NO WMD's? Guess again,,,,

[musicman]

The doddering old clown, Cronkite, broke this story during the 2004 election campaign - stupidly thinking he was doing his dutiful bit to derail President Bush. The MSM/DNC killed the story immediately - no doubt explaining to Walter - no doubt VERY SLOWLY - that this revelation would pretty much have obliterated what existed of the DNC platform for the next several election cycles. None of this surprises me, of course; the only objective, immutable truth in all of liberalism is political expediency.

What DOES surprise me is that the story has been allowed - by the White House and most of the conservative blogosphere - to remain buried. This is the information that will blow the "Bush lied" and "no WMD" arguments out of the water. It's been KNOWN - FOR A WHILE!

I'm scratching my head here. What gives?

 

[Gunny]

the interview, LuvRP. I don't watch much TV since I'm deaf and hate the captions (which contain a lot of errors). It would certainly be interesting if it's true that significant WMD's were moved to Iraq.

GunnyL and Dillo, you are missing my point. Bush and his military planners disregarded the advice of many senior military people and former administration figures, including many Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft, in planning the invasion. If WMDs were moved and we missed them, then Bush and his buddies are going to look like idiots for letting them get away. Sure, it'll help justify the war, but then it'll look like he flubbed it. That's why I call it lose/lose, and why I think the White House hasn't said a word about occasional rumors such as those about Syria.

Again, it's not just me saying so--it's the editorial page of the largest conservative newspaper, the Wall Street Journal. Disagree with the idea if you want, but don't say it's just Democrat-speak.

I'm sorry I can't give you a link to the Journal's editorial. Unlike the more liberal New York Times, which gives away much of its content free on the web, the Journal requires a subscription. Darned conservatives.
Mariner.

I'm not a parrot for EITHER party. I don't care WHO said it. Bush will look foolish only to the fools who ALWAYS see him as foolish.

I just have to keep wondering since when did the entire invasion hinge solely or even as a MAIN reason, on WMDs. I recall a laundry list of reasons. The left focuses on the ones that cannot be proven, and act like the rest never existed.

So no, I don't miss your point. You see an opportunity to post somethign negative about Bush and you post it. You're MO is pretty clear.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Its kinda funny, many many liberals will argue vehemently that the NY Times ISNT liberal, and the MSM isnt liberal, yet here is mariner, as do many other libs, admit it is. You do see that happen on the other side of the coin, when a publication is conservative, we freely admit it. They have so much to hide, so much to be ashamed of.

 

[Mariner]

is biased liberally. It drives me bananas to have to go read the Wall Street Journal at $1 a pop to get an alternative viewpoint.

But good newspapers like these tend to contain all the news. It's just that what's on page 1 of one is buried on page 17 of the other.

Also, good papers do terrific in-depth investigative work, e.g. the Times' articles about innocent noncombatants tortured and killed in U.S. custody. A story like that isn't a liberal or conservative one--both sides need to take it very seriously.

You're right, LuvRP, my mistake about your quote about religion was a serious one. I believe I apologized for it already. I also noted that you don't seem to apply that standard to Islam, which you freely judge on the basis of its prophet's and followers' actions, as you do to Christianity, which you say we should judge only according to its beliefs, not its followers' actions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. If so, feel free to clarify.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

is biased liberally. It drives me bananas to have to go read the Wall Street Journal at $1 a pop to get an alternative viewpoint.

But good newspapers like these tend to contain all the news. It's just that what's on page 1 of one is buried on page 17 of the other.

Also, good papers do terrific in-depth investigative work, e.g. the Times' articles about innocent noncombatants tortured and killed in U.S. custody. A story like that isn't a liberal or conservative one--both sides need to take it very seriously.

You're right, LuvRP, my mistake about your quote about religion was a serious one. I believe I apologized for it already. I also noted that you don't seem to apply that standard to Islam, which you freely judge on the basis of its prophet's and followers' actions, as you do to Christianity, which you say we should judge only according to its beliefs, not its followers' actions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. If so, feel free to clarify.

Mariner.

You need to learn to distinguish propaganda from news.

 

[Mariner]

I didn't know moderators could step in and out of role. Interesting.

As for deafness, I have a 100dB loss bilaterally--pretty darned deaf. I work with only deaf and hard of hearing patients, and at deaf institutions, and use a sign language interpreter when I need to talk to a hearing person, except my wife and closest friends, whom I can lip-read.

GunnyL, the Wall Street Journal didn't seem to think Bush was a loser until the past three of four months. There's been a real shift in their tone since then, and they now remind me of the New York Times under Howell Raines, which was scathingly critical of Clinton, to the dismay of many liberals. Still, they identify themselves as conservatives, and explicitly took the lose/lose position on WMDs. If someone here is a subscriber, perhaps s/he could look up the editorial and post it for us?

Mariner.

 

[Gunny]

that the lose/lose idea was a dumb liberal one.

I pointed out the conservative Wall Street Journal suggested the same thing.

GunnyL responded: "It's only lose/to you lefties."

I said he was missing my point: disagree with it if you will, but don't call it a lefty idea.

Moderator Kathianne responds with an ad hominem attack, which LuvRPGirl seconds.

Huh?

Mariner.

PS. Yes, LuvRP you did say radio not TV. Wow, big error on my part. I'm sure you'd be just as quick to jump on a conservative about such a monstrous error. My brain filed it away as a source of information I don't use. BTW, all radio content is not available online--if you'd like to help make it be, I'll tell you whom to mail a check to.

I'm not missing anything because I disagree with your opinion. Stop trying to play the lefty, pseudo-intellectual and claim anyone who doesn't agree with you "just doesn't get it." I get it all just fine. Perhaps YOU don't?

And it is bad form to identify Kathianne as a mod when she clearly was not acting in that capacity in her response to you.

 

[dilloduck]

I didn't know moderators could step in and out of role. Interesting.

As for deafness, I have a 100dB loss bilaterally--pretty darned deaf. I work with only deaf and hard of hearing patients, and at deaf institutions, and use a sign language interpreter when I need to talk to a hearing person, except my wife and closest friends, whom I can lip-read.

GunnyL, the Wall Street Journal didn't seem to think Bush was a loser until the past three of four months. There's been a real shift in their tone since then, and they now remind me of the New York Times under Howell Raines, which was scathingly critical of Clinton, to the dismay of many liberals. Still, they identify themselves as conservatives, and explicitly took the lose/lose position on WMDs. If someone here is a subscriber, perhaps s/he could look up the editorial and post it for us?

Mariner.

Get your head out of the paper to find out WTF is really going on--the MSM has one goal and that is to defeat the conservative party.

 

[Gunny]

I didn't know moderators could step in and out of role. Interesting.

As for deafness, I have a 100dB loss bilaterally--pretty darned deaf. I work with only deaf and hard of hearing patients, and at deaf institutions, and use a sign language interpreter when I need to talk to a hearing person, except my wife and closest friends, whom I can lip-read.

GunnyL, the Wall Street Journal didn't seem to think Bush was a loser until the past three of four months. There's been a real shift in their tone since then, and they now remind me of the New York Times under Howell Raines, which was scathingly critical of Clinton, to the dismay of many liberals. Still, they identify themselves as conservatives, and explicitly took the lose/lose position on WMDs. If someone here is a subscriber, perhaps s/he could look up the editorial and post it for us?

Mariner.

Think about it. If she was solely a moderator and not a poster, she could not post except in an official capacity. I'm quite sure if a mod acts in that capacity where you are involved, there'll be no doubt in your mind.

 

[Mariner]

assumption that a moderator would try to set a moderate tone for discussion, even when posting a personal opinion.

Dillo, the media are far more balanced now than in the past. Consider right-wing talk radio, or all the conservative humorists on TV, or Fox. At times, they've seemed to bend over backwards not to offend conservatives, e.g. in the way we get fudgy reports about Abramoff and Democrats, as if he was playing both sides equally, when in fact he was a Republican to the core (head of his college Republicans), explicitly sought to make K street a Republican-only franchise, and directed the vast majority of his lobbying towards Republicans. You sometimes wouldn't know that reading the news, as it attempts to be 'balanced.'

On the other hand, there's a strong tendency among current conservatives to cry "bias" every time news that opposes their views is reported. If you only listened to Bush and his echo chamber at Fox News, you'd think you could take your kids shopping in downtown Baghdad this weekend

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

assumption that a moderator would try to set a moderate tone for discussion, even when posting a personal opinion.

Dillo, the media are far more balanced now than in the past. Consider right-wing talk radio, or all the conservative humorists on TV, or Fox. At times, they've seemed to bend over backwards not to offend conservative, e.g. in the way we get fudgy reports about Abramaoff and Democrats, as if he was playing both sides equally, when in fact he was a Republican to the core (head of his college Republicans), explicitly sought to make K street a Republican-only franchise, and directed the vast majority of his lobbying towards Republicans. You sometimes wouldn't know that reading the news, as it attempts to be 'balanced.'

On the other hand, there's a strong tendency among current conservatives to cry "bias" every time news that opposes their views is reported. If we only listened to Bush and Fox News, we'd think you could take your kids shopping in downtown Baghdad.

Mariner.

With all the media, why can't we get a clear idea of democrats would do if in power? Al they do is bitch about BUSH. We know you want socialism, but where is the leadership saying this? Why do they hide? Why won't they come out into the light of day? Who is proposing the socialized medicine you obviously desire? All you guys do is rant about "justice". And "we can do better" and "speak truth to power", but all dems do is dodge questions and deflect to the next talking point regarding bush. Sad.

 

[dilloduck]

assumption that a moderator would try to set a moderate tone for discussion, even when posting a personal opinion.

Dillo, the media are far more balanced now than in the past. Consider right-wing talk radio, or all the conservative humorists on TV, or Fox. At times, they've seemed to bend over backwards not to offend conservatives, e.g. in the way we get fudgy reports about Abramoff and Democrats, as if he was playing both sides equally, when in fact he was a Republican to the core (head of his college Republicans), explicitly sought to make K street a Republican-only franchise, and directed the vast majority of his lobbying towards Republicans. You sometimes wouldn't know that reading the news, as it attempts to be 'balanced.'

On the other hand, there's a strong tendency among current conservatives to cry "bias" every time news that opposes their views is reported. If you only listened to Bush and his echo chamber at Fox News, you'd think you could take your kids shopping in downtown Baghdad this weekend

Mariner.

More balanced now than before doesn't mean much. Fox in NO way implies that life is safe in Baghdad. I guess you dont watch it or you would know that Fox regularly reports how dangerous it still is there and Afghanistan. The Cheney story blatantly exposes the medias feeding frenzy to get any information they can to trash the current administration. They didnt even bother to ask how the guy was or how the VP was. Thet IMMEDIATELY asked questions like "Was he drunk". Everyone knows the media hates Cheney. Are you going to try any deny that too?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

PS. Yes, LuvRP you did say radio not TV. Wow, big error on my part. I'm sure you'd be just as quick to jump on a conservative about such a monstrous error. My brain filed it away as a source of information I don't use. BTW, all radio content is not available online--if you'd like to help make it be, I'll tell you whom to mail a check to.

Well, I would think an MD would be a little more careful about precision in communication. One day the patient comes to from the anesteshia, looks down and says. Pssss, DOC, you cut off the wrong leg!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

As soon as the topic turns to news bias and liberal vs consv. my eyes glaze over. Only the truly blind cant see other than radio, the vast majority of news is left, left, way left. Only the blind cant see that.

Must be a bitch to be deaf and blind. joke joke joke

as a side note, Im wondering how Mariner would do in the middle east as a deaf person. The majority would consider his situation a punishment from God and offer no sympathy at all. I doubt he would be doing very well there at all, unless living out of a garbage dump is his life long asperation. Ingratitude is a bitch, you SERIOUSLY need to develope some Mariner. not to mention you are very fortunate to be protected BY CHRISTIANS, go to a military web site giving testimonies from wounded soldiers, they are the MEN AND WOMEN, overwhelmingly CHRISTIAN, who are the ONLY DEFENSE for you from Islam. Get real dude. Its people like you who are sympathetic to Islam that gives it it's power and ability to kill innocents.

When people , like you Gunny, criticize the Bush administration for not going in to Iraq harder, its not the Bush administration thats at fault. Trust me, they would have loved to go in there, as in Iran they would love to now, and level the place. But they simply cant. Too many idiots thinkers who think like Mariner and are sympathetic. Too many Americans are out of touch, or have it too easy. Its almost always the yuppie's, ivory tower city dwellers. Its a bitch, but Bush has to deal with those realities. SOme say, well, he doesnt have to worry about getting re elected. But he does have alot of influence on how senators and congressmen are going to fare in the upcoming elections.

 

[sealybobo]

One of Saddams top generals is right now, 5:10 Pm PST, is being interviewed on the radio and he is adamantly stating that they sent their WMD's to syria before the liberation of Iraq.

Then how did Trump get away with saying this?

As for his 2008 comments, Trump said of Bush in an interview with CNN, “He lied. He got us into the war with lies.” Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN’s “The Situation Room,” pushed back, saying Bush administration officials argue that the intelligence they received was wrong — not that they lied. “I don’t believe that,” Trump responded.

 

[sealybobo]

Wall Street Journal wrote the same thing in an editorial recently as I did: that it's lose/lose for Bush to find WMD's now, therefore he's keeping quiet on the issue. It's not Democratic politics that make him quiet; it's a Republican of not wanting to look incompetent:

Find WMD's now, after your administration has said "We were wrong" about them, and you look incompetent for both missing them in the first place, and for then saying they weren't there when they were. Even if you gain evidence that supports starting the war, you look like you failed your mission, and your military strategies (fewer troops on the ground) look to be proven wrong.

Mariner.

I disagree---If it is found that the WMDs existed but the intelligence couldn't keep up with them, the dems would crap in thier pants about how much crow they would have to eat. Bush has only said the intelligence was wrong. That's easy to recover from if you can present the world with a stockpile of WMDs.

As for his 2008 comments, Trump said of Bush in an interview with CNN, “He lied. He got us into the war with lies.” Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN’s “The Situation Room,” pushed back, saying Bush administration officials argue that the intelligence they received was wrong — not that they lied. “I don’t believe that,” Trump responded.