Scott McClellan

[PSUFAN]

Yeah - let us know when you subdue the Satire, Wags.



(l,r; Wags, the Satire)

[War Wagon]

I only come here for the snack cakes and AP postings.

nah, you come here for the same reason we all do, and AP isn't that reason.

Snack cakes? That may be another story. Not big on sweets, myself.

[War Wagon]

Yeah - let us know when you subdue the Satire, Wags.

Why? You wouldn't recognize it.

Rack that anyway.

[M Club]

1. I don't know if we're winning or not M Club, I don't know if we're losing either. You said we were losing so I was hoping to see how you were measuring that.

I didn't say we were winning or losing, either. I suppose I made an analogy about bragging about second half points but losing the game by 30, but that was in regard to the fact there were stated objectives for this invasion, we've failed to meet them, and now certain people are pointing the the surge as vindication of Bush's decision to go to war in the first place. That sort of thinking resembles the campaign Hillary Clinton just ran into the ground. You don't start a basketball game with the understanding that the most points win and then halfway through decide the most baskets will actually determine the outcome. The surge is an entirely different consideration than the invasion. Unless, of course, the point of the surge was to find WMDs.

2. I think he listens to the subject matter experts and trusts them to carry out their duties. I also think when success occurs he defers and upon failure he accepts responsibility and tries to correct the situation.

3. That's your opinion and your judgement. I take it at face value, I don't have X-Ray Soul Glasses to assess what is in Bush's heart when he pays respects to those serving. Many troops are aware their mission was broader than simply finding WMD's and many are still behind the mission.

While #3 is obviously my opinion, to an extent #2 isn't. Like I already said, those experts of yours were mostly political appointees and were obviously cherry picking which intelligence to include in their reports. Despite the shortcomings in American intelligence gathering, it's still safe to assume the CIA and FBI are always going to be more objective and reliable than a separate office set up by Cheney, whose 007 was Doug Feith and top mole was Ahmed Chalabi.

4. No it was a response to your rhetoric about why Iraq and not .... other places with even worst humanitarian crisis going on. Everyone knows, the only reason we're dicking around in the middle east is primarily oil.

Yeah, then why not come out and say it? Bush, not you. Your argument has been that Bush saw the intelligence and thoughtfully decided Saddam was too much of a risk, mushroom clouds and all. I said that was horseshite. You said he wouldn't have sacrificed all those lives if he didn't think it was the right thing to do, which obviously begs the question concerning other situations just as grave. And gathering. Or whatever.

5. This is the common ground.

Eventually I will read back to discover what are common ground is. I still forget what 5 was.

6. It wasn't arbitrary at all. Some suggest he was set up from the get go, potentially the case, but I think it was a simple matter of natures course. Throughout the Cold War he was used by the United States because Iran was being nasty and Iran was in bed with the Soviets. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that. Once that problem was removed and Saddam was "set loose" he chose to exercise his desire to become some sort of modern day Saladin. That threatened the region, so he entered the sights and was targetted twice. He got his hand slapped the first time and sent to time out, he kept screwing off, so this time he was killed. It never has been any different in the world of geopolitics. Allies turn into enemies and enemies turn into allies.

You're right: it wasn't arbitrary regarding the sequencing of our geopolitics. I was saying it's arbitrary considering we can throw a dart at a map and make nearly the same case for whichever country it lands on. People will point out the UN sanctions, but considering the US's influence there, all we'd need is some time to ram a few things through the security council and then use the resulting violations of Resolution Bullshite as reason enough for preemptive war.

I'm curious, though, about the second go 'round. He came out of time out and screwed around how? By not letting inspectors in who were withdrawn so the US could cluster bomb his country? He was managing a crippled economy and a useless military. At least Saladin could ride a horse.

7. I think the implications of Saddam Hussein being able to provide himself with WMDs to take out his neighbors and Israel are a lot more far reaching than some unlucky bastard who got killed by NYPD.

I think you're willfully refusing to see my point. I'm not saying the Iraq fiasco and Diallo's death rate the same in terms of tragedy. I'm pointing out the similarities in thinking: that yeah, now we know, but only because we reacted disproportionately to what the circumstances called for. Our dead and wounded, their dead and wounded, and $500 billion is quite a bit of cost. We could've just floated Hans Blix a cool billion and found out the same about WMDs as well as saved a lot of people from dying and things.