. It's bad for your health.
An ideology is supposed to be a means to an end. An ideologue is somebody for whom the means has become the end.
Facts don't matter to an ideologue, except when they can be manipulated to support the ideology. So it doesn't matter that 97% percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe the evidence is strong and clear that global warming is a reality, and fossil fuels are the main cause. Or the 97% of the members of the American Meteorological Society. You'll blithely side with the 3% on the lunatic fringe because it is their conclusions that support your ideology.
And you will continue to believe in voodoo economics (as the president's father once referred to it), in spite the fact that the number of Americans living below the poverty line has risen to 18% from the 11% it stood at when Reagan took office. You will continue to believe the neocon ideology long after it has been thoroughly discredited, because the truth no longer matters, just the ideology.
And when you can't prove your point, you will resort to name calling, because that is the only weapon you have left at your disposal, having lost since lost sight of, or interest in, the truth.
Really! My picture is in the dictionary? Cool. I hope it's not one of those hand drawn pictures. Not very becoming. I should call my Ma!
As to facts, Bear, you contradict yourself. You contradictor you!
If 97% believe global warming to be caused by fossil fuel emissions, so what? If they believe that we cause the Martian CO2 ice caps to melt, should I believe that also? So I'm a part of the LUNATIC FRINGE in the 3%? You name caller, you! Wait a minute, that makes me a name caller if I call you a name caller! I'm hopeless.
Oh, well I have no interest in the truth. So long snobs!