Comments on: Gee, George Bush and the White House Lied about Iraq and Uranium

By: SeattleBruce

SeattleBruce — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:54:56 +0000

OK, so now there is 0% trusting any western intel? The intelligence services of the West to some degree know/knew who the leaders of AQ were and are. Can you not agree with that? If you can’t agree with that, then let’s just stop and talk about something else…like recipes…

It’s very easy to understand how we can know about Osama bin Laden, for instance or Al-Zarqawi, and not actually capture or kill them for years. We listen to thousands and thousands of sources and piece together some reasonable intel picture. It’s what keeps our butts from being blown away by entities that would love nothing more than to kill us all. But you distrust that? Yeah, I’d like to see you take on the Islamic jihad without that safety net in place..

By: SeattleBruce

SeattleBruce — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:51:49 +0000

“In fact, this war brought America to it’s knees on the backs of a bunch of talentless Harvard PhD’s.

So, what does it mean, anymore?”

I agree that PHD can sometimes mean piled higher and deeper. But this sort of arrogance does not eliminate the other factual considerations proving that having Saddam Hussein’s rogue regime gone may have ultimately prove to be the best thing for the world.

By: SeattleBruce

SeattleBruce — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:52:05 +0000

In fact, this war brought America to it’s knees on the backs of a bunch of talentless Harvard PhD’s.

So, what does it mean, anymore?

I agree, sometimes PHD means piled higher and deeper. However, there were and are objective facts about Iraq that we can agree upon. For instance, having 500 tons of yellowcake uranium, and the 3rd largest reserve of oil wealth in the hands of a proven mad megalomaniac, who used WMD – is quite a danger and would tend, over time, to get more, not less dangerous (to address the ‘we were doing fine just containing him’ idea. For all the madness of the mullahs in Iran, even they have not used WMDs on their own population – although they are brutal and sick in their own right.)

By: SeattleBruce

SeattleBruce — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:47:13 +0000

“Of course, There’s no balance or objectivity to empirical evidence. It simply is what is.”

That’s ridiculous. Viewing something as it is, is exactly empirical and objective. 500 tons of yellowcake secretly removed from Iraq because of it’s dangerous nature – means it was EXTREMELY dangerous – despite what you may feel about it, or how you may feel viscerally about Bush.

By: WIldChild

WIldChild — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:38:03 +0000

We invaded and didn’t find anything. The threat wasn’t real.

By: WIldChild

WIldChild — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:35:38 +0000

500 tons of yellow cake means Saddam didn’t attempt to reconstitute his nuclear program. Oh and I’m a big fan of empirical evidence. Of course, There’s no balance or objectivity to empirical evidence. It simply is what is.

By: Garry

Garry — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:31:59 +0000

What’s the definition of the scientific method, to you?

Some of those who like to think themselves the most rational are the stupidest, the least intelligent.

Even with a Harvard PHD, go figure.

In fact, this war brought America to it’s knees on the backs of a bunch of talentless Harvard PhD’s.

So, what does it mean, anymore?

By: SeattleBruce

SeattleBruce — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:31:03 +0000

i.e. the Iraq threat was not real? Also, did you support the first Gulf War?

By: SeattleBruce

SeattleBruce — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:28:39 +0000

What? Those terms don’t exist in your reality? Do you believe in objective or empirical truth? Do you believe in the scientific method? What does 500 tons of yellow cake uranium mean to you, you know, personally? How does it make you feel?

By: SeattleBruce

SeattleBruce — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:23:48 +0000

Did Bush (himself) lie about Iraq’s nuclear WMD? Could be. Manipulate that intel? Probably. However, we cannot just dream away Saddam the pariah, the WMD he owned and used against innocents, and his totally worrisome future sitting atop the THIRD largest oil reserves on the globe. I comprehend that what has happened in Iraq and with Al Qaeda has been a very high price, but specific security threats were eliminated, much of AQs leadership has been killed (or nuetralized), and Iraq is now able to play a nuetralizing role in this tumultuous region.

By: WIldChild

WIldChild — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:20:24 +0000

using the terms balanced and objectively are pretty good indicators that you drank the Kool aid

By: SeattleBruce

SeattleBruce — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:18:17 +0000

Did I drink the Kool-aid? OR, is there a more balanced ground to assume if the facts of the Iraq, Al Qaeda & Middle East are viewed objectively?

By: WIldChild

WIldChild — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:16:48 +0000

interesting limitation.

By: SeattleBruce

SeattleBruce — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:15:53 +0000

No, I stated that focusing on Saddam’s then current nuclear WMD capabilites ‘was what Bush did wrong.’

By: TeakwoodKite

TeakwoodKite — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:11:35 +0000

How can you quantify what you can not define? what happened to other 25%? If you knew what 100% was then would they not all be …Gitmo’ed or worse?

75% of their current leadership is dead