I'm not trying to come off as condescending, Kevin. Sorry. Fact of the matter is, as you already indicated, you and I can google around the internet for days on end, finding partisan hackery from both sides to support anything we want... and none of it's going to be worth anything until the day that has yet to come where the WMD question can be settled with actual evidence. At this point, enough WMD materiel has surfaced to put Saddam in clear breach, though it's still debateable as to what constitutes the "stockpiles" we were told about and whether or not they'll be found.
The forged or faked documents re: Niger will soon be getting more attention paid to them, from what I hear, as will the reports of the mysterious trucks that convoyed into Syria during the initial invasion. Coalition forces have found Mustard Gas in artillery shells being used for roadside bombs... those had to come from somewhere, though the existence of a few shells in no way obviates any "stockpiles." Enough VX (hardly as easy to produce as Sarin) to kill 100,000 people was stopped from being smuggled into Jordan from Syria. That investigation has yet to lead to confirmed "stockpiles" of Iraqi weapons in Syria, but I don't think anyone could successfully argue it one way or another until they have some more facts...
Nobody is in a position to argue this stuff from a factual standpoint yet. WMD "stockpiles" have yet to be found, but there has clearly not been enough time to find them, either. SOME WMD stuff has been found, yet not enough to lead to any "stockpiles" or even to indicate clearly whether they exist. I said that discussion is beneath us both because I figured neither one of us would want to argue today from a position that could so easily be proven absolutely wrong tomorrow. I don't like making myself look like an idiot, and I assumed you don't either.
As for Hitchens, I don't blindly believe anything he writes anymore than I would anyone else. I posted an article to begin a conversation, and I chose NOT to select one from a partisan site, such as Newsmax (or the Nation.) As Max noted, I picked an article from
left-leaning Slate to begin a discussion on a left leaning board. I thought that might mean the difference between beginning a discussion and starting a fight.
Hitchens is still considered decidedly left-leaning, though that's been a subject of dispute recently, as Max noted. I believe he's been "outed" as a pseudo-liberal because he refuses to follow the crowd and outright lie about the Bush administration. You only have to read some of his articles to see that he believes Bush can be defeated with TRUTH, and that that is his what he'd like to see happen. I can respect that. Read
The stupidity of Ronald Reagan and tell me Hitchens is a partisan conservative.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." ~Dubya, SOTU
"Mayaki said he assumed the delegation wanted to discuss uranium sales. But he said that although he had met with the delegation he had not been interested in pursuing any commercial dealings with Iraq. The intelligence report based on Wilson's debriefing also noted that the former minister of mines explained to Wilson that given the tight controls maintained by the French consortium in charge of uranium mining in Niger, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a shipment of uranium to a pariah state..." ~your article, above
"Iraq actually DID seek yellowcake in Niger." ~Me
Is it not clear that Iraq SOUGHT yellowcake? You can split hairs and point to the word "assumed" but you can hardly avoid the rest of the paragraph that shows us this meeting took place. Yes, we are left wondering a bit, so if you want to show me how that quote from your article should leave me to believe Iraq did not seek yellowcake from Niger, rock on.
As for me being partisan, I do speak from a point of view though I don't mindlessly spew any party line, especially not that of the Party of God.
As for Wilson's lie, I think I covered that above. It was a lie. Wilson went to great lengths to convice us it was not a lie:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Preechr
Wilson, from a Talking Points Memo interview, trying to convince us Plame had NOTHING to do with his trip to Niger:
"For those who would assert that somehow she was involved in this, it just defies logic. At the time, she was the mother of two-year-old twins. Therefore, sort of sending her husband off on an eight-day trip leaves her with full responsbility for taking care of two screaming two year old kids without help, anybody who is parent would understand what that means. Anybody who is a mother would understand it even far better. Secondly, I mean, the notion somehow that this was some nepotism, that I was being sent on an eight-day, all-expense paid--no salary, mind you--trip to the Sahara desert. This is not Nassau we were talking about. This is not the Bahamas. It wasn't Maui. This was the Sahara desert. And then, the only other thing I can think of is the assertion that she wanted me out of the way for eight days because she, you know, had a lover or something, which is, you don't take lovers when you have two year old kids at home. So there's no logic in it..."
|
...and I find it hilarious that he's been caught in it. Note the part where he addresses his comments to anyone that thinks she had ANYTHING to do with his trip. Keep in mind, I'd be as delighted to see Cheney or Rumsfeld caught in such an obvious lie. I don't like liars and I love to see them get busted.
Was the lie important? No more important than Valerie Plame's "outing" by Novak. The law in question was written to protect operatives, not consultants. Plame's work for the CIA has always been very well known. To get all up in arms about it being mentioned is simply ridiculous to anyone that isn't willing to let ridiculous stand in the way of some good, old fashioned Bush-hatin'.
Let me be clear: It is my feeling that the Democrats have been committing suicide for four years now with this whole Bush-Hate thing. I see it as entirely counter-productive and senseless. It makes the whole party look terribly immature and childish, and it allows Rush Limbaugh to whitewash anything Team Bush© might actually do in the service of evil as "just more of that ol' Bush-Hate from the wacky left." I'm not saying I believe Bush is evil, just that I want to know if he starts showing those signs... When all I get is hyperbole and nonsense over EVERY single issue that MIGHT grow wings, I stop paying attention.
As a tool, Bush-Hate is designed to create an illusion for the benefit of those that have only a tenuous grasp of current political events that everybody suspects Bush of being Satan for some reason... but where's the intelligent reasoning for those of us who know that's not likely true? It's absense tells a story of it's own.
At the end of the day, hate is too strong an emotion to attract new converts through illusions alone. The Clinton years should have proven that. In the mean time, it's making any real public debate about Bush's presidency nearly impossible, and it cheapens politics more, if that's even possible.
My biggest fear, as a person that finds it ever harder to distinguish the actual policies of the Democrats from their Republican counterparts, is that this whole hate-based electioneering thing is just so much sleight of hand. Too many people will be voting for anybody but Bush this November, just as too many voters will go to the polls with glassy eyes, blindly chanting "Support our troops... Support our troops... Support our troops..." That's scary to me.
Hybrid Mode
