retitle: why i don't like GWB.

pretty much. the only one approaching validity is #1. the last one, though, gives away this whole thing as humor. your funnay may vary.

#1? Nope. That war started in 1991.

#8 and #21.

The PATRIOT Act and DU are exceptionally repugnant.

#1? Nope. That war started in 1991.

now there's an artful rationalization that i hadn't heard before. neatly sweeps away the whole 'it's wmds no wait it's terrorism no wait it's spreading freedom' mess too. i wonder why they don't just come out and say that it's about iraq invading kuwait?

The PATRIOT Act and DU are exceptionally repugnant.

no doubt, but the premise here is impeachable offenses. high crimes and misdemeanors. you know, blowjobs.

Blowjobs, Nuclear Secrets Sold, Murder, Lying, Treason : take your pickle...!!!

'now there's an artful rationalization that i hadn't heard before. neatly sweeps away the whole 'it's wmds no wait it's terrorism no wait it's spreading freedom' mess too. i wonder why they don't just come out and say that it's about iraq invading kuwait?'

Except that they did just come out and say that it was about Iraq invading Kuwait and the resultant resolutions, yet the focus had to remain on only one fraction of the rational for action--suspicions of stockpiled WMD.

If that by itstelf is not artful, it's not nearly as artful as the postulate that GWB is smarter than every other national leader; so much so in fact, the he should be the only one NOT fooled by every UN intelligence report coming out of Iraq regarding WMD programs--and yet still be too stupid to wait to act so he could be accused of not being pre-emptive enough--again.

These cries of lies appear for the most part to be defenses erected for Arm-Chair Presidents with 20/20 anti-bush hindsight who cannot move on(.org). They fail to impress me if not those who find the legitimate reasons for believing Bush to be a buffoon are not enough.

'no doubt, but the premise here is impeachable offenses. high crimes and misdemeanors. you know, blowjobs.'

Breaking the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and giving your own soldiers lung cancer might qualify just as much as perjury ... but probably not as much as blowjobs.

'now there's an artful rationalization that i hadn't heard before. neatly sweeps away the whole 'it's wmds no wait it's terrorism no wait it's spreading freedom' mess too. i wonder why they don't just come out and say that it's about iraq invading kuwait?'

Except that they did just come out and say that it was about Iraq invading Kuwait and the resultant resolutions, yet the focus had to remain on only one fraction of the rational for action--suspicions of stockpiled WMD.

If that by itstelf is not artful, it's not nearly as artful as the postulate that GWB is smarter than every other national leader; so much so in fact, the he should be the only one NOT fooled by every UN intelligence report coming out of Iraq regarding WMD programs--and yet still be too stupid to wait to act so he could be accused of not being pre-emptive enough--again.

These cries of lies appear for the most part to be defenses erected for Arm-Chair Presidents with 20/20 anti-bush hindsight who cannot move on(.org). They fail to impress me if not those who find the legitimate reasons for believing Bush to be a buffoon are not enough.

'no doubt, but the premise here is impeachable offenses. high crimes and misdemeanors. you know, blowjobs.'

Breaking the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and giving your own soldiers lung cancer might qualify just as much as perjury ... but probably not as much as blowjobs.

O FUKING REFRESH!

it's not nearly as artful as the postulate that GWB is smarter than every other national leader; so much so in fact, the he should be the only one NOT fooled by every UN intelligence report coming out of Iraq regarding WMD programs--and yet still be too stupid to wait to act so he could be accused of not being pre-emptive enough--again.

i cannot parse this. i take back what i said about you making more sense than orson scott card. please try again. ;-)

These cries of lies appear for the most part to be defenses erected for Arm-Chair Presidents with 20/20 anti-bush hindsight who cannot move on(.org).

get over it? comon. you can do better. from the dsm: 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.' serious shit right there, at least worthy of investigation, and certainly deserving of more than flippancy.

They fail to impress me if not those who find the legitimate reasons for believing Bush to be a buffoon are not enough.

again i cannot parse, but i'll say this: i have never thought that bush was stupid. willfully ignorant and profoundly incurious, definitely. the dopey everyman act serves him well.

He's a poopy-head!

i regret my omission. he is also indeed a poopy-head. also a barking twat and a giant radioactive douchebag.

Reason #26: he is a goober.

Parsementation for Vladism:

Part 1

First:
'it's not nearly as artful as the postulate that GWB is smarter than every other national leader;...' Remain mindful of the anti-Bush dogma asserting that GWB is functionally a retard.

Then:
'so much so in fact, the he should be the only one NOT fooled by every UN intelligence report coming out of Iraq regarding WMD programs--...' Consider that every interested foreign nation, and every U.S. representative who gave GWB war powers, looked at exactly the same UN intelligence information and agreed that Saddam was not living up to his UN resolution obligations regarding WMDs. Then consider how this 'retard' should then be the only one (in retrospect) that should NOT have been fooled by this (in retrospect) faulty intelllegence.

Then:
'...and yet still be too stupid to wait to act so he could be accused of not being pre-emptive enough--again.' While his idiot opponents are taking advantage of some media limelight and asserting that GWB is responsible for the 9/11 attacks due to falure to be pre-emptive (see Farenheight 911), they also crucify him for being 'too pre-emptive' regarding the UN intelligence data regarding Saddam's WMD programs.

You see, I think it is rather artful (as you put it) how GWB's opponents selectivly insist that he is both monumentally stupid AND gifted with perfect knowledge and Holmesian powers of deduction.


Part 2

LOki previously wrote:
'These cries of lies appear for the most part to be defenses erected for Arm-Chair Presidents with 20/20 anti-bush hindsight who cannot move on(.org).

To which Vlad responded thus:
'get over it? comon. you can do better. from the dsm: 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.' serious shit right there, at least worthy of investigation, and certainly deserving of more than flippancy.'

To which I respond: You seem to be clearly understating the dogmatic assertion of the Move-On.org anti-Bush crowd that all things Bush are neccessarily invalid.

The hijinx of Saddam Hussein were well established prior to the 2000 election, and the 2003 descision to to do something about them, but there was 11 years of no news about Iraq, 8 of which were the Clinton years (of doing nothing about them while asserting that military intervention was neccessary). There is still no evidence indicating that Saddam Hussein was compliant with UN resolutions, nor is there evidence that the UN was willing to ensure said compliance, and no evidence what-so-ever that Saddam's continued WMD program development was in any measure benign to the U.S.

What everyone seems to be afriad to admit is, that having the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world is WMD enough. That kind of oil wealth, in the hands of a violent and oppressive dictator, just means that laboratories, weapons mills and research facilities can be destroyed and rebuilt at will; and if that doesn't work, that destructive technology can easily be bought (from North Korea, most likely) regardless of price.

What is sure however, is that Saddam Hussein is a violent sociopath, that he and his regime were too dangerous to have access to the worlds 3rd largest crude reserves, that he absolutely had to go,--and that no matter how legitimate that effort might be, George Soros and ilk would seek to discredit it. These are all sure things.

The rational for military action was defined by UN resolution after the Kuwait war--additional (yet ultimately poorly considered) rationals were most assuredly required to offset the senseless and disingenuous counter-propaganda from the petulant branch of the losers of the previous 2 elections, and the short attention span of the MTV generation. So I'm not at all surprised that the Bush administration would attempt to gain another toehold by capitalizing on terrorist's access to WMD via a regime patently dedicated to their (WMD) aquistion, and unarguably hostile to the U.S.

Pre-emptive war with Iraq was essentially demanded by the same idiots who asserted that GWB was not pre-emptive enough regarding the 911 attacks--look there first for lies and misinformation. If not for them, pre-emptive action would not have been made to appear so legitimate.

Conjecture based in incomplete (or even wrong) information, offered under the pressure and duress of (real or perceived) crisis, cannot be fairly characterized as lies.

Thus:
'[The cries of lies that appear for the most part to be defenses erected for Arm-Chair Presidents with 20/20 anti-bush hindsight who cannot move on(.org)] fail to impress me...'

While acknowledging the Move-On crowd:
'if not those who find the legitimate reasons for believing Bush to be a buffoon are not enough.'

Legitimate reasons such as:

The PATRIOT Acts 1 & 2,
The use of DU ammunition,
The Assault Weapons Ban,
Over-borrow and Spend ecomomics,
Clean-air vouchers

this is wandering far afield of the downing street memo (and similar revelations) as grounds for impeachment investigations. oh well, that's the game of political yak. i'll try to nudge it back there when possible.

You see, I think it is rather artful (as you put it) how GWB's opponents selectivly insist that he is both monumentally stupid AND gifted with perfect knowledge and Holmesian powers of deduction.

or it would be, if anyone actually sat down and arrived at such an absurd conclusion. your idea that there is/was a belief that bush is smarter than every other national leader (and our own) is just that, yours.

Consider that every interested foreign nation, and every U.S. representative who gave GWB war powers, looked at exactly the same UN intelligence information and agreed that Saddam was not living up to his UN resolution obligations regarding WMDs.

wha huh? re: U.S. reps, you leave out that it was an election year, and that our politicians are essentially cowards. also it was shortly after 911, when everybody lost their damn minds. re: the international community, maybe you and I weren't reading the same news.

opponents are ...asserting that GWB is responsible for the 9/11 attacks due to falure to be pre-emptive (see Farenheight 911), they also crucify him for being 'too pre-emptive' regarding the UN intelligence data regarding Saddam's WMD programs.

i have heard no sane person accuse bush of flying planes into buildings. i have heard people fault him (rightly, imo) of ignoring guys like richard clarke who warned him of it. remember also that bush immediately put pressure on his intel people to try to link this with iraq. re: the UN intel data, the inspectors insisted that the iraqi WMD programs were fantasy, and they were soundly mocked and vilified. turns out they were right, not that it mattered.

You seem to be clearly understating the dogmatic assertion of the Move-On.org anti-Bush crowd that all things Bush are neccessarily invalid.

you seem to be clearly playing WAY the fuk out in left field. how exactly does:

a) the call for an investigation into a document (the downing st. memo, the validity of which nobody is denying) that states that bush was set on attacking iraq and was busily about the business of lying to everybody about his intentions and plans and manipulating our intelligence community in a way that very possibly neutered it at a time (post-911) when its effectiveness was MOST critical, equal:

b) pshaw you're an obvious lefty partisan who just hates bush? you can do better, man. i know it.

There is still no evidence indicating that Saddam Hussein was compliant with UN resolutions

you mean the resolutions telling him to allow inspections? the resolutions that told him that he couldn't have wmds? the wmds that the inspectors said he didn't have?

no evidence what-so-ever that Saddam's continued WMD program development was in any measure benign to the U.S.

you mean the continued wmd program development that colin powell clearly showed us pictorial evidence of?

What everyone seems to be afriad to admit is, that having the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world is WMD enough.

i've heard this argument before, but only from you. i think that if this held any water whatsoever, we'd have heard it listed in the litany of reasons for war. probably long before 'spreading freedom and democracy', and shortly after invading saudi arabia.

What is sure however, is that Saddam Hussein is a violent sociopath

yup. he was just no longer our violent sociopath.

So I'm not at all surprised that the Bush administration would attempt to gain another toehold by capitalizing on terrorist's access to WMD via a regime patently dedicated to their (WMD) aquistion, and unarguably hostile to the U.S.

you're not surprised, so it's a-ok? and the next time it happens, it'll be just fine then too. also, the old 'al queda could have gotten wmds from saddam' bromide is a dud. not bloody likely, given that bin laden is against almost everything saddam was about, except for the hating america part.

Pre-emptive war with Iraq was essentially demanded by the same idiots who asserted that GWB was not pre-emptive enough regarding the 911 attacks--look there first for lies and misinformation. If not for them, pre-emptive action would not have been made to appear so legitimate.

blargy blargy blarg. michael moore travelled back in time and used his hamburger-fueled rhetoric to pressure bush into pre-emptive war because the cognitive dissonance made him all wacky. AND HE STICKS THE LANDING!

Conjecture based in incomplete (or even wrong) information, offered under the pressure and duress of (real or perceived) crisis, cannot be fairly characterized as lies.

'conjecture' does not necessitate 'fixing' the intelligence and facts around it. a predetermined course of action does. you were lied to. i seem to remember you being pretty damn indignant when that happened before.

Legitimate reasons such as:
The PATRIOT Acts 1 & 2,
The use of DU ammunition,
The Assault Weapons Ban,
Over-borrow and Spend ecomomics,
Clean-air vouchers

all of which are unquestionably crappy, but none of which are impeachable offenses. i maintain that the dsm revelations, combined with what we've already heard from richard clarke and paul o'neill, are serious enough charges to at least open an investigation.

which brings us back to D'OH!

postscript: i very nearly was forced to chart this shit on paper, before i remembered that it's all just crap on the internet.

Says Vladdo:'your idea that there is/was a belief that bush is smarter than every other national leader (and our own) is just that, yours.'

OhFuk no you don't! I will not be Elmer Fudd to your Bugs Bunny!

Says Vladdo:'re: U.S. reps, you leave out that it was an election year, and that our politicians are essentially cowards. also it was shortly after 911, when everybody lost their damn minds.'

Then this makes them just as culpable, yes? Are you trying to trick me again?

Says Vladdo:'re: the international community, maybe you and I weren't reading the same news.'

Perhaps not. I read that they understood that Saddam had offered no proof of meeting his resolution obligations (which was also his obligation), but they didn't belive him. Which nonsensical as that may appear, it meant to them also that the consequences of not meeting those obligations should be postponed until he met them.

This is contrary to the sensible notion of:
UN> 'Saddam, prove you have met your UN resolution obligations.'
Saddam> 'No.'
UN> Brings on military action as promised.

Says Vladdo:'i have heard no sane person accuse bush of flying planes into buildings. i have heard people fault him (rightly, imo) of ignoring guys like richard clarke who warned him of it.'

Yes that and every other plot against the U.S. It's not surprising to me that the Bush administration (like previous administrations) considered Al-Qaeda's intention to terrorize the U.S. as being old news. Setting retrospect aside, at the time, I'm sure that flying planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon appeared nearly as ludicrous as lobbing rocks from the moon and sneaking falafel mix into Big-Macs.

Says Vladdo:'remember also that bush immediately put pressure on his intel people to try to link this with iraq.'

A link between Iraq and the terroists who perpetrated the 911 attacks was plausible, and certainly would have been convenient if it were true. Just because Saddam was considered an enemy to Al-Qaeda, it does not follow that Saddam had no terrorist connections.

Says Vladdo:'re: the UN intel data, the inspectors insisted that the iraqi WMD programs were fantasy, and they were soundly mocked and vilified. turns out they were right, not that it mattered.'

Not at all so. There were no stockpiles of payload discovered, and no nuclear program discovered. On the basis of that alone, do the criers of NO WMDs! continue to ignore that Saddam maintained the intellectual infrastructure for the development of chemical and biological weapons and that his missile development program was advancing.

Says Vladdo:'how exactly does:

a) the call for an investigation into a document (the downing st. memo, the validity of which nobody is denying) that states that bush was set on attacking iraq and was busily about the business of lying to everybody about his intentions and plans and manipulating our intelligence community in a way that very possibly neutered it at a time (post-911) when its effectiveness was MOST critical, equal:

b) pshaw you're an obvious lefty partisan who just hates bush? you can do better, man. i know it.'

The DSM was written after a decade of Saddam's violations of UN resolutions and after almost 3 years of 'obvious lefty partisan who just hates bush' griping. Containing this in the hermetic jar of 911 is just wrong.

Says Vladdo:'you mean the resolutions telling him to allow inspections?'

The DSN says: 'John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.' So, yes.

Says Vladdo:'the resolutions that told him that he couldn't have wmds?'

Yes. Particularly the part where he was to provide proof he had eliminated them and their development programs.

Says Vladdo:'the wmds that the inspectors said he didn't have?'

Yes. The ones those same inspectors said he could have within 3 months due to his maintenance (in violation of UN resolutions) of chemical, biological and missile programs.

Says Vladdo:'you mean the continued wmd program development that colin powell clearly showed us pictorial evidence of?'

Nope.

Says Vladdo:'i've heard this argument before, but only from you. i think that if this held any water whatsoever, we'd have heard it listed in the litany of reasons for war. probably long before 'spreading freedom and democracy', and shortly after invading saudi arabia.'

:| Not with all the rabid 'No Blood for Oil' shrillery resultant from such an assertion from Bush (and obviously his filthy rich oil buddies). Seriously.

Says Vladdo:'you're not surprised, so it's a-ok? and the next time it happens, it'll be just fine then too. also, the old 'al queda could have gotten wmds from saddam' bromide is a dud. not bloody likely, given that bin laden is against almost everything saddam was about, except for the hating america part.'

The oft and nauseatingly repeated 'Al-qaeda is the only terrorist organization in the world, thus the only terrorists Saddam could support' assumption is the actual dud, dude. So I remain unsurprised, and I maintain the plausibilty that the Hussein regime could and would supply WMD to terrorists for the purpose of attacking the U.S. is ligitimate despite Al-Qaeda's opinion about Saddam.

Says Vladdo:''conjecture' does not necessitate 'fixing' the intelligence and facts around it. a predetermined course of action does.'

This 'fixing' is according Matthew Rycroft only, and concerns a fraction of one rationale for military action against Hussein. I just am not accepting that failing to discover stockpiles of nuclear/biological/chemical weapon payloads should be the sole criterion upon which one asserts that there was no possible WMD threat from the Hussein regime and thereby invalidating military action.

Says Vladdo:'you were lied to. i seem to remember you being pretty damn indignant when that happened before.'

Naw. Not the lies, but the fact that perjury means jail and a beating for me, and continued partying for the President.

Says Vladdo:'all of which are unquestionably crappy, but none of which are impeachable offenses.'

The bad policies, no; violating the Constitution, yes.

Says Vladdo:'i maintain that the dsm revelations, combined with what we've already heard from richard clarke and paul o'neill, are serious enough charges to at least open an investigation.'

Fine. And if perjury is again the verdict, I will again get indignant when he is not afforded the same consequences that you and (certainly) I would face.

Says Vladdo:'which brings us back to D'OH!'

Look, I don't haet you Vlad, I haet your sekrit Bush-love.

Says Vladdo:'postscript: i very nearly was forced to chart this shit on paper, before i remembered that it's all just crap on the internet.'

teh intarnats are a wonderful place ... FOR ME TO POOP ON!

hahaha fukker i KNEW when i saw your car in the lot when i drove home at five fuking thirty pm on a friday night that you were in there hunting and pecking away at this with your squint and your tongue in your teef. i KNEW.

i have way more to say on this, but it's buried somewhere beneath my glee that it's the weekend. this could happily be carried on in the DSM forum thread later.

it's DUCK season!

Impeachment reason #26. He is stupid.

That should be higher in the list.