Skip to main content

View Diary: DailyKos supporting Right Wing Talking Points?? (325 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh come on (none)
    Unfettered access to the whole country?  Yeah right.  

    Revisionism is supposed to be a subtle art.

    He dodged, manuevered, bluffed and lost in one of the silliest games of chicken ever played.

    If he had died he would have been the Darwin Award winner of the decade.

    Maybe next year...

    (Cross-posted in my pants)

    by Calishfornia on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:08:03 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  big picture (none)
      rove's memo in the summer of 2002. unless your analysis includes those sorts of points- it just looking at only the portions to prove your argument.
      •  No (none)
        I'm looking at it from a moron's version of game theory and assuming that we were dealing with rational actors here.

        And if we were, and everyone at Dkos was privvy to PNAC and it's plans for Iraq, why wasn't Saddam?

        Are the Dkos intelligence services superior to that of the former nation of Iraq?

        Assuming no, then why did he play right into their hands?

        I will be eternally curious as to what he was thinking...

        (Cross-posted in my pants)

        by Calishfornia on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:23:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  game theory requires you to use (none)
          all the facts and not just the one's that prove your argument. ie, you would have to include the rove memo, the history of the neocons and the effects of 09.11 on what people were thinking and doing at the time. discussing just the wmd stuff is a tree in a bigger forest.
          •  Fair enough (none)
            But who, beyond Saddam Hussein, had more at stake in this debacle?

            Did he not have the information that you and others are saying was widely available and the obvious key to Bush's intentions?

            And if so, WHAT WAS HE THINKING?

            (Cross-posted in my pants)

            by Calishfornia on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:36:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  we can't know what was fully going on (none)
              with saddam hussien- what we can know are the forces that were motivating the democrats were not as simple as what was motivating saddam hussien. the idea that it is a patently a falsehood even if it is true on some factual level that it was a consideration. you had people such as kerry voting against type- why? what changed? certainly 09.11, but certainly they like me knew about the rove memo, the republican smear campaign against folks like cleland and the timing of the vote which was built to maximize its effect on the 2002 election in a similar way to how they used the gay marriage bans. democrats knwo this shit. my frustration here is pretending by ourside that its not the case- i understand why, but even the stuff about the pre war intelligence is not fully true. they were privy to the same reports as bush even if they weren't as complete as bush's reports. so in fact they did have some of the same pre war intelligence concerns- also are we to believe that it didn't occur to them as a part of their duties to get direct testimony before authorizing military force on this magnitude? i mean some of this stuff just begs the question- are we to believe that our own senators were this stupid?
              •  I guess (none)
                my point is that we don't know what ANYONE was thinking in the run-up and that there were competing facts and factors at every level.

                But one of them, and IMO one of the most important ones at that, was indeed the actions of one Saddam Hussein.

                And my main problem lies with the monday morning quarterbacking around here that conveniently disregards the facts on the ground AT THE TIME, and feeds the veracity of the HILTs (hardine Iraq litmus testers) who demand Iraq purity in the 2008 candidate.

                And who often choose as their banner carriers those who were not facing the decisions of those who were.

                (Cross-posted in my pants)

                by Calishfornia on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:48:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  whenever I hear (none)
                  prhases like "monday morning quaterbacking" what I am really hearing is "I fucked up, but I don't want you to call me on it." It's the cowards way of avoiding responsibility. For me, it's about accountability. The Republicans don't have it, so we are forced to have it. We can't start on that by playing pretend. Let's assume you are correct- let' assume that they didn't know. Wouldn't that mean that once they did know- as they have known for a while now, that meant they had a duty, as people who are accountable for their actions- as our leaders, to then act responsibility to say well, we made a mistate (for whatever reasons) and act accordingly. They didn't and until recently haven't. What does that tell you?  You are talking about game theory- let me talk a little bit more about human psychology. Do people who make an honest mistake act the way the Democrats have acted since 2002 until fairly recently? In law, this would be considered someone acting from the state of a guilty mind because rather than trying to correct the error they are trying to cover it up- why? If they aren't acting strictly politically, and you were right- it was an hoenst mistake, there is no reason at this point to behave as they have behaved except political fears.
            •  Here's what I always thought he was thinking ... (none)
              We'll let Bush just march right into town without a fight.

              Everyone in the Army will dress in street clothes.  Distribute and hide weapons caches far and wide.  Regroup.

              After a few months, engage them in urban war ...

              In other words, Saddam did not lose.  You and phil keep saying that, but it is not true.

              The fact that George Bush did not win is a victory for Saddam Hussein.  You assume that just because HE is in jail, he lost.  I disagree with that.

              If a rinky-dink Saddam Hussein can buck the empire and prevent it from just smashing any country it wishes to, whenever it wishes to, then Saddam Hussein did not lose.

              Now, the fact that so many Americans want to focus on Saddam Hussein the person, and not the reality of war is quite unfortunate.

              By doing so, you fan the flames.  By focusing your attention on one person, instead of the facts of war and politics, then people feel justified in launching a war.

              They think, "Saddam is a hideous criminal.  Let's kill him and anybody that gets in our way."

              This is not the way things work.  Unfortunately for America we have to find out the Vietnam way once again, for a new generation, I guess.

              In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

              by yet another liberal on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:50:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Methinks (none)
                you give Saddam far too much credit in wishing for a Pyhrric victory.

                You're right in that I am talking about an individual.  One who I think history shows didn't give a shit about his people beyond the absolute power they afforded him within his borders to do just about ANYTHING he wanted.

                To give that up for the chance to be the next footnote after Ho Chi Minh doesn't ring true with me.

                But who knows...

                (Cross-posted in my pants)

                by Calishfornia on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:55:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Wht horseshit (none)
      Yes, the UN inspectors in the weeks leading up to the invasion had unfettered access to the entire country. Yeah, revisionism indeed, go look it up or were you too bus at the time it was going down drinking the "he has WMDs" kool-aid?

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

      by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:00:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Show me the links (none)

        (Cross-posted in my pants)

        by Calishfornia on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:01:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i think since you are claiming to have better (none)
          information than we do- its up to you to show us. that's a fair point since you are saying tat we are engaged in monday morning quarterbacking- fine- show up that for example what i heard by the inspectors in npr in the lead up to the war was not in fact accurate- all i can tell you is that i listened daily to npr and other programs and read a lot at the time- the stuff i am saying and suggestion you contact them for the info
          •  That's a lie (none)
            as I'm saying the exact opposite.

            My claim is that the information at the time was confusing and contradictory and that those who now claim to have known all along that what ended up happening was obvious and apparent at the time to all are for the most part kidding themselves and jumping on the bandwagon to further their own agendas.

            Mitch is making the claim that Saddam played no games and made no manuevers adding to that confusion and I call bullshit.

            He's a big boy.  I'm sure he can back it up.

            (Cross-posted in my pants)

            by Calishfornia on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:15:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Here ya go (4.00)
          Chronology of IAEA Inspections & Key Events

          Show me in any of those IAEA reports form the time in late 02 to the time the inspectors evacuate on the 18th of March 2003 where they report being blocked from the inspection of any facilities.

          And please not the DOZENS upon dozens of inspections, including unannounced inspections listed (and read the briefings on them)

          I'm sorry, but I am done wasting my time with people who remain WILLFULLY ignorant.

          Read the fucking reports.

          cheers,

          Mitch Gore

          Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

          by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:22:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I (3.50)
            stand corrected and am humbled.

            Perhaps I am willfully ignorant...

            (Cross-posted in my pants)

            by Calishfornia on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:40:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No worries (none)
              Being ignorant is how we all start out. Hell I am grossly ignorant of a lot o things. But at least you and I can overcome ignorance by getting the facts, educating ourselves and such. Now those who are actually stupid... (wry grin)

              cheers,

              Mitch Gore

              Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

              by Lestatdelc on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:45:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (59)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Elections (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Racism (17)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site