Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways - Page 2

Hank Chinaski · 10-26-2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Dan Rather? His columns are calculated tedium, a weekly News of the Blah. I don't even know why he bothers with a column.

Alot of us haven't read the column. Could you put it in terms we can understand? From your description it sounds like the column is equivalent to Taxwonk posts. Is that fair?

Shape Shifter · 10-26-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Aren't you one of the cheerleaders for Jon "You are a Dick" Stewart?

Listen, you motherfucking jackass. I don't recall being a big cheerleader for this, but I did enjoy it. Though it may not have been civil, that was probably the most insightful exchange on Crossfire since the Kinsley/Buchanon era. I think it is telling that you hold the conservative standard bearer to the same standards as a basic cable comedian.

Shape Shifter · 10-26-2004, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Alot of us haven't read the column. Could you put it in terms we can understand? From your description it sounds like the column is equivalent to Taxwonk posts. Is that fair?

More feel-good, though if you eliminate the tw/fringey exchanges, it's a little closer.

bilmore · 10-26-2004, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
If I couple this with some appropriate genuflections, perhaps you won't reach the immediate conclusion that I'm that street protester last week who was screaming at you when you exited the Starbucks.

A. I don't go to Starbucks. I buy my coffee direct from poor Columbian farmers. "Fair trade", and all that, you know.

B. Let me sum up, for context. (Maybe this all just makes me too mad. Well, okay, not "maybe".)

Old story about missing material. NYT, one of many "news" outlets which have expended way too much of their credibility capital actively pushing the Democrat viewpoint to risk a Bush win, trumpets this "Bush failed!" story six days pre-election, knowing that the critical "undecided" voter is, basically, a moron who will vote based on the last bad thing heard about a candidate. They do it without research. CBS is trying to do the same thing, but wants it done on election eve. They're not even bothering to try and hide their whoredom at this point - polls aren't looking good for Kerry, and they'll do anything.

But, wait, says NBC, we were there, and the stuff was gone. Then, The Corner posts an e-mail they say is from a government employee (unsourced, I know, but they've been fairly good in the past about integrity of sources) giving the IAEA explanation.

Now, all of the lefty blogdom is saying, we need to wait until this new allegation is proved. Integrity and all that.

Gee, why would they say that? Maybe they would like to see it remain "unproven" until next Wednesday? Ya think?

So, cites on the IAEA explanation? None yet. But that didn't seem to inhibit the NYT, or CBS, right? They felt just fine running the "Bush fucked up!" story right away.

Rather wasn't the exception.

Shape Shifter · 10-26-2004, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How can you not find 380 tons? How can someone steal 380 tons? Seriously, no bone to pick, but you'd have to have one big fucking convoy to transport 380 tons, wouldn't you? How would that not be noticed, especially in the first weeks after we went in. How would that not be seen as military movement? Do you guys ever even think about reality? If you can create some imagined affront from Bush, does it slow you down at all if it is impossible that it be true? RT, can you ask Oscar how much a truck can carry?

It was a really, really big facility. And you're right about the convoy (I heard or read somewhere that it would have taken something like a 40 truck convoy about a week running 24 hours a day). It would have been noticed leaving the compound before the war certainly, and during (formal) hostilities most probably. After the mission was declared accomplished, it looks like we weren't looking at the facility at all, except as a rest break on the way to Baghdad.

We know the explosives were there before the war started, and we know that the explosives are missing now, so they would have been removed sometime between then and now. Before and during the war, we were monitoring (and bombing) the facility and afterwards we ignored it. So when are the explosives most likely to have disappeared?

Shape Shifter · 10-26-2004, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Old story about missing material. NYT, one of many "news" outlets which have expended way too much of their credibility capital actively pushing the Democrat viewpoint to risk a Bush win, trumpets this "Bush failed!" story six days pre-election, knowing that the critical "undecided" voter is, basically, a moron who will vote based on the last bad thing heard about a candidate.

I thought all their credibility was expended buying the admin line prior to the war.

bilmore · 10-26-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
So when are the explosives most likely to have disappeared?

So far, best guess is after the inspectors pulled out, and then we spent months trying to talk France into helping us before we went in.

Global tests aren't cheap.

Shape Shifter · 10-26-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
So far, best guess is after the inspectors pulled out, and then we spent months trying to talk France into helping us before we went in.

Global tests aren't cheap.

We completely dominated their airspace and were intensely scrutinizing the country via satellite (remember those cool photos Powell showed to the UN?). We would have seen them trying to move this material. Unless they hid it on one of those stealth mobile WMD trucks that are so cleverly disguised that we still haven't been able to find one.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-26-2004, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
I understand that this is now part of GOP Lore, what with IAEA deciding to piss away its credibility by telling brazen lies to fuck with the Administration, but if someone could post links to "news sources" that explains why they would do this, that would be great.

This is the issue that I was responding to. The allegation is absurd, and that's all I was trying to say, in a reasoned manner. I find the reasoning of those who think otherwise remarkable, to say the least.

I have no idea exactly when the 350 tons of explosves disappeared. I'm sure the IAEA report has nothing to say about that either. The IAEA can only say "sometime after our last visit", and the Iraqi government apparently said that the explosives were lost due to the chaos of the invasion and its aftermath.

That may or may not be true -- but its the Iraqi government what said whatever was said. You liked them well enough when Allawi was over here thanking us. What's the beef now?

Hank's initial approach was the best, and most honest: "Mistakes happen. But look at all the explosives we have secured or destroyed." Does anyone here really think that weapons and explosives from Iraqi military stores have NOT been used against our troops? Does anyone here want to argue that the U.S. DID secure all the WMD and important weapons dumps in the month after we invaded and that there has been no theft or looting since?

S_A_M

P.S. I was going back after lunch to edit out my incivilities, when I found that the thread had changed. To Hello: You have no idea how much I usually edit my posts before I post them. To Bilmore: My beef is that I don't think the folks you're quoting care what "the real news" might be -- and are just saying: "Lie, lie, lie" to attempt to drown out any tactical advantage Kerry might get from this story. I am also offended (as I have been in the past) by the repeated slurs against the IAEA for (as near as I can tell) the sin of not reading from the GOP playbook.

I repeat, let's see what the Iraqis and the Admin have to say, on the record. Oh, wait, there is not time for that! Well, just keep yelling, then.

Hank Chinaski · 10-26-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We completely dominated their airspace and were intensely scrutinizing the country via satellite (remember those cool photos Powell showed to the UN?). We would have seen them trying to move this material. Unless they hid it on one of those stealth mobile WMD trucks that are so cleverly disguised that we still haven't been able to find one.

but SS, a convoy of that many trucks running that much time, and the military doesn't notice after we take over? Do you think we're not doing surveillance now? Part of Powell's pitch was that things were being moved, we had photos of convoys moving things.

And while I accept the insurgancy is large and built into the countryside, you think they have that many trucks? For this theory to be true, the military- not Bush et al- would have to be as adept as the Germans at Stalag 13.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-26-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah. Bush lied.

If this grows as another "CBS lied to take down Bush, and NYT helped" story, stick a fork in Kerry.

You are persuading me that the instant mythmaking is more important to you than gettting to the bottom of what different Pentagon officials are telling the press.

bilmore · 10-26-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are persuading me that the instant mythmaking is more important to you than gettting to the bottom of what different Pentagon officials are telling the press.

You have just laid out the NYT's Board Motto.

Because, six days before the election, they know it's true.

I would have no quibble with a "let's take a reasoned approach to this" outlook had the NYT, CBS, ABC, Kerry, et all, not tried to score so many points with this tripe yesterday. Just don't tell me that you get to make the initial scream, garner the idiot votes from it, and then benefit from a measured examination of what was said right before we vote.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-26-2004, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Listen, you motherfucking jackass. I don't recall being a big cheerleader for this, but I did enjoy it. Though it may not have been civil, that was probably the most insightful exchange on Crossfire since the Kinsley/Buchanon era. I think it is telling that you hold the conservative standard bearer to the same standards as a basic cable comedian.

By the powers invested in me by Slave, leagl, RT, MR, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and as constrained by the United States Constitution, the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations, I hereby declare in all moderation that the phrase "motherfucking jackass" shall henceforth be a jocular term of affection on this board. That is all.

Hank Chinaski · 10-26-2004, 01:57 PM

http://www.clubforgrowth.net/

Quote:

ClubforGrowth.net has teamed up with David Zucker (the director of such movie hits as Airplane! and Naked Gun) to produce what could be the most explosive, influential, and memorable TV ad of the campaign season.

Not to mention the funniest.

watch it.......

bilmore · 10-26-2004, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That may or may not be true -- but its the Iraqi government what said whatever was said. You liked them well enough when Allawi was over here thanking us. What's the beef now?

I keep reading your posts, and not responding, mostly out of confusion over where you're drawing the link between what El Baradei reported, and pronouncements by the Iraqis. Are you saying he's just someone's conduit?