U.S. says Iraq may have junked toxic arms

May 28, 2003 9:29 AM

U.S. says Iraq may have junked toxic arms Thus spake Rummy in a speech. We know they have them. If we can not find them it is because they got rid of them. But that still means they had them at one time, right? Question: what are those top scientists and Bath party members telling their captors wherever they are being held for questioning? Or is too important to reveal too.
posted by Postroad (64 comments total)

I hate this. I wish he did have the damn things sitting there in some warehouse, so we could all go 'See?' and move on to the business of doing our best in the country messed up by that monster/sanctions/war (delete as appropriate to your credo).

But if he did have them before the war, why the hell would he get rid of them? Surely an imminent attack is the exact time when he would want them primed.

Either he didn't have any in the first place (in which case why the hell was it so impossible for the anti-war posse to prove that he had none?) or there was some kind of agreement that the US could have the country in return for Saddam's escape. Or is that just a lame false dichotomy? Sorry I'm a bit drunk. No excuse I know...
posted by pots at 9:41 AM on May 28, 2003

I was going to post 'blah blah blah blah blah blah' here, but decided not to.
posted by angry modem at 9:42 AM on May 28, 2003

Yeah, yeah. So I guess that "he destroyed them" is today's round piece of shit to be rammed into the enormous square hole in Rumsfeld and Bush'h logic.

Tomorrow, back to "we found a smoking gun." Or whatever recycled lie best confuses the lowest common denominator from which they derive their consent and strength.

P.S. He gassed his own people.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:45 AM on May 28, 2003

We do know that Iraq had some chemical weapons at some time in the past. Whether they had any in recent years, as a yes-or-no question, is less important than A) whether they were of sufficient extent to directly threaten the U.S. or its allies in the Middle East; and B) whether the government lied to itself and/or the public about the extent of said weapons.

I don't think the answer to either question reflects kindly on the judgement of the Bush administration.

I also don't believe the American public, on the whole, give a rat's ass, as they were eager to see some Arab, somewhere, pay up for 9/11. The rest is just details.
posted by argybarg at 9:47 AM on May 28, 2003

How do you prove that something doesn't exist? Logically impossible.
posted by xmutex at 9:51 AM on May 28, 2003

Interesting argybarg that your statement, "I also don't believe the American public, on the whole, give a rat's ass, as they were eager to see some Arab, somewhere, pay up for 9/11. The rest is just details," is the same kind of rationalle that terrorists must use when blowing up innocent men women and children.

I guess we're all the same under the skin, eh?

It's something that the Bush junta, et al. (and indeed, if your statement is true, the majority of the American public) seem to be forgetting in the way they're intent on dealing with such terrorists; "battle ye not with monsters lest ye become a monster also."
posted by Blue Stone at 9:55 AM on May 28, 2003

So many (proven) lies and we are still debating whether they are telling the truth. Sigh...
posted by acrobat at 10:03 AM on May 28, 2003

'blah blah blah blah blah blah'
debka
'blah blah blah blah blah blah'
sharon
'blah blah blah blah blah blah'
troll
'blah blah blah blah blah blah'
telegraph
'blah blah blah blah blah blah'
asshat
'blah blah blah blah blah blah'
'blah blah blah blah blah blah'
posted by matteo at 10:10 AM on May 28, 2003

If someone was about to invade your country, would you get rid of your weapons?
posted by plep at 10:14 AM on May 28, 2003

Mark Bowden, the author of Blackhawk Down, wrote a good column on the unaccounted for WMD.
posted by homunculus at 10:20 AM on May 28, 2003

If someone was about to invade your country, would you get rid of your weapons?

Maybe. Saddam must have known that with or without chemical/biological weapons, he was going to lose. Perhaps by not using and maybe even destroying his WMDs, Saddam perhaps was banking on enough international pressure from France, Germany, Russia, etc. to halt the U.S. attack. If Saddam had kept and used his weapons, almost every country in the would would have turned against Saddam and no one would then be willing to call for a halt to the war. Given the circumstances, if Saddam had WMDs before the war, it certainly would've been a better strategy to destroy them than to use the weapons. That's just MHO.
posted by gyc at 10:38 AM on May 28, 2003

They know they had WMD because they have the receipts!
posted by DrDoberman at 10:39 AM on May 28, 2003

Blue Stone:

Sure. The whole war was obviously ridiculous. But it also took place in ambiguous territory.

Let's say you were a junior high school (relax, it's not real). Someone has been harassing you, leaving nasty phone calls and then, suddenly, killing your beloved dog. You lose your mind and, along with a couple of your friends, beat up the school bully one grade below yours. He probably had nothing to do with your problems, but everybody hated him anyway.

It's hard to get too upset about you taking out a bully, even if it was a mistake. The problem is that we should hold nations to a higher standard of behavior than junior high school students -- but we don't.
posted by argybarg at 10:44 AM on May 28, 2003

I still remember the speeches from Bush and Powell telling everyone that they absolutely knew Saddam had thousands of pounds of Sarin, VX, etc.
Most already know that if this were true we would easily find the remnants had they been recently destroyed.
They lied.
It's time for some accountability.
Even school yard bullies get their comeuppance and it's time to pay the piper Duhbya.
posted by nofundy at 11:21 AM on May 28, 2003

must..fight...urge...to...say...something...about...posting...Iraq...related...crud...

oops, too late
posted by blue_beetle at 11:41 AM on May 28, 2003

nofundy, many times school yard bullies do not get their comeuppance and regardless, POTUS will never pay the piper. I have a feeling you're in for another 5 1/2 years of frustration which will likely culminate in your self-righteous suicide. The only question will be what are you going to target?
posted by David Dark at 12:26 PM on May 28, 2003

David Dark is a very funny Ashcroft operative! (the voices in my head are telling me so)

So David, anything you want to contribute to the conversation?
posted by nofundy at 12:31 PM on May 28, 2003

And remember: It's only "contributing" if you agree. Extra points for shrillness!
posted by UncleFes at 12:43 PM on May 28, 2003

I know this is somewhat ironic given the amount of time I devote to political threads, but gosh, Postroad, I'd like to commend you for the patience and resolve you've shown in what must have been the tortuous 48 hours you went without posting an FPP spinning the U.S.'s complete lack of discovery of any Iraqi WMD as a sign that, obviously, Iraq has them.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:55 PM on May 28, 2003

Talk about WMD experts--ol' David Dark's been reporting the smoking guns for months now.

Too bad they both turned out to be busts. Oh, well, he did post the picture of the little Iraqi girl with the little American flag--which turned out to be as for real as as his bogus WMD bulletins, of course...
posted by y2karl at 1:57 PM on May 28, 2003

Postroad, you seem absolutely desperate to prove that weapons of mass destruction still remain in Iraq.

But don't you get it yet? The US and UK Governments are trying to let us down gently. They knew all along that there were few weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq - perhaps none at all. The supposed hoards of chemical and biological weapons were never going to be plentiful.

Yes of course we know Iraq once had the weapons (we sold them a few of them!) but the justification behind the war was that Iraq still has the weapons. From this point on the Rumsfelds and Blairs of this world will hope citizens like us simply forget about the whole WMD thing and begin to think about whatever nation they want to attack next.
posted by skylar at 2:35 PM on May 28, 2003

Right. First it was supposedly unimpeachable evidence that vast stores of WMDs existed and were an imminent danger to the U.S. (which "evidence" was used to justify the wholesale slaughter of thousands of innocent humans, and later found to be based on shoddy research and outright lies), followed by a whole slew of "smoking guns" leapt upon desperately by gullible apologists for Bush et al. Now the latest rationalization is that WMDs were destroyed before they could be rediscovered.

Really. What's next? "My dog ate my homework....and also Saddam's WMDs"

It says worlds that supporters of this sad little song and dance apparently have NO questions whatsoever about either the competence or the veracity of the current U.S. administration.

I have a feeling you're in for another 5 1/2 years of frustration which will likely culminate in your self-righteous suicide. The only question will be what are you going to target?

That's one of the more hateful and dumb statements I've read here. If you're going to play your stupid little game at that level and talk about "suicides", why don't you ponder for a while the intellectual and ethical....nay.... gonadal "suicide" apparently suffered right now by those who so consistently and desperately swallow and regurgitate whatever Bush and "Rummy" tell them to believe.

Pathetic...
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:03 PM on May 28, 2003

>But that still means they had them at one time, right?

Of course. We kept the reciepts!

(Oh Bill Hicks, you left us too early)

Anything to curb the national neurosis of attacking a country for reasons best described as lies on top of lies, eh?
posted by skallas at 4:06 PM on May 28, 2003

UPDATE: Rumsfeld has retracted his statement.

Links available when the online news gets it's ass in gear.
posted by Blue Stone at 4:30 PM on May 28, 2003

We know they have them. If we can not find them it is because they got rid of them.

That's right, and when you catch Lucky you get his gold AND the cereal.
posted by holycola at 5:12 PM on May 28, 2003

"The U.S. decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction above all others was taken for 'bureaucratic' reasons to justify the war, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in remarks released on Wednesday."
posted by homunculus at 5:53 PM on May 28, 2003

There seems a bit of confusion here as to my reason for posting. I had for some time believbed the WMD were thee. I seem now to have dead wrong. And I am willing to admit it. And why not when I have it on this authority, no less than the guy resposnbile for the war, perhaps:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2840293

As for WMD not being there for the war. They were, perhaps, removed before the inspectors were allowed back in. Recall they had been kicked out. Saddam, certain the US was pushing for war, invited inspectors back in. Some sources suggested they might well have been moved to Syhria, buried in and around Southern Lebanon.

Thus, I am now on the other side: show us the weapons and not the claims. Can you now see that my post was not intended to justify the Bush administration, as should have been clear from the snotty way I presented the post?
posted by Postroad at 7:10 PM on May 28, 2003

Looks like the "decapitation strike" was a bust too.
posted by owillis at 7:23 PM on May 28, 2003

I'd like to see a collation of pre-war claims and post-war findings. And of during-war big-time media and military claims versus reality. I'd like to see a well-structured document that illustrates how the US Government manipulated the media and lied to its citizens and to the world; and how the media lied to citizens and to the world.

I think it is important for people to become sharply aware that the government can not be trusted and to become far more cynical about its motives. And to learn that the media can not be trusted, and to seek more sources of information.

And I'd also like to see some analysis of the costs and potential outcomes of the war against Iraq. Has anyone come up with a good "feel" for what's going to happen? Are the benefits (whatever they may be, to Iraqis, Americans, and the world) going to outweight the costs (umpteen billions of dollars pissed away and an economy that has tanked, thousands upon thousands of dead civilians, a country left in ruin)

Anyway, if anyone were wishing for a research topic for an FPP, that'd be a good one. Make it the Iraq FPP to end all Iraq FPPs. Please, make it one to end all Iraq FPPs! ('cause, hey, it looks like Isreal-Palestine is going to come back into the picture, oh joy, oy vey.)

and despite the tone of this post, I'd like said research to attempt to present a balanced and truthful depiction of what went down.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:07 PM on May 28, 2003

So David, anything you want to contribute to the conversation?

No, not really, you?

y2karl, give it a rest. One time, over at Iraqfilter, I reported a story about WMD inside a thread about WMD (imagine!) and that makes me a WMD expert? The other thread somebody asked about anthrax and there happened to be a story in the news that day about anthrax, so I linked to it. Shoot me.

Oh, and the little girl with the flag was staged? Hadn't heard that. But rest assured, the pictures of Yoda and Cat in the Hat that you posted in that thread are totally legitimate. At least I'm on topic, jackass.

That's one of the more hateful and dumb statements I've read here.

Yes! I've often wondered if you ever bother reading your own tripe, and now I don't have to wonder anymore. Thanks for clearing that up.

If you 'd like to read more contenders for the title, here are some of my favorites of yours:
hateful. dumb. more dumb. Fucking retarded.
posted by David Dark at 2:53 AM on May 29, 2003

Sigh. So much for remaining on topic.

Here's a question - we invaded because we insisted that they actually had WMDs ready to go. We knew they didn't however, and we ran in and seized the oil. Of course Rummy's actually admitting it now; the damage is done, and there's no need to justify causing it any more.

My question is - will anyone actually hold the Bush administration accountable for the outright deceptions used to justify the illegal occupation of Iraq? And the violation of international law? And the flouting of the United Nations and our allies?
posted by FormlessOne at 6:52 AM on May 29, 2003

The more posts I read from Dark David, the more I yearn for the wit and wisdom of ParisParamus.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:02 AM on May 29, 2003

five fresh fish, admit it. That's not all you yearn for from PP. I had my doubts about you from the beginning. Fucking Canadians. Seriously, though, it's rather pompous of you to request that someone else create what you would consider a worthwhile FPP about Iraq, to include all of your explicitly stated criteria while presenting a balanced and truthful (anti-Bush) depiction. Here's an idea. You're the fucking technical writer. You do it. I'll help get your lazy ass started. Here's the full text of Powell's address to the UN on Iraq.

FormlessOne... where do you get that Rummy's admitting we knew they didn't have WMD? His quote was... "We know they have them." So how do you get from that to "We know they don't have them." Those are opposites. Help us all make the leap in logic with you by explaining your reasoning, or else I don't think you can consider yourself "on-topic" since everything you've stated relies on that single false premise. Sigh. So much for intelligent commentary.
posted by David Dark at 11:33 AM on May 29, 2003

Ooh, eee, look how he lashes out. Oh me, oh my.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:08 PM on May 29, 2003

At least I'm on topic, jackass.

All you've done is attack people. I don't believe that is the topic.
posted by y2karl at 5:14 PM on May 29, 2003

WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz

For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

See, they were just kiddin'... please disregard the following:

WMD in Iraq: who said what, and when

Sample quotes:

We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that.

Donald Rumsfeld, March 30

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised ... Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.

George Bush, March 18
posted by y2karl at 5:32 PM on May 29, 2003

posted by homunculus at 5:59 PM on May 29, 2003

The Dems and the U.S. public may meekly accept the administration's ever-changing answers about Saddam's alleged weapons. But our foreign allies don't -- and the more the White House spins, the angrier they get.
posted by homunculus at 9:04 PM on May 29, 2003

Formlessone, you have the $10,000 question. And I think you know the sad answer. I wish there were someone who could take these war criminals to trial. The UN can't do it, the US media are toothless, and the Dems appear to suffer a strange ennui. When I let myself think about it, the implications of all this stagger me. Every passing day I'm increasingly mystified (and horrified) by what's going on, and by the people (us) who are presumably letting it happen.
posted by squirrel at 10:21 PM on May 29, 2003

fish, you call that lashing out? My, you've led a sheltered existence, child. Consider yourself lucky. I can't find anything in my preceding comment that could intelligently be construed as lashing out, but to each his own. Try reading it again, this time use your happy voice. See? In case you're referencing my use of the word "fuck" I'll tell you a little secret. I use the word "fuck" all the time. I like the word "fuck". 95% of the time I use it, I've got a smile on my face. I still can't say "Fucking Canadians" without a chuckle. heh. Fucking Canadians. That's you. :)

y2karl, at 5:14 pm your only contribution to the thread was an attack on me. At least you realized your error and did a quick google as cover; there's the promise of hope in a hypocrite who recognizes himself as such and tries to correct it. Good show, old chap, transparent as it may be.

Here's a quote you missed:

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it."

Hans Blix, January 27

And while we're quoting Rumsfeld:

"I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the challenges in a transition from tyranny to a free and civil society. The problems are real, to be sure:
· looting, crime and mobs storming government buildings;
· the breakdown of government structures and institutions that maintained civil order;
· rampant inflation caused by the lack of a stable currency;
· supporters of the former regime roaming the streets and countryside whose fate has to be determined;
· regional tensions between north and south;
· delays, bickering and false starts in the effort to establish a new government.

If these problems sound familiar, they should: they are historians' descriptions of the conditions here in America in 1783 - in the period after our nation's war for independence."

Rumsfeld rejects Iraq WMD doubts

Patience, children.

Wolfowitz clarifies reasons for war

You mean there's more than one? GASP!

Reasons for the Iraq war

Just in case you really care!

All the catastrophic predictions by the anti-war talkers turned out to be bunk, so now they're happily putting all of their eggs in the No WMD basket, which was never the only reason to go to war, but an important one, nonetheless. What I want to know is what drum you'll be banging when they finally do find them... You all do have a Plan B, right?

squirrel, what you're witnessing from the Dems isn't an ennui, but more a stoic acceptance of reality. They've seen the intelligence reports, too, you know.
posted by David Dark at 1:52 AM on May 30, 2003

...And the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. military officers had told troops that soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division had captured an Iraqi BMP Armored Personnel Carrier that was believed to contain sarin gas and mustard gas.
Posted by David Dark at 18:40 GMT, April 7, 2003.

Your track record on predictions leaves muchy to be desired.

I don't really care whether any weapons are found or not. I still support the war.

The war shows that Saddam cannot be deterred into doing or not doing things by threat of force.

Who cares if Saddam has WMD right now? If he ever did, he'd use 'em without considering potential retaliation.

We could not threaten him into resigning, even with a force capable of removing him.

Why should we be able to threaten him into not using WMD?

If he doesn't have 'em now, so what? He might later, and he would not respond to deterrence once he does.
Posted by Dirty at 08:03 GMT, April 6, 2003.

And the power of your logic is as underwhelming now as it was then.
posted by y2karl at 3:15 AM on May 30, 2003

D'oh! That was Dirty on the second quote. I should just quit when I'm ahead.
posted by y2karl at 3:21 AM on May 30, 2003

in my head has appeared the most splendid one act play!

bush: you know, they're like big ole fire crackers that can kill a man. I mean, I never seen'm but I know he's got'm. I mean, he's arab ain't he? not that I'm saying that all arabs are bad, it's just that well...didn't he starve his folks? he's a despot and he's got these big ole fire crackers and...

dirty: shh shh shh! (pets the head of bush) it's ok, hon, calm down. that's not important now. it's ok, it's ok. why don't you go run along and have this war you keep on about?

bush: do ya mean it?

dirty: yes, dear, it's ok. none of that matters to me. I know you want this war more than anything and who am I to stand in the way of someone's happiness? go on now!

bush: aw, shucks! (both hug)
posted by mcsweetie at 6:32 AM on May 30, 2003

Why, yes, y2karl, I believe that sentence, cut and pasted directly from a news source, is the one time that I referenced WMD in the past and you've already linked to it once in this thread.... I don't think that puts you ahead, but you should quit regardless. What's your fucking point, anyway? Oh, my "track record on predictions leaves muchy to be desired." My track record. That one comment. Hey, if you wanted, you could probably get four or five more quotes out of that one paragraph, and post them one at a time, days apart... you know, for effect.

Weren't you the one lambasting the practice of cutting and pasting across different 'filters? Yes, I think that was you. I take back what I said about the promise of hope; it seems your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
posted by David Dark at 8:33 AM on May 30, 2003

David, does the prospect of a country that can invade and occupy sovereign nations for reasons other than preemptive self-protection bother you in any way? Please don't misunderstand me: I know that you believe there remains plenty of justification for our Iraq invasion. I want to know if you believe there should be a limit to our power, or a bar that we must reach in order to justify our actions. And if so, what should happen if we cross the line?
posted by squirrel at 8:46 AM on May 30, 2003

I take back the ParisParamus comment. DD is proving to be just as amusing!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:55 AM on May 30, 2003

Yes, David, I made a mistake. But what's with all the personal attacks?

That was what I responded to in the first place--you hopping in here and taking shots, with no reference at all to the topic. Judging from your history, that's by far the bulk of your comments--slagging people. You suffer from these intermittent bouts of ad hominem hysterics where you just go on these periodical attack sprees. At least I can actually manage to comment on nonpolitical stuff in which I'm interested on occasion from time to time--indeed, most nearly all of the time.

As for the reasons for war with Iraq on that BBC page you linked above--apart from that one Iraqi student, the quotes the BBC supplied are pretty much all about weapons of mass destruction. Do you ever bother to read your links?

You also said change the Q to an N, not the N to a Q.

Well, whether it's ad hominems or accuracy, you are consistent....
posted by y2karl at 10:39 AM on May 30, 2003

maybe y'all shouldn't bother david, he's obviously very upset about something.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:45 AM on May 30, 2003

mcsweetie, thanks for the concern, but I'm fine. I don't mean to sound like I'm angry or upset; I'm actually quite content... this is just the way I write, it's how I'm programmed.

y2karl, take your heart off your sleeve; that's not where it belongs, pal, there's a reason it grows inside a fucking cage. Being called a jackass isn't the end of the world. Get over it, it'll make you a better person.

Your judgment of my history is irrelevant; so what if I find more interest in political issues than I do in pancakes and kittens? You want an evaluation? Okay. You signed up here three days after I did; in the time since then, I've yet to post 300 comments while you've posted 3,000 more than that number. You comment on everything. I'm too busy for that kind of dedication. When I come here, I focus on my interests, and I focus on discussion and disagreement. Discussion, because I thought this was "weblog as conversation", not "weblog as personal soapbox", and disagreement because I'm not the type of guy who needs a cheerleader and therefore I don't typically say things like "Me too! Yay! Great post cartwheels handclaps flip-flops!" Yes, I slag on people and I also get slagged on, frequently. I have no problem with this, why should you?

Besides my being busy, another reason my participation here is so intermittent is this: Taking People By the Fucking Hand. I can only handle so much of this before I need to take a break. That being said, here we go again...

Yes, the BBC link has many references to WMD, what tipped you off, genius, the thread we're in that talks about WMD being a major reason for the war or the 200 other threads talking about WMD being a major reason for the war? IT'S A MAJOR REASON FOR THE WAR. Got it? What else can I do to help you through this tricky mental puzzle? The point is it's not the only reason for the war. Practically every quote that references WMD also references Resolution 1441 that includes but is in no way limited to WMD. Take your time with this one, I mean it. Slow down, do some thinking. There. Isn't that better?

Obligatory slag: Do you even bother to understand what you read, or do you just pick out the words that you know, then draw a conclusion that supports the notion that you're right about every single thought you've ever had?

I want to know if you believe there should be a limit to our power, or a bar that we must reach in order to justify our actions. And if so, what should happen if we cross the line?

Now, this is actually interesting. The answer is abso-fucking-lutely, I do. There is nothing more dangerous than limitless power. Human beings were never meant to have such a thing, they're too easily corrupted by power. But what I see is not limitless power. No one is being granted the power to act with impunity. Though our military is vastly superior to any other, the use of it is far from empirical. This country goes to great lengths to justify its actions, the media keeps a close watch on the powers that be and this helps the citizens of this nation demand accountability of their leaders (at least, a good portion of the intelligent community demands such, and this is often enough to get the job done). But, my God, people, the cry for accountability began before the war even started and at this point is still extremely premature.

We (that's the US) have been at war for a long time but just recently have we gotten serious about it. It is a little scary, explicitly because of the fact that our military is so powerful it looks like the US sweeping through much of the middle east and possibly a few other areas is suddenly a plausible idea. I'm not going to speculate on the future of the middle east nor what the DoD has planned over there. I do believe that getting serious about eradicating terrorists where they sit is a good idea and I don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes. But I'm certainly not an advocate of "My Country, Right or Wrong." What I see a lot of around here and what gets tiresome listening to is "Never My Country, Right or Wrong," which is undeniably just as bad if not a worse postition to hold, as far I'm concerned.
posted by David Dark at 12:46 PM on May 30, 2003

Thanks for answering my question, D. You and I assess our government's actions differently. When the TV and the radio were thundering non-stop for a few weeks there about the WMD threat, I caved a little and began contemplating the darkness of "terror." I privately comforted myself that, although I opposed the war, it would come with the benefit of finding out once and for all whether or not WMD facilities were indeed bustling night and day with me-hating Allah-AKBAR shouting Fox stereotypes sprung to life. For even if it was a craven power-grab, at least the war brought us a stronger hope for peace... and if not peace then perhaps measurably less danger.

You, David, may feel more peace and less danger now; I feel just the opposite. And although I remain dutifuly afraid of "terror," I recognize that, like the cockroach, terror thrives best when local power is scrambled, and that in fact attacking its apparent sources of funding makes it stronger because it feeds on disenfranchisement and desperation.

Going after the roots of terrorism, as you suggest, requires the shovel and the spoon, not the gun.
posted by squirrel at 2:59 PM on May 30, 2003

Well, Squirrel, you're obviously not in touch with reality if you feel that way. The US, indeed the world is certainly safer than it was two months ago. Let me guess. You also think that George W. Bush has a low IQ, and that he has a chance of losing the 2004 election, right?

Next target: It's a toss-up between Iran and Syria. Both are, government-wise, God-awful places (pun intended) run by feudal types. But I think both are better suited to CIA-type action than war. Although bombing Iran's nuclear facilities may be in the works...
posted by ParisParamus at 3:19 PM on May 30, 2003

Paris, you speak of reality as if it's one fixed thing. I think both your and my realities are constructed. You speak of Iran as if it's a chunk of code of parse; I think of it as the home of millions of delicate, poetic people. These's no way we're going to learn each other's reality.
posted by squirrel at 4:19 PM on May 30, 2003

squirrel, you speak of ParisParamus as if it's a rational thing...
posted by UKnowForKids at 6:05 PM on May 30, 2003

"Chunk of code to parse" that is.
posted by squirrel at 7:13 PM on May 30, 2003

When I come here, I focus on my interests, and I focus on discussion and disagreement.

Funny, your first comment here was a personal attack in full sneer on fivefreshfish with no reference to the topic of WMDs at all, which was what the post is about. I just pointed out that that it was odd you'd go into attack mode on a post on this particular topic, considering how you were grasping at straws when you were in high dudgeon the minute it was suggested--over a month ago--that maybe there weren't any WMDs, after all...

Obligatory slag: Do you even bother to understand what you read, or do you just pick out the words that you know, then draw a conclusion that supports the notion that you're right about every single thought you've ever had?

Actually, this sounds more apropos for yourself. You're the guy who linked the reasons for invading Iraq that, save one, all mentioned WMDs. Your spin is everyone else is a fool--obsessive-compulsive slag is more accurate than obligatory--while your comments are positive contributions to the discussion, weblog as communication and all that.

But, truth be told, you always start out hysterically pissed off, taking cheap shots--personal attacks are nearly half of your total comments. And you work so hard putting people down in such utterly devastating, in your own mind, junior high school poison pen style diatribes. We get what your priorities are, David, don't worry about that. You put so much work into your put downs like you think you're some devastating wit. Now, that's what is so amusing and endearing about you... How could we ever take you seriously?

This country goes to great lengths to justify its actions, the media keeps a close watch on the powers that be and this helps the citizens of this nation demand accountability of their leaders (at least, a good portion of the intelligent community demands such, and this is often enough to get the job done).

Funny, I was just reading Save Our Spooks by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times:

"The Al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," notes Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things."

The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that wrote to President Bush this month to protest what it called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."

"While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes," the letter said, "never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war."

This has been so obvious from the outset that I am afraid I must disagree your But, my God, people, the cry for accountability began before the war even started and at this point is still extremely premature. As Paul Krugman's companion Waggy Dog Stories notes:

The war was justified to the public by links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. No evidence of the Qaeda link has ever surfaced, and no W.M.D.'s that could have posed any threat to the U.S. or its allies have been found. ...Administration officials are now playing down the whole W.M.D. issue. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, recently told Vanity Fair that the decision to emphasize W.M.D.'s had been taken for "bureaucratic reasons . . . because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." But it was the W.M.D. issue that stampeded the Senate into giving Mr. Bush carte blanche to wage war.

He notes, too, a new poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes finds that 41 percent of Americans either believe that W.M.D.'s have been found, or aren't sure.

They hear the breathless reports about the missiles with chemical warheads from NPR or Judith Millers I-can't-give-you-the-details-for-security-reasons-but-Ahmed-Chalabi-just-told-me reports on the mobile bio-warfare labs.

The first reports are always the smoking gun--and there have been so many smoking guns already--whereas the details lead to retractions and evasions buried in the back pages. We claim the labs are biological warfare labs but no germs are found anywhere near these labs. As the Times noted in their May 13th editorial, Iraq's Mobile Labs, That judgment will need confirmation from outside experts if it is to carry weight in world opinion. Amen to that.

What I see a lot of around here and what gets tiresome listening to is "Never My Country, Right or Wrong," which is undeniably just as bad if not a worse position to hold, as far I'm concerned.

So, some of us questioned the whole WMD propaganda effort from day one?

Well, duh--what do you expect with clumsily plagiarized term papers, bogus claims of tons of sarin and VX and anthrax in Iraqi possession and, hey, let's not forget those aluminum tubes for processing uranium... Well, jeez, we were dealing with the Gang That Couldn't Lie Straight after all.
posted by y2karl at 9:06 PM on May 30, 2003

y2karl, DD and I have a history, hence the full on sneer from him. He's a hard-on prick who pays me far too much attention, the implications of which I prefer not to ponder.

[seinfeld] Not that there's anything wrong with that. [/seinfeld]

I might consider sending him some sweaty undies if he figures it'll bring him some relief.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:50 PM on May 30, 2003

David Dark:
What is it that you think you are contributing here?
What is it that you are getting out of Metafilter?

All of the biographical information sort of misses the point. Yeah, unwarranted personal attacks and periodic illogical insults are in your nature? But why, then, do you continue to talk to other people?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:14 AM on May 31, 2003

The US, indeed the world is certainly safer than it was two months ago.

Bin Laden: out there somewhere
Hussein: in Iraq out there somewhere
ParisParamus: stretching for a silver lining for the war he wanted even more than Rumsfeld.

Let me guess. You also think that George W. Bush has a low IQ, and that he has a chance of losing the 2004 election, right?

and allow me to hazard a guess, you don't care about being propogandized and lied to and you don't care what bush's motives were so long as he tried to kill hussein?
posted by mcsweetie at 4:58 AM on May 31, 2003

I think of it as the home of millions of delicate, poetic people. These's no way we're going to learn each other's reality.

I have no doubt. But this is in spite of the mullahs, not because of them. Combine the mullahs with money to proliferate nuclear arms, and there's a problem we can't ignore.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:29 PM on May 31, 2003

Combine the mullahs with money to proliferate nuclear arms, and there's a problem we can't ignore.

wait, so now we're gonna go after people because they have enough money to buy weapons of mass destruction?
posted by mcsweetie at 5:58 PM on May 31, 2003

Funny, your first comment here was a personal attack in full sneer on fivefreshfish

All right, let's go through this together, because maybe I'm missing something here...

My first comment was to nofundy (not fish, y2karl; I swear, even the simple things...), disagreeing with the climax of his lackadaisical, let's-string-up-Bush-and-hang-him-from-a-tree, typical nofundy comment. nofundy either grew up in Hollywood or never had to deal with a schoolyard bully. Either way, with a name like Looney bin Laden and a vicious vitriolic political view against the government, I made a prediction based on what I might do if I was a Looney bin Laden with that kind of pent-up hatred. He immediately replied with his own personal attack on me, and everything was copacetic, until...

along comes y2karl, who can't resist (obsessive? compulsive?) slagging on me, declaring me a (gasp!) WMD-expert of all things and implying that pretty much everything I've ever said has turned out to be wrong. Amazing contribution, that. First comment, personal attack, the nerve!

Next, fold_and_mutilate, of all people, informs me that I've crossed some kind of line with my remark because apparently jokes about hypothetical suicide bombings are not as funny as jokes about killing babies or jokes about actual true-life suicide bombings being morally superior to eating a hamburger. He proceeds to call me dumb, hateful, stupid, and pathetic, which I'm sure everyone would agree is a perfectly legitimate way to address another user as long as you swear to hate the President.

My next comment, me defending myself against unwarranted personal attacks and illogical insults and not much more. This is where the word jackass came up, which is the only word that came to mind while I was forced to remember y2karl's ridiculous repetitive picture posting in the thread he mentioned, titled "Euphoria in Bahgdad," where a little Iraqi girl holding an American flag seemed... appropriate.

then here comes fish with an unwarranted personal attack on me, and I having not yet even mentioned his name.

Ya know, if I was more of a hypocrite, this kind of treatment might lead me to ask what's with all the personal attacks? But, you know me, I'm a bastion of consistency and wouldn't dream of posting such a moronic question when I'd been making personal attacks myself throughout the thread. I'd really have to be some kind of half-retarded idiot to do something like that. (These are not personal attacks because I'm not addressing any person directly; see how clever that is? ~Gag~)

So then y2karl gets me feeling a little guilty with his comment that I haven't said anything about the topic, that ever interesting "Still none?" topic, but even so I do a little digging and come up with plenty of relevant links that we could discuss, but y2karl prefers instead to dig up a quote I made on another website so he can call it dumb and then adds any other quotes he can find by anyone who's name starts with a capital D, because like, that's what my name starts with and then he can call that dumb, too. Wonderful, truly amazing dialogue inspiring stuff, to be sure.

you always start out hysterically pissed off...

How the fuck would you know? Ask an actor how many different emotions he could convey by reading the same exact words over and over again using only slightly different inflections, and the answer would be all of them. God damn, you are an ignorant bastard. Guess what emotion is behind that line? Nope, wrong again!

And you work so hard putting people down

Actually, it's pretty easy.

You put so much work into your put downs

Have you ever noticed that you tend to be redundant, you repeat yourself, you say things more than once?

Seriously, you have to be pretty fucked up in the head to think that you have this divine power of empathetic knowledge through the web. That, and to sit down and read every last one of my comments... Creepy. Borderline psychotic. Please stop.

How could we ever take you seriously?

Of course, the more relevant question to consider is why would you ever want to?

What is it that you think you are contributing here?
What is it that you are getting out of Metafilter?

First answer, apparently nothing. Second answer, it's just a fuckin' website, bro. I ask for nothing, and expect even less in return, and that's pretty much all I ever get. Oh, and the links. Those are good.
posted by David Dark at 2:20 AM on June 2, 2003

So then y2karl gets me feeling a little guilty with his comment that I haven't said anything about the topic, that ever interesting "Still none?" topic, but even so I do a little digging and come up with plenty of relevant links that we could discuss, but y2karl prefers instead to dig up a quote I made on another website so he can call it dumb and then adds any other quotes he can find by anyone who's name starts with a capital D, because like, that's what my name starts with and then he can call that dumb, too.

Whining: the Marathon.
posted by y2karl at 3:52 PM on June 4, 2003

Actually, that seems more apropos for yourself.

Jackass Tu Quoque: the Whitewash
posted by David Dark at 5:35 PM on June 4, 2003

Last worditis insult award to David Dark. It's so important to him!
posted by y2karl at 1:32 PM on June 10, 2003