I've been reading about Tony Blair and his WMD fiasco.
Over at signposts Phil's been posting here and here, and Fred Clark, aka the slacktivist, cuts to the chase in his usual manner here. (If you're not reading Fred regularly this is just more evidence that you should be.)
It's embarrassing that being proven an idiot instead of a liar is vindication in politics. (Fred's theory of Reagan's bind is dead-on in this regard.)
Posted by mike at January 29, 2004 06:28 PM | TrackBackit's a real mystery what Tony Blair - who seems to be a bright, compassionate, honest man - was thinking when he took up with Bush on the Iraq question. I just don't get it. He had nothing to gain.
Posted by: robert on January 29, 2004 06:50 PMIf every world leader, including those in the UN, who believed that Iraq had WMDs before the war would lose his/her job tomorrow I'd guess there'd be a few job openings. I wasn't in Canada at the time - but I don't seem to remember that Cretian's reason for not supporting the US was his doubt that Iraq had WDMs. Seems to me he just didn't seem to think war was the answer to getting rid of them. Am I missing something?
As far as motive for Blair to join Bush - could it be as simple as coming to the aid of a friend in time of need?
Posted by: Brad on January 30, 2004 07:19 PMBrad, I'd ask what the need was, but that would just take us back to the beginning again. I appreciate where you're coming from, but I think we're on opposite sides of this one!
Posted by: Mike on January 31, 2004 01:04 PMMike, Not so sure we are on opposite sides. I just think the debate about the war in Iraq should be positioned correctly. I understand and respect Canada's decision not to join the US in this war. What is interesting to me now, though, is that many countries, leaders, and individuals who were opposed to the war from the beginning are somehow using the absence of WMDs as some sort of validation of their position. I think that's dishonest. The debate was never about whether or not the weapons existed. Almost everyone believed that. Would you agree with that? That debate was over how to best 'control' them. The US and its allies believed military action was required and others thought that continuing sanctions and negotiations was the best route. Curiously, Canada officially declared that war wasn't the answer, but that did not stop them from continueing to sell military equipment to the US to use in the war. So, what really was Canada's position? That, to me is the question, and the absence or not of WMDs has very little to do with that discussion.
Brad
Brad
If I may, the primary reason used by the Bush administration for going to war to remove Saddam was that he posed an imminent threat to the security of the US and its allies. Imminent. Not that he would develop WMDs over the next 5-10 years. The fact remains that the US & Britain were the only ones who felt that he posed an immediate threat to the world.
The rest of the world did not debate the likelihood of WMDs (after all, he used them in 1988, but then again, he still got American aid AFTER that little episode) but most definitely debated the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda (also used another reason to get rid of him) and the general threat posed by Saddam (which was obviously limited, considering he had NOTHING).
I agree that Saddam is a scumbag and that Iraq and the world are better off without him, but many other leaders are equally contemptible (starting with the Saudi Royal family which the Bush administration has done nothing but protect since 9/11).
Also, it's a little disingenuous to say everyone else was wrong too. The Americans invaded a sovereign nation, thousands of people died. The burden of proof was on their shoulders. Before undertaking such a serious course of action, they should have been damn sure. They were just damn wrong.
As usual, Robert beat me to it. I was going to say that the burden of proof on the necessity of war lay with the US administration. Many nations concluded that the case for war was weak at best. WMD made up the bulk of the case.
Posted by: Mike on February 1, 2004 07:44 PMOh - this is great!
OK, let's start at the beginning. I have to know where you two are coming from. Just one question to start. True or False? - Bush believed that Iraq had WMDs and they were a threat to the United States.
This is where this blogging thing and the time delays get in the way. I'm off to play basketball for a couple of hours, but will be back on around 10EST.
Great to know that people are checking the old posts!
I sincerely don't know whether he knew or not. I really hope he believed it. The only troubling thing about that notion is, having been proven so utterly wrong, why isn't the President angry? He looks like a complete fool before the whole planet, American credibility is severely reduced, why isn't the President furious? That question gnaws at me. Now ask me whether I think Cheney or Rumsfeld knew...
Bush was finally goaded into this inquity he called for today... why did he take so long? For a guy with a notoriously short fuse, what gives?
(BTW, just a little background. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I am not a raving anti-American. I was and still am for the war and occupation in Afghanistan because the Taliban in essence declared war on America and they had to go. I supported our government sending our soldiers to fight alongside our American cousins when they had been attcaked on 9/11. So please don't take my current opposition to the Iraq debacle as anti-Americanism.)
Robert,
Thanks for the reply. I've been in these discussions before and they can go all over the place. There are, at least 5 points in your statement I would love to debate. However, I've finally learned you have to break it down step by step. And, really, step one is to come to some understanding as to whether or not you believe Bush thought the US was threatened.
You said you 'hoped he believed it'. Can I take that as a 'Yes'?
Now here's why I'm not sure blogging is the way to go on this discussion. In the interest of time - I'll have to respond to both a yes and a no answer.
YES: If you agree that Bush believed the US was threatened, then our discussion is centered around what is a leader to do when his country is threatened. I'd like to have that debate. We may differ - but, at least, we'd be starting from the same place.
NO: If you think Bush didn't believe the US was threatened...well, that's quite an accusation. We'd have to spend some time talking about what motivated him to sacrifice 800 of his own people and thousands of Iraqis. I guess you'd have to take some time and convince me about how he became so evil. Show me some evidence over his career and life that would lead me to believe he would be capable of that. Or, perhaps, he just turned evil one day.
So, which discussion do you want to have?
By the way, never crossed my mind that you might be Anti-American. Even though the majority of Americans support the war, most of the discussions I've had like this have been with Americans.
Robert?
A bright, caring, compassionate man? Try a schemeing, cynical destroyer of institutions. Blair behaves with contempt to the electoral process and the supremacy of Parliament while destroying the great institutions of this country like a spoilt child who is bored with their toys. Blair's only compassion is twaords himself and his dream of intergrating a socialist Europe that he will one day lead. He doesn't care for the history or traditions that made this country once great. He will, given half the chance, destroy our economy by taking us into the Euro-Rouble and put himself above the Crown as head of state. his behaviour during the funeral of HM Quenn Elizabeth the Queen Mother betrays a cynicism beyond contempt.
The war was a ruse to get himself at the forefront of the world stage. He took a gamble that this would be his Falklands and lost. The net result was rather than admit that No10 had put pressure on the SIS to sex up the dossier used to justify his position he had his attack-dog Campbell go after the BBC for accurately reporting the words of a nobel-prize winning weapons inspector. Realising they had bitten off more than they could chew in taking the fight to the BBC he authorised the leak of David Kelly's name and humiliated him to the point of allowing him to take his own life.
Tell me what is compassionate about that?
Posted by: Keith on February 3, 2004 05:32 AMKeith,
I can't speak to the intricacies of British politics. Though "He will, given half the chance, destroy our economy by taking us into the Euro-Rouble and put himself above the Crown as head of state" and "his dream of intergrating a socialist Europe that he will one day lead" lead me to believe you were never a fan of his from the start.
From across the Atlantic, he has appeared as I described (to me anyway)- kind of like a Bill Cinton minus the intern.
Brad,
I actually slept on it before responding to your question! I didn't want to answer before really thinking it through. Sadly, I believe that Bush knew there were no WMDs and went in anyway. I realize what a condemnation this is and I don't make it lightly. I also believe there was a plan to remove Saddam before 9/11.
Neo-cons have spoken of it for 10 years (and yes, the Clinton administration made regime change in Iraq a policy in 1998 but there is a huge difference between saying the dude should go to actually rolling in the tanks).
The constant attempts to link Saddam to 9/11 (which, incredibly, Cheney continues to make) shred this adminstration's credibility. They know there is no link to Al Qaeda though they continue to trumpet one.
With regard to WMDs, I believe they figured there might be something there, but in the end, that people would not hold them accountable as long as the war went well and Saddam was removed.
Of course, the removal of Saddam was the easy part. No one would have argued that the Iraqis would hold out for long but now the Americans are faced with the prospects of governing an angry Muslim equivalent of Yugoslavia.
Thomas Friedman of the NY Times says that with regard to Iraq, "you break it, you own it". They should have enlisted greater international support not to defeat Saddam but because it would have made rebuilding the country easier.
Now, they have to beg the UN to step in to avoid an election-year quagmire. It won't work. They have been in Korea for 50 years, they will be in Iraq for 50 years.
Doesn't the idea that Bush knew there was nothing to find explain the rush to attack rather than allow inspectors to look for what he knew was not there? If the primary goal was to protect America and her allies, why the hurry? What could Saddam have done to threaten anyone with inspectors racing around the country and Americans perched across the border?
However, letting inspectors snoop around for a year and finding nothing would remove the argument for going to war so that couldn't be allowed. Therefore, the rush to war. Let's not soft-peddle this now. Last March Dick Cheney said "we believe Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons". That is a pretty bold statement. It is also wrong. Why hasn't anyone been fired? Why hasn't the CIA been blamed for this massive failure of intelligence gathering? Again, why isn't the President angry? Maybe because he knew all along.
Meanwhile, the guy who actually planned 9/11 is laughing. The tragedy is removing the focus from Al Qaeda and the criminals who attacked on 9/11. Resources have been expended on a neo-conservative Wild Goose Chase that would have helped track down that cave-dwelling SOB.
Robert,
Thanks for the thoughtful response to my question. You responded, "I believe that Bush knew there were no WMDs and went in anyway."
That's pretty clear. However, I was a bit surprised by one of your later statements, "I didn't want to answer before really thinking it through." This implies to me that you hadn't really thought it through before. You had evidently come to your conclusion without serious thought as to the motive of the key figure. I'm not exactly sure how you would've arrived at your conclusion without considering what I beleive is a foundational question.
Anyway, let me say a few things that, I believe, are inferred by your first statement. You believe there is a conspiracy. You must, because all official accounts and public statements of this admistration have stated that they did believe there were WMDs and they did believe the US was threatened. So, Bush knew the truth and conspired to hide it from the public. Serious charge. But it's more than Bush. Your conspiracy theory must also include Cheney (a fellow Nebraskan - so be careful), Powell, Rumsfield, Rice, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and at least a few in the CIA. I guess you could deny that, but that would mean that Bush had some information that absolutely no one else had, and the others were just willing to follow along. Not quite sure how that would work. So, I'm operating under the perception that you believe that there is a very high level fairly wide spread conspiracy in the US government.
Fair enough. Now remember, I like to keep things simple, so I'm just going to ask one question again.
What is the motive of this group of people that drives them to kill their own soldiers and thousands of Iraqis?
-------------------------
Here is my parking lot. This discussion can go all over the place and I do like to keep it focused if I can. However, I've just cut and pasted a few things that I would like to revisit at a later date, if you still have the interest.
1)YES: If you agree that Bush believed the US was threatened, then our discussion is centered around what is a leader to do when his country is threatened. I'd like to have that debate. We may differ - but, at least, we'd be starting from the same place.
2)the primary reason used by the Bush administration for going to war to remove Saddam was that he posed an imminent threat to the security of the US and its allies
3)I agree that Saddam is a scumbag and that Iraq and the world are better off without him, but many other leaders are equally contemptible (starting with the Saudi Royal family which the Bush administration has done nothing but protect since 9/11).
4)He looks like a complete fool before the whole planet, American credibility is severely reduced, why isn't the President furious?
5)For a guy with a notoriously short fuse, what gives?
6)Of course, the removal of Saddam was the easy part.
7)They have been in Korea for 50 years, they will be in Iraq for 50 years.
8)If the primary goal was to protect America and her allies, why the hurry? What could Saddam have done to threaten anyone with inspectors racing around the country and Americans perched across the border?
Brad,
Here are some quotes currently on the FOX News website (Fairly Pro-Bush source, I think you would agree). These words were spoken shortly before the war started.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including anthrax, botulism toxin, possibly smallpox.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
POWELL: There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.
According to the interview with David Kay this Sunday, the State Department could find no proof these nuclear weapons programs were in fact in place.
I believe the President chose to stretch the truth, reveal only partial facts, obfuscate, exagerate some facts, minimize the importance of others. This was a sales job. Do I think there was a widespread conspiracy? No. I don't think Colin Powell lied. I do believe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfled and Wolfowitz did everything they could to manipulate the information to make their case. Is that lying? I can't look into their hearts. Were they straight with us? I don't think so. If they were just wrong, why haven't heads rolled? Why isn't the President angry?
motives?
Lingering anger over the unfinished war in 1990. Saddam tried to assassinate Bush senior.
Oil.
To show the world the US was not going to to tolerate bullies.
Saddam was the easiest target.
Saddam threatened Israel, the closest ally in the region, every chance he got.
To show they could remove him at will.
Brad,
One more thing - with regard to my comment about thinking it through. If you asked me anytime over the past 9 months whether the Bush Administrationn was being deceitful over Iraq, I would probably have said yes. However, I must admit that would have been an off the cuff response. Before engaging in a discussion with you, I deliberately waited to respond until I had had time to live with that awful notion for a bit. I realize what a serious accusation it is.
Thanks again Robert.
I think we're getting close. And thanks for digging up the quotes that support my earlier claim that all the public statements by this administration stated they believed there were WMDs.
I think we now have two issues...
1) I need a Canadian definition of 'conspiracy'. In one message you say you believe Bush knew there were no WMDs. In the next you provide quotes from him and most of his senior staff that claims, in all cerainty that there were. That sounds like a conspiracy to me - lying and colluding with others to cover it up in order to meet a particular objective. Help me understand why you're reluctant to call that a conspiracy.
Now it seems like the most vile things you accuse Bush of is...'stretch the truth, reveal only partial facts, obfuscate, exagerate some facts, minimize the importance of others'. In other words you've just accused Bush of being a politician.
2)Motive
This issue is much more important to me. In fact it's the most important thing to me in this whole debate. What motive could possibly be worth what's occured over the past 10 months? You list these possibilities
1) Lingering anger over the unfinished war in 1990.
2) Saddam tried to assassinate Bush senior.
3) Oil.
4) To show the world the US was not going to to tolerate bullies.
5) Saddam was the easiest target.
6) Saddam threatened Israel, the closest ally in the region, every chance he got.
7) To show they could remove him at will.
As I said earlier, now we're getting close. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that WMDs was not the reason, or at least, the primary reason we went to war. Look over your list of 7 ulterior motives. My question: Are there any of those 7 or combination of those 7 that would justify a war in your mind?
Probably won't get to this until after work tomorrow - but I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by: Brad on February 3, 2004 08:00 PMBrad,
One reason the word makes me uncomfortable is its common use among late-night talk show callers, denying the moon landing, promoting the notion of Princess Diana's "murder" etc. However, as I have never hesitated to call a spade a shovel, I will take the plunge and say this: my only hesitation in calling this a conspiracy stems from the doubt in my mind about what they knew for sure, or what they thought might be. Do I think they would have gone in even if they had known nothing was there?
Absolutely.
So, if you will, conspiracy if necessary but not necessarilly conspiracy.
With regard to the most vile thing Bush has been accused of: If leading his people to the violent removal of another country's government in an almost universally denounced war on trumped-up reasons, leading to the deaths of thousands of people, qualifies as "politics"... That is not politics. That is treason. That is unconscionable.
Re: ulterior motives, if they had come out and stated the above, that would not have been enough for me. Not with bin Laden scurrying around Pakistan, with the 9/11 blood still on the Saudis hands, with Kim Il Jong threatening Seoul every ten minutes... If are going to take your country to war, you should be straight about the motives.
Hey Robert!
Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.
Let me first get a few things out of the way and then move on to the real point at the end of this message.
I really need to buy a Canadian dictionary. You might accuse Bush of a lot of things, but I can't see how you would justify a treason charge.
Let me see if I understand your point of view on WMDs. I'm going to spell it out here, mainly to help me think it through. Let me know where I've missed it. You believe that Bush and his administration had some information on WMDs in Iraq. You're not exactly sure what that information was. Therefore you're not exactly sure if they were lying when they claimed Iraq did have them. However, you believe there is a very high burden of proof on a country to defend it's reason for going to war and this Bush administration just didn't meet your standard. Is that it?
Here's my take on WMDs. I think that Bush and his administration did believe that Iraq had WMDs. My reason for believing this is precisely because they did not find them. Hear me out here. I know that statement sounds a little strange.
If Bush and Co. were absolutely sure there were not WMDs in Iraq, the only reason I can imagine for saying they did exist was to bolster their case for going to war.
So, what would that entail? Well, call it what you like, this group had to get together and conspire to get their stories straight.
What were they thinking? Let's get together and tell this lie even though we know there is absolutely no chance of weapons being found. So, we're bound to be found out, unless - You know where this is going. If I'm part of this conspiracy, I'm sure not going to stop at the lie. I'm going to make sure that weapons are found. Why not? How hard would it be? The US controlled vast amounts of land in the early parts of the war. They controlled the press. How hard would it be to plant some barrels of poisons. It wouldn't have taken much to make this whole issue go away. Find a couple of barrels and talk about the numbers of people that could've been killed and this entire WMD issue would be dead. Call these guys what you like, but if they were going to conspire, they were sure smart enough to make sure they weren't found out.
Now the real issues
1) Was there a reason to go to war?
2) How do you get a nation to support a war?
1.You listed 7 ulterior motives. I happen to think that hidden in that list is a valid reason for going to war. You didn't hit it exactly, but you sure touched on some key points. That discussion can come later. First, I'm hoping you'lll answer just one question with a follow-up...
Is there a valid reason for going to war? If so what would it(they) be?
2. The discussion on #2 will have to wait until we see if we can come to some understanding on #1. If we agree on a reason for going to war and I can convince you that that criteria was met, then we need to discuss how you bring a nation to war.
Eventually, where I predict this discussion is going to lead is to a discussion about the very real differences in American and Canadian culture. I will really like that discussion. But, perhaps we should take it off line. I'm not sure if this site is really meant for this type of discussion. And, if it'll just us reading this - no sense in taking up space here.
Posted by: Brad on February 4, 2004 08:01 PMBrad,
One more comment and then I would be delighted to chat via email.
Merriam-Webster defines treason as, among other things: "the betrayal of a trust". I think that speaks for itself.
The point that you make regarding not finding WMDs is compelling and logical. Though it the begs the question (still un-addressed), why isn't this administration more anxious to find out how they got it so totally wrong? The FCC is launching investigations into the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" two days after the incident, why has the President obviously delayed in calling for a thorough examination of the intelligence community following this second complete failure in 3 years?
Perhaps the reason they didn't bother to plant evidence was they figured no one would care once Saddam was gone. Same way they figured they wold be welcomed as liberators and that post-Saddam Iraq would be fairly easy to reorganize into a stable political entity.
Finally, is there ever a justified war? Absolutely. In fact, this administration launched one and Canadians have fought and died alongside Americans in Afghanistan.
Robert,
Just a quick one tonight.
My last word on 'treason'. According to Robert - if I commit adultery or default on a loan I am guilty of treason. Interesting.
My last word on WMDs. Glad you liked my logic. I do have one other reason for believing that Bush and Co believed they existed. The UN believed Iraq had WMDs. If they didn't, why would they send in inspectors. The inspectors never founds WMDs - aside from a few buried war heads. More interesting to me, is that they also never found any proof of their distruction, even though for 10 years they demanded Sadam provide that proof. So, my logic says if they believed they existed and never found any proof to the contrary the logical conclusion is that they still existed. The only other option would be that Sadam did indeed destroy them, but refused to provide the proof. To what end?
So, you said my original arguement was compeling. Add this one to that and tell me if you're now leaning towards saying Bush and Co. did believe the WMDs existed. It's safe to say so, because you have already said their existence still wasn't cause for a war.
And finally (I said this would be short) you only answered one part of my last question. You did not respond to my follow up. You said 'Yes' there are valid reasons for going to war. I'm glad you said that by the way. Otherwise our discussion would be over and I'm really enjoying this.
My follow up was 'What are those reasons' I think I need to know what you consider justifiable reasons before I can go on.
Thanks again.
Hey!! Robert! Brad! ... Not fair!! You guys get us hooked on the hard stuff and then threaten to take it to a private chat? What kind of junkie dealers are you? Keep the merry-go-round going ... I want to stay on!!
Posted by: gord on February 5, 2004 07:53 PMBrad,
I think you should take issue with Merriam Webster. The betrayal of the trust in question here is that of a citizen toward his country.
I have no idea why Saddam never came clean on his program, though some have speculated that a tyrant remains in power by showing how tough he is, not by exposing his weakness. Saddam played by the rules of the jungle, where the strong survive, the weak are massacred.
I found your logic compelling, but not convincing. I believe it far more likely that the man who insists his economic policies are good for the average American, who has consistently surreptiously linked Saddam to 9/11 and Al Qaeda probably figured no one would care about missing WMDs once Saddam was out of there. Remember, it has worked before. Saying "Saddam" and "9/11" in the same sentence has created the link to many Americans. A poll last week still showed 40% of Americans believe Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11 - down from the 70% last year but still incredible that 3 years after that attack, that many are unaware of who attacked them.
With regard to questions un-answered, does it not trouble you that the people who failed to protect America on 9/11, the intelligence community, also failed in this most important mandate of providing the President with accurate information? Doesn't that make you angry?
If so, let me ask (again), why isn't the President angry?
Robert,
I thought we'd put that treason arguement to bed. Well, here you go - here's your Merriam Webster definition - the whole thing...
Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
I fail to see where W has overtly taken actions to overthrow the US government. I'm obviously missing something. And if you look up any other dictionary defintion (try these -- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason) you will see the overthrow of the gov't issue is first not second. Good work though on finding the one that put it second!
I can think of two reasons why we don't see an angry President on the issue of WMDs...
1) He still believes their are WMDs that are either yet to be found or were moved just prior to or during the war.
2) He believes the problem wasn't so much with the people we had collecting the information as it was with the Iraqis feeding it to them.
However, neither of those is really convincing for me. If you haven't noticed, this is a fairly private President. This isn't the Clinton Soap Opera where everyone's dirty laundry is hung out for all to see. I would assume that W has a clue on how the CIA works. If he's a little slow on that topic, he does have a father who used to run the whole show who could tutor him. My assumption would be that there is a private investigation going on. The President is getting the answers he wants.
I frankly don't want to see an angry President on this issue and don't see any advantage for showing that emotion in this case. I prefer a President who is in control.
So, to answer your question - Am I angry about the WMD issue? No, not at all.
Still not convinced about their belief in the existence of WMDs? Well I guess you'll just have to assume that this Yale and Harvard grad with a GPA higher than Al Gore's just wasn't bright enough to think this through. I'll stick with my view.
By the way - you're corrsponding with an 'Average American' and I don't think W's economic policies are good for me - I know they are. I lived it. How about this rule - You don't tell me how average Americans feel and I won't tell you how average Canadians feel. Deal?
I'm tired after a long week and a bit cranky - as you can tell. But help me out here. I've tried twice now to get you to answer one question - What are reasons for a justifiable war?
Now I guess we can continue to dance around with these other issues, and - frankly - I enjoy the dance, but the real issue is identifying reasons you believe justify a war. When we discover those reasons, then we can talk about whether or not they were met in this case.
So, I guess I'm not quite sure what's going on in your last paragraph. You admit that there's a question out there unanswered, but then not only do you not answer, you open up this whole other topic of whether or not I'm angry that our intelligence didn't predict and help prevent 9/11.
News Flash -- I am angry that 3 planes slammed into the Towers and the Pentagon. I am angry that 3,000 people died in those towers and I have to carry those mental pictures of people jumping to their deaths to avoid the flames. I'm angry I have the memory of watching that French documentary of the event and can still here those same bodies crashing to the earth. So, yes - I'm angry. And, yes - another News Flash - I think W is also angry.
But, you know what I'm not angry about? I'm not angry about the thousands of times are intelligence has stopped similar events from happening. And this isn't just a W thing. Through Democrats and Republican Presidencies those types of things are identified and stopped all the time. I'm not angry at all about that.
I'm also not angry that we have a President who decided to lead when such a thing happened in an effort to make sure it wouldn't happen again. That does not make me angry at all.
So, when you're ready to answer the question - let me know. Then we can start the real debate.
And finally - Gord! Didn't anyone ever teach you to knock!!
Another News Flash - Never hit the 'post' button when you're tired and cranky before you do some serious proof reading. Besides all the typos - let me point out the Yale and Harvard grad I'm talking about is W - not the author of this rant.
Also hesitated hitting the 'post' because I didn't quite like the tone and will probably like it less in the morning. However - Robert - you got your wish. I'm angry and I thought I'd let that show this time. More restraint next time.
Posted by: Brad on February 6, 2004 04:28 PMBrad,
It'e been a long week for everybody. Don't apologize for the tone, this is a very sensitive issue and we have been going mano a mano for 10 days. I've seen a lot harsher stuff on this blog over the past year (mostly from Lynne, what a temper!)
End of the day, I love a debate (probably more than I should) but you have to know when to say when.
Dude, you know what? I'm pooped and it's the weekend so let me buy you a beer (Sleemans) and we'll pick this up again some other time.
Maybe after Kerry's inauguration (couldn't resist)...
Robert,
I can think of one person who loves debate as much - maybe more than you (I guess we could debate that!). So, if you want to take a break fine - but I really love processing this issue and hope we can contiue it. Tell you what, I'll keep watching the site, and when I see your answer to my question appear, I'll consider that the bell for round 8. Hopefully that will be well before Kerry's inauguration - because last I heard Hell hadn't even begun to cool let alone freeze over!
I know what you mean about Lynne!
Posted by: Brad on February 7, 2004 05:01 AMMorality by consensus is frequently morality by convenience.
Posted by: Blackman Mark on May 3, 2004 03:31 AM