(no subject)

[razorjak]

So Chimpy McFuckstick doesn't think we're heading into a recession.

He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.

...

I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.

Comments

[geekalpha.livejournal.com]

"Then don't try to say Sarin is not an NBC weapon because some Japanese Nuts couldn't aerosolize it."

Aaaaaand, I didn't. Read all the words.

"Then why is that the ONLY thing that the antiwar BDS crowd latch onto?"

Because our administration has lied to us, utterly and completely. And, patsies like you continue to back those lies, for reasons that truly escape me.

The case was not "treaty violation" the case was "preemption due to clear and present danger," which was entirely false. Some sarin shells don't change that.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

You said they hardly qualified and minimalized it's hazard or qualification as an NBC because someone couldn't develop a good delivery system.

It's a binary question YES/NO. Not this 'NOT really' crap. You want to speak in Absolutes? Then guess what, your absolute position is full of holes.

Were there NBC weapons in Iraq? YES.

The case was not "treaty violation" the case was "preemption due to clear and present danger," which was entirely false. Some sarin shells don't change that.


It does when you say there were NO NBC weapons. Again, even unfilled shells are violations of the treaty. Further, there's the whole intent issue with regards to Iraq. And the support for terrorist going into the year 2000. Sweep it under the rug all you want. There's still a big bloody lump that you're going to trip over.

Even if we set aside that any functional programs were closed down or sufficiently hidden (I'd place money on scientists and data along with some production gear going to Syria) there was still intent which the post invasion teams found to be exactly in the direction that supported the case for war. Up to 2003 Iraq was making noises through diplomatic channels that it HAD a NBC program of some sort. It was a bluff, but it still supports authorization for war.

I guarantee you that if Jak was working as a bouncer and had a troublemaker come on to property that he'd seen armed before and the troublemaker gestured in his pocket as if he had a firearm, Jak would use deadly force on the troublemaker and wouldn't give a rats ass about his lack of a real weapon.

To me, the principle's the same. Iraq had warnings, it prevaricated and obfuscated as well as hindered the inspection process and never lived up to terms, when push came to shove and it tried to bluff again, we called the bluff.

[geekalpha.livejournal.com]

Treaty violation was not the justification for war.

The justification for war was a clear and present danger presented by an active, and possibly already productive, secret nuclear weapons program which was then artificially changed to the meaningless political weasel-term of "Weapons of Mass Destruction," which mystically has been downgraded to small amounts of obsolete chemical weapons. Which is presented as exactly the same thing as nuclear weapons because they are "WMDs" and by false dichotomy Conservative talking points pundits think they can just smugly shout down dissent.

Nope, a clear and present danger of nucs != WMD != to Sarin arty shells.

This is a rhetorical trick that amounts to little more than a lie.

The American people were told that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States. This was then and is now untrue, and the intelligence that supported the assertions was cynically manipulated to support the assertion of danger.

It was a lie, and you are either a fool or complicit to continue to support and re-tell this lie.