Progressives, part 3...

posted by O-Trap

And those who have supported him prior to that point will find any reason to justify doing so.

Agreed.  It's okay to say your guy got it wrong.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Agreed.  It's okay to say your guy got it wrong.

He’s most definitely a terrorist, it isn’t up for debate. Whether he should have been killed or not is up for discussion, but the guy is responsible for the murder of THOUSANDS. What shit rags have you been reading? And as you can see from the news today, his own citizens hated him and are protesting the government still, so don’t listen to your media saying killing the dude unified the country.

posted by iclfan2

He’s most definitely a terrorist, it isn’t up for debate. Whether he should have been killed or not is up for discussion, but the guy is responsible for the murder of THOUSANDS. What shit rags have you been reading? And as you can see from the news today, his own citizens hated him and are protesting the government still, so don’t listen to your media saying killing the dude unified the country.

Not up for debate?  Says who?  You?  Well I'm convinced then!

Seriously, this guy may have been a bad guy. But don't you find it interesting that the opportunity to kill him just happened to come up right now?  Do you think it's a good idea to just trust that he was bad because our government tells us so?  

The whole fucking world says he’s bad. There have been multiple times they could have killed him but Obama thought better of it. You couldn’t be anymore wrong.

I’m not even saying it was a good or bad idea for Trump to actually do it, but you’re arguing against facts. Stop reading Vox. 

posted by iclfan2

The whole fucking world says he’s bad. There have been multiple times they could have killed him but Obama thought better of it. You couldn’t be anymore wrong.

I’m not even saying it was a good or bad idea for Trump to actually do it, but you’re arguing against facts. Stop reading Vox. 

I've never read Vox.  There's always a bad guy to kill somewhere in the Middle East. They'll be another after this guy. We never seem to find an end of our involvement there though.  Republican and Democratic president's are really not much different in this way. 

And just remember that "everyone" said Sadam had WMDs too. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I've never read Vox.  There's always a bad guy to kill somewhere in the Middle East. They'll be another after this guy. We never seem to find an end of our involvement there though.  Republican and Democratic president's are really not much different in this way. 

 

And just remember that "everyone" said Sadam had WMDs too. 

Saddam had wmds.   He just didnt have them when we got there

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I've never read Vox.  There's always a bad guy to kill somewhere in the Middle East. They'll be another after this guy. We never seem to find an end of our involvement there though.  Republican and Democratic president's are really not much different in this way. 

 

And just remember that "everyone" said Sadam had WMDs too. 

Although I agree with your sentiment, that we should just stay the fuck out of the middle east (icl would probably agree too), but this isn't what you two are arguing.  Either you think the dude was a piece of shit terrorist or not.  It's really not hard to believe he was a terrorist piece of shit, while also believing we need to gtfo the middle east.  If you don't think he was a bad guy, then that's on you, but that is quite the losing argument. Even the Iranian people disagree with the dumbasses here that want to paint him as a decent guy.   TDS is a hell of a condition.

posted by like_that

Although I agree with your sentiment, that we should just stay the fuck out of the middle east (icl would probably agree too), but this isn't what you two are arguing.  Either you think the dude was a piece of shit terrorist or not.  It's really not hard to believe he was a terrorist piece of shit, while also believing we need to gtfo the middle east.  If you don't think he was a bad guy, then that's on you, but that is quite the losing argument. Even the Iranian people disagree with the dumbasses here that want to paint him as a decent guy.   TDS is a hell of a condition.

I'm not saying he wasn't a bad guy - that wasn't my point. I'm sure there are bad guys all over the Mideast that deserve a missile right now.  I just think it's concerning that we are supposed to believe our government on these matters when history shows they are wrong or deceitful many times. 

This applies to Democrats and Republicans. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I'm not saying he wasn't a bad guy - that wasn't my point. I'm sure there are bad guys all over the Mideast that deserve a missile right now.  I just think it's concerning that we are supposed to believe our government on these matters when history shows they are wrong or deceitful many times. 

This applies to Democrats and Republicans. 

Other than the US Government, what part makes you skeptical that he was a terrorist?

posted by like_that

Other than the US Government, what part makes you skeptical that he was a terrorist?

I don't know that he wasn't.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Not up for debate?  Says who?  You?  Well I'm convinced then!

 

Seriously, this guy may have been a bad guy. But don't you find it interesting that the opportunity to kill him just happened to come up right now?  Do you think it's a good idea to just trust that he was bad because our government tells us so?  

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I don't know that he wasn't.

Let’s try this another way.

Do you think he was a terrorist? Why or why not (without using the US Government as your reasoning)?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Who in the hell knows. Maybe he was. But our government hasnt actually earned a. Lot of trust in these types of matters over the years. It's always interesting to me how when whoever is president gets into tough political situations domestically, some prime opportunity to use missiles magically opens up. 

Interesting to see Boogie worried about the Deep State and entertaining conspiricay theories.

posted by iclfan2

He’s most definitely a terrorist, it isn’t up for debate. Whether he should have been killed or not is up for discussion, but the guy is responsible for the murder of THOUSANDS. What shit rags have you been reading? And as you can see from the news today, his own citizens hated him and are protesting the government still, so don’t listen to your media saying killing the dude unified the country.

Based on what he's allegedly (I haven't followed things back to the source to confirm credibility or anything, but it sounds plausible) been involved with in Central and South America, that alone would make him a terrorist.

Having said that, most of what "he" has done with regard to the US could be seen as a response to hostility or aggression.  Occupying land and water near their borders hardly seems innocuous (we'd have plenty to say if China had carriers of our east and west coasts and bases along southern Canada and northern Mexico).
 

posted by Spock

Saddam had wmds.   He just didnt have them when we got there

Based on ... what?  The fact that a few people in positions with a history of being caught lying said so?

I live in a mansion.  You just can't see it, because it's invisible.  You should just take my word for it.  Makes the same amount of sense.
 

posted by QuakerOats

 

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Agreed, so let's bring the troops home to vigilantly guard our borders, be able to see their families, and not put their lives at risk unnecessarily.
 

posted by majorspark

Interesting to see Boogie worried about the Deep State and entertaining conspiricay theories.

Seeing how Operation Ajax was handled, I'm not even sure it fits the definition of a "conspiracy theory" to question the government's dissemination of information to the public with regard to Iran.

posted by O-Trap

Based on what he's allegedly (I haven't followed things back to the source to confirm credibility or anything, but it sounds plausible) been involved with in Central and South America, that alone would make him a terrorist.

Having said that, most of what "he" has done with regard to the US could be seen as a response to hostility or aggression.  Occupying land and water near their borders hardly seems innocuous (we'd have plenty to say if China had carriers of our east and west coasts and bases along southern Canada and northern Mexico).
 

posted by Spock

Saddam had wmds.   He just didnt have them when we got there

 

Based on ... what?  The fact that a few people in positions with a history of being caught lying said so?

I live in a mansion.  You just can't see it, because it's invisible.  You should just take my word for it.  Makes the same amount of sense.
 

posted by QuakerOats

 

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

 

Agreed, so let's bring the troops home to vigilantly guard our borders, be able to see their families, and not put their lives at risk unnecessarily.
 

posted by majorspark

Interesting to see Boogie worried about the Deep State and entertaining conspiricay theories.

Seeing how Operation Ajax was handled, I'm not even sure it fits the definition of a "conspiracy theory" to question the government's dissemination of information to the public with regard to Iran.

 

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4996218

I dont want to hear about the "link".....NPR is a left wing rag and this timeline is pretty accurate.  So yea Iraq had and had used WMD multiple times.  Everything Iraq did led EVERYONE to believe they had them and were hiding them.  

posted by O-Trap

Seeing how Operation Ajax was handled, I'm not even sure it fits the definition of a "conspiracy theory" to question the government's dissemination of information to the public with regard to Iran.

 

The conspiracy theory I was specifically referring to is his claim presidents fire missiles into foreign nations to distract from domestic troubles.  That would require a cabal of operatives fiercely loyal to the POTUS.

My comment was in the context of what I read as ironic comments made in the Uranium one/Clinton Foundation thread.  You are smart enough to figure it out.

posted by Spock

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4996218

I dont want to hear about the "link".....NPR is a left wing rag and this timeline is pretty accurate.  So yea Iraq had and had used WMD multiple times.  Everything Iraq did led EVERYONE to believe they had them and were hiding them.  

Eh, NPR is about as unbiased as it gets.  It's actually a pretty good source, generally (though as someone who regularly shares Breitbart on here, I'm not surprised you don't like it).

As for the article, you better ready it again:

"In the end, though, the government's opaque and obstinate nature made it difficult for outsiders to tell exactly what Iraq was doing, if anything, in the realm of WMD."

"No 'Smoking Guns' ::: Jan. 9, 2003
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any 'smoking guns' in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim. John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., says:
'There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm.'"

So, a dickbag and oppressive dictator of a sovereign state was obstinate about letting someone come right in, peek wherever they wanted, and treat him like a child having his drawers searched.  Subsequently, Blix says there were no smoking guns found.

And again:

"'Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.'"

Just before his resignation from the ISG, Kay's statement:
"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist, or that they existed before the war.'"

And the conclusion of the ISG's investigation:

"No Weapons Found ::: Sept. 30 - Oct. 6, 2004
The ISG releases its final report and chief inspector Charles Duelfer testifies before congress about his team's findings. After 16 months of investigation, Duelfer concludes that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons, no biological weapons and no capacity to make nuclear weapons. This effectively ends the hunt for WMD. Bush responds to the report:
'The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the UN oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away.'"

Here's a conclusive gem:

"The Hunt is Over ::: Jan. 12, 2005
White House spokesman Scott McClellan tells reporters that the "physical search" for WMD, having found no weapons, is over."

So, they conclusively stated that the investigation was over, and they found no such weapons.

Finally, this indictment on the US intelligence:

"Robb-Silberman Report ::: March 31, 2005
The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction delivers its report to the president. Commonly known as the Robb-Silberman report -- in reference to the commission's co-chairmen -- the document describes the failure to find WMD in Iraq as one of the 'most public -- and most damaging -- intelligence failures in recent American history.' The report, which was commissioned by President Bush, asks what went wrong and conlcudes that wide-ranging reform of the intelligence bureaucracy is needed to guard against global WMD threats."

So yes.  I think you're right that the timeline is pretty accurate.  And it outlines nicely that any and all efforts to find evidence of WMDs returned exactly dick.
 

posted by majorspark

The conspiracy theory I was specifically referring to is his claim presidents fire missiles into foreign nations to distract from domestic troubles.  That would require a cabal of operatives fiercely loyal to the POTUS.

My comment was in the context of what I read as ironic comments made in the Uranium one/Clinton Foundation thread.  You are smart enough to figure it out.

Well, in the event that it was discussed with others that personal reasons fueled such actions, then sure.  It wouldn't exactly require a ton of people to know the motivation for why the president would give the go-ahead for such action.

I'm not saying I buy it.  Just that it doesn't really take a full blown conspiracy to think a president, with his ability to unilaterally approve a military attack, might do so with something other than self-serving motives.

And if he would do so for self-serving motives, why would it be a stretch for it to be as a distraction?

"Eh, NPR is about as unbiased as it gets "

If that is true, we have a sad situation.

posted by QuakerOats

"Eh, NPR is about as unbiased as it gets "

 

 

If that is true, we have a sad situation.

Okay, I'll rephrase:

The sum total of the writers for NPR work out to about as much of a wash as any outlet.  A good case could be made for Bloomberg, C-SPAN, WSJ, and probably a few others, too, but generally NPR is fair overall.

Obviously, there are hacks with an axe to grind at every source.

posted by O-Trap

Okay, I'll rephrase:

The sum total of the writers for NPR work out to about as much of a wash as any outlet.  A good case could be made for Bloomberg, C-SPAN, WSJ, and probably a few others, too, but generally NPR is fair overall.

Obviously, there are hacks with an axe to grind at every source.

One could also play the "consider the source" game with the dude commenting so that you had to rephrase. The guy who hasn't met a right-wing talking point blog he doesn't love as much as life itself to the degree he's conditioned himself to believe they are the only true fact-presenters and everyone else offers nothing but bias. If it isn't free PR for hard-core conservatives, it's not legit to him.