Join 3,520 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The end-of-week summary
June 6, 2003 8:25 AM   Subscribe

Bush "will reveal the truth". But what truth is that? Where he says freedom, he means curtailing press freedoms. When he talks about restoring the dignity of a great nation, he means handpicking Iraq's new government. When he mentions WMD, he could be referring to two trailers lacking any biological agent inside and show no signs that they had been used to produce biological weapons, or alternatively, a swimming pool, a drinks distillery and a factory making car license plates. Curiously enough, it's not him but his pals who find themselves in awkward positions. Then again, maybe it is them who are bringing it onto themselves.
posted by magullo (47 comments total)

 
Save the op-ed for your personal weblog.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:29 AM on June 6, 2003


I'm not sure, but I think I read this somewhere on metafilter:

"Just to be clear: the point of MetaFilter is to find the best and most interesting of the web to share with others. Not things described here."

Oh where oh where could I have read that?
posted by dazed_one at 8:35 AM on June 6, 2003


Oh wait. Now I remember.
posted by dazed_one at 8:37 AM on June 6, 2003


Are you criticizing the President?!
posted by techgnollogic at 8:38 AM on June 6, 2003


the truth? you want the truth? the truth is, bush was sent here by an alien galactic ruler named Xenu to replace l. ron hubbard.
posted by quonsar at 8:40 AM on June 6, 2003


on tony blair, aznar and every other leader that got rope a doped into the "coalition of the willing" again -

""U.S. "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" formed to deal with a particular crisis and which may not outlive the resolution of the crisis."


at least turkey had the brains and balls not to get muscled into bush's little adventure.
posted by specialk420 at 8:44 AM on June 6, 2003


my guess is this post will go the way of these leaders as well.
posted by specialk420 at 8:45 AM on June 6, 2003


I guess it would be too much to ask to wait and see what Bush has to say or should we go with his lips are moving, so he must be lying?
posted by monkeyman at 9:02 AM on June 6, 2003


at least turkey had the brains and balls

balls, maybe

brains, I'm not so sure. Turkey lost a $ 20 bn aid package, and a lot of post-war leverage in the Kurdish part of Iraq
posted by matteo at 9:06 AM on June 6, 2003


420, that is the second or third time you have posted that link.

You are really bothered by the notion that nations' interests and allies change over time. What's up with that? Once Germany felt its interests were best served by sticking close to the US in foreign policy. Conditions have changed. Are they evil for recognizing that the world changes?

Matteo, the Turks also lengthened the war, causing more human suffering. They could have cashed in, kept their influence, and eased the suffering of the Iraqis once it became apparent that they weren't stopping the war anyway. They made a different choice.
posted by ednopantz at 9:14 AM on June 6, 2003


I think the concept is that if you criticize someone every single day, the sum total of the criticism leveled means something or other. Remember, it's that same kind of dogged perseverance that made the Time Cube guy the Time Cube guy he is today.
And look at all *He* has accomplished.
posted by kablam at 9:22 AM on June 6, 2003


Not many things are quite as satisfying as a truly original, even, unprejudiced, well-argued post. This, of course, is not one of them. No one cares about these soapbox, leftist rants. As far as I can tell, it's just some kind of heavily partisan digest. Last time that kind of thing was tolerated, this site almost flatlined.
posted by 111 at 9:36 AM on June 6, 2003


I agree with the politics that inspired this post but even I think it's totally pointless. magullo, is there anything in any of your links that hasn't been covered ad nauseam on MeFi?
posted by languagehat at 9:46 AM on June 6, 2003


From a BBC News talk board:

'If Tony Blair told me it was raining outside I would go and check.
John, UK

John, how naive of you. Tony wouldn't say it was raining, he would just express his heartfelt relief that it was warm enough for it not to be snowing.
Toby, Spain'


Teflon Tone is so going down in flames ;-)
posted by i_cola at 9:49 AM on June 6, 2003


it's Friday folks, and Friday allows people to post what they like, within reason, and this is within reason.

Now on topic, I hope the media, and the congresscritters keep the pressure on Bush till the WMD show up, or till none are found.
posted by jbou at 11:04 AM on June 6, 2003


Friday allows people to post what they like?
posted by jonson at 11:33 AM on June 6, 2003


at least turkey had the brains and balls not to get muscled into bush's little adventure.

Absolutely! Thank God they had the balls not to help depose a man that was responsible for this:
"Citizens discovered on May 30 a communal grave close to Debs, in Kirkuk. But this is different from other mass graves discovered since the fall of Saddam Hussein's terrorist regime because it contains the remains of 200 child victims of the repression of the Kurdish uprising" in 1991, the paper said. "Even dolls were buried with the children," it said.
Dozens of mass graves have been uncovered all over Iraq since Saddam's ouster by invading US-led forces on April 9.
You know, every time I get caught up in a WMD argument, it's just so nice to read something like that and remember that all the bitching of the "peace" contingent can't change the fact that neither Saddam nor his sons will ever murder again.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:06 PM on June 6, 2003


You know, every time I get caught up in a WMD argument, it's just so nice to read something like that and remember that all the bitching of the "peace" contingent can't change the fact that neither Saddam nor his sons will ever murder again.

Ah yes; the end, of course, being justified by the means.
posted by chuq at 12:13 PM on June 6, 2003


Or the other way around, even. (Boy, do I need some coffee.)
posted by chuq at 12:14 PM on June 6, 2003


As long as this thread's here, I'll add this little tidbit which I think is new: The Department of Defense has confirmed - on a Friday afternoon, natch - that its own analysts reported last year that they had no reliable information that Iraq had chemical weapons.

And pardonyou?, that's one of the sillier things I've heard lately. The bait-and-switch routine of "Ooooh! Lookit these mass graves! That's why we were doing this" has been run into the ground and logically debunked plenty of times. But you take it further by adding your psychic awareness - or, I don't know, do you have some kind of source for this? - that Hussein and his sons are not out there murdering people right now - let alone in the future? What, did we catch Saddam and keep it a secret? What?
posted by soyjoy at 12:36 PM on June 6, 2003


Ah yes; the end, of course, being justified by the means.

In this case, absolutely. Take a look at this:
Third, suppose President Bush in fact had no reputable motive in going to war. Suppose he had only disreputable motives, such as defending his daddy's honor. Does this show that the war is unjustified, morally speaking? Again, the answer is no. Justification is objective; motivation is subjective. The war can be justified as an act of self-defense or liberation of a people (to name just two of many justifications) even if the person waging the war doesn't understand it in those terms - even if he or she doesn't view those as justifications. For consider: Either there is a justification for the war (objectively speaking) or there is not. If there is, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. If there isn't, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. Either way, it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush.
This perfectly encapsulates my thinking on the issue. Yours may differ (and probably does). But I have absolutely no problem saying that the war was justified simply on the basis that thousands of Iraqi lives were saved.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:39 PM on June 6, 2003


And pardonyou?, that's one of the sillier things I've heard lately. The bait-and-switch routine of "Ooooh! Lookit these mass graves! That's why we were doing this" has been run into the ground and logically debunked plenty of times.

See my point above. I will also note that even prior to the start of the war I articulated my (reluctant) support for the war in exactly those terms:

I know for many of you it's simply easier to categorize everyone who supports military action as bloodthirsty hawks and warmongers. But for me and many others, nothing could be further from the truth. I abhor war in all of its forms. But I consider myself a moral person, and for me in all cases the moral choice that must be made is the one that in the long run minimizes human suffering to the greatest possible extent -- not only for the west, but for Iraq itself. While nobody has a crystal ball, reasonable people can conclude that allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power will lead to far more death, suffering, and destruction than the coming action to remove him. To me, that's the very definition of moral. To me, that's the very definition of "peace."

To recap: I supported the war for different reasons than WMD. So I have no problem pointing to mass grave stories and saying: "This is why I supported this war." My question for you: Why haven't the stories of Hussein's atrocities convinced you that the war was justified?
posted by pardonyou? at 12:51 PM on June 6, 2003


I have absolutely no problem saying that the war was justified simply on the basis that thousands of Iraqi lives were saved.

And/or lost, of course.

Why haven't the stories of Hussein's atrocities convinced you that the war was justified?

Because a) the U.S. was partially responsible for those atrocities, especially the ones you cited above, and b) because if atrocities occurring in one country justifies war, why one war rather than another?

To clarify, though, I wasn't accusing you personally of bait-and-switch. But since the thread is about "revealing the truth" about WMDs, dragging in the mass graves as though it addresses that question falls into that same rhetorical category.
posted by soyjoy at 1:14 PM on June 6, 2003


Why haven't the stories of Hussein's atrocities convinced you that the war was justified?

I will not argue that the end of Saddam's brutality towards his people is a bad thing. I'm as moved by stories of newfound Iraqi freedom as anyone and I believe that to be the very best result of this war.

However.

What comes after the action to remove Saddam is a very murky picture and we don't seem to be helping much, though it's early to tell. A Shi'ite mullah regime showing up there will get us few if any points on either the human suffering scorecard or the practical war-on-terror scorecard, and while that's a worst-case scenario, at this point it seems one of the more likely ones. So I'm remaining skeptical on this count. (I am not going to jump to the conclusion that removing Saddam will make things worse but we had better remain alert.)

But most importantly: using the WMD issue as a cover for wars waged for other reasons may utterly screw us if it ever happens that we do have to wage a war to stop a hostile country or actor from acquiring and using nuclear arms. So I cannot support anybody being cavalier about this cause even if their actions result in a moral good. The risks of WMDs becoming a boy-who-cried-wolf issue are much too great.

I believe a real nuclear threat by a "rogue state" is inevitable - technology sits still for no one - and we defang ourselves against it to our great peril.
posted by furiousthought at 1:44 PM on June 6, 2003


To recap: I supported the war for different reasons than WMD. So I have no problem pointing to mass grave stories and saying: "This is why I supported this war."

In which case, you should have done a better job of getting Bush and Blair to sell the war on mass graves, rather than WMD.

Why haven't the stories of Hussein's atrocities convinced you that the war was justified?

Because the casus belli was WMD, and there ain't no fucking WMD turned up in Eye-raq? A 'Cry Wolf' war, as others have said, makes the world a less safe place, because, for some strange reason, a lapse in honesty and a breach of trust seems to sour the public's taste for 'wars of liberation'.

As Robin Cook said tonight: if Blair and Bush truly believe that Saddam had 10,000 litres of anthrax lying around, you'd think they'd look a little more worried about its reticence to appear.

(In the meantime, I'm more worried about the Iraqis dying from radiation sickness, having used looted uranium-storage barrels to hold drinking water. Does that make it onto Fox Victory News at all?)
posted by riviera at 1:48 PM on June 6, 2003


Mark Bowden, the author of "Black Hawk Down," wrote an excellent column on this subject:

"I trusted Bush, and unless something big develops on the weapons front in Iraq soon, it appears as though I was fooled by him. Perhaps he himself was taken in by his intelligence and military advisers. If so, he ought to be angry as hell, because ultimately he bears the responsibility.

"It suggests a strain of zealotry in this White House that regards the question of war as just another political debate. It isn't. More than 100 fine Americans were killed in this conflict, dozens of British soldiers, and many thousands of Iraqis. Nobody gets killed or maimed in Capitol Hill maneuvers over spending plans, or battles over federal court appointments. War is a special case. It is the most serious step a nation can take, and it deserves the highest measure of seriousness and integrity.

"When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country. We are at war. What we lost in this may yet end up being far more important than what we gained."

posted by homunculus at 2:12 PM on June 6, 2003


on turkey - 90% on of the population did not want to be involved in the war ($20b bribe or not - where was that $20b coming from anyway? your tax dollars?, schools?, national parks?, the EPA?, Cancer Research? f*ck!) - they spoke, their government listened. democracy worked. even if wolfie thinks it shouldnt have.
posted by specialk420 at 2:15 PM on June 6, 2003


(In the meantime, I'm more worried about the Iraqis dying from radiation sickness, having used looted uranium-storage barrels to hold drinking water. Does that make it onto Fox Victory News at all?)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88721,00.html:
Dr. Hamed Al-Bahili, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who helped design and open Tuwaitha in 1968, was one of the first on the scene after fleeing Iraqi troops abandoned the site.

Raising his hand 2 inches above the linoleum floor in his living room, Al-Bahili said: "The uranium was all over the floor -- all over the ground outside. Piles of it. We poured cement over it inside the rooms because there was no other way to handle it."

Al-Bahili said he pleaded with impoverished villagers in the area not to touch the blue barrels the IAEA had used to store the uranium, "but there were thousands of people -- they just kept coming," he said in an interview Thursday at his Baghdad home.

Returning to Baghdad, he found Iraqi police who passed on his description of the scene and dangers to advancing U.S. troops.

Since then, Al-Bahili has met twice with U.S. military officials, whom he described as eager to help resolve the situation.

"They sent troops," he said, "but it was already too late."
In which case, you should have done a better job of getting Bush and Blair to sell the war on mass graves, rather than WMD.

Maybe so. My only point was that every time I, personally, hear about another Hussein atrocity, I'm damn glad I supported the war (albeit reluctantly). I don't think I'd feel so good about myself if I had agitated against the war, then read about hundreds of murdered children. Of course, Hussein was nice enough to bury their dolls with them, so he couldn't have been all evil (oops, sorry, I forgot we're not supposed to refer to other governments using that word, since it's so "simplistic." I need to remember that the word is only appropriate when referring to the U.S.)
posted by pardonyou? at 2:26 PM on June 6, 2003


Blair and Bush Aren't That Stupid - Why would they lie, knowing postwar weapons searches were inevitable?
posted by homunculus at 2:38 PM on June 6, 2003


Nice link homunculus!
posted by ednopantz at 3:04 PM on June 6, 2003


But I have absolutely no problem saying that the war was justified simply on the basis that thousands of Iraqi lives were saved.

Oh. Apparently I'm getting a bit behind on the latest and greatest justifications for invading a nation that hadn't attacked us first, and for slaughtering its citizens. Now it's "Iraqi lives were saved."

Hmmm. How to understand this. Maybe "dead" means a different thing when Americans do the killing? So then the Iraqis "killed" by Americans (maybe I shouldn't even use that word when referring to what Americans do....sorry....how about "liberated to heaven"?) are some how...some way...so very, very different than the dead a la Hussein (our former puppet). Let's see....how can that be....how can we rationalize or doublespeak our way through this....help me here....maybe even if after our soldiers shoot them with automatic rifles and they kind of lie there bleeding and motionless and with their eyes wide open, pupils fixed....maybe the corpses of those killed by Americans must smell different, right? Killed by Americans, flies and other vermin somehow don't cloud their torn flesh under a hot sun, right? Killed by Americans, their bodies don't bloat and putrefy, right. I mean, they were shot by sacred, shiny American arms, right? Killed by Americans, their families don't weep for them, right? Somehow the children didn't die screaming (smile, kids, those are our liberators strafing us!) under American bombs, right? No, no doubt they were actually thankful to give their lives since it was we righteous Americans and not that horrible Hussein doing the killing, right? I mean, those murdered children must all be smiling angelically down on you and all Americans from some special heaven, because they know they were killed in what had to become (since WMDs ain't washing so well) "a war of liberation", right?

Complete, utter, distilled-and-bottled bullshit.

The silence of the dead and those soon to die in Iraq, as a result of the actions and atrocities of the United States government, speak eloquently to your disgusting lie that "thousands of Iraqi lives were saved". And no doubt Saddam Hussein himself....just like any given parroting supporter of America's invasion....was able to justify to himself (even "albeit reluctantly") each of his bloody actions by an appeal to the supposedly noble ends of "preventing violence/terrorism" or "justice" or "our country's interest" or whatever vapid, nationalistic horseshit he required to rationalize his next "ends justify the means" assault on human life.

So congratulations. You and the other supporters of this disgusting, cowardly little war are in fine company. As I've long pointed out, militaries of different nations wear different uniforms....so they can tell themselves apart.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:16 PM on June 6, 2003


Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense? by John W. Dean.

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.
posted by y2karl at 4:23 PM on June 6, 2003


From the above link:

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

posted by y2karl at 4:27 PM on June 6, 2003


What foldy said, and what karl quoted. Bush and his cadre of lying, murderous scum deserve to be strung up, but I'd settle for their removal and disgrace.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:46 PM on June 6, 2003


Evidence of Iraq weapons was "big bluff": German UN inspector

"He said Powell used satellite pictures to try to show that decontamination trucks in front of an ammunition bunker were proof that Iraq was experimenting with chemical weapons there. However, an earlier visit by UN inspectors had already determined that the trucks were firefighting vehicles."
posted by homunculus at 7:12 PM on June 6, 2003


You see it your way, foldy, and I see it mine. Never the twain shall meet (thank God). If you could just ratchet down the vitriol a teensy bit, you might be able to make a decent argument. Here's mine (although you've seen it before): Now I fully concede that reasonable people can disagree with that analysis. But calling it "complete, utter, distilled-and-bottled bullshit," is a piss-poor substitute for a rebuttal. And the baseless insinuations that I value American lives over Iraqi lives, or that I have no appreciation for the fact that innocent civilians died, are just offensive.

I'm sure you'd refer to my logic (as you have in the past) as "undefensible utilitarianism," but it seems pretty fucking defensible to me. More importantly, it's honestly and deeply held, so back the fuck off.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:28 PM on June 6, 2003


pardonyou?:
I know that you weren't addressing me, but here is how I see it: it is not bullshit for *you* to think or say that. *You* never tried to sell me a war for one reason or another. It *is* bullshit when it is presented by those who attempted to build the case for war based on unrelated untruths.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 7:45 PM on June 6, 2003


"American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence are disputing claims that the mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making deadly germs. In interviews over the last week, they said the mobile units were more likely intended for other purposes and charged that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment."
posted by homunculus at 8:18 PM on June 6, 2003


maybe the corpses of those killed by Americans must smell different, right? Killed by Americans, flies and other vermin somehow don't cloud their torn flesh under a hot sun, right? Killed by Americans, their bodies don't bloat and putrefy, right.

foldy, you've missed pardonyou?'s point. The iraqi children killed by Americans were not buried with their dolls. See, there's crucial difference you were looking for.
posted by soyjoy at 8:37 PM on June 6, 2003


Sorry to get snarky and all, pardonyou?, but when you brought that up the second time I nearly gagged. Get real. Mass murder is terrible and evil. And it occurs all over the world, in forms that jerk tears just as compellingly as that anecdote, only we don't tend to hear about a lot of them because they're not being paraded around to fit our national agenda. So drop the dolls thing, already.

And listen to Ignatius. foldy notwithstanding, it's not our concern whether or not you supported the war for reasons different than the ones that were given to Congress to justify what would otherwise be an internationally acknowledged war crime (pre-emptively striking another nation without cause); our concern is what was being said by the administration, and how it appears that - even if WMDs are now found somewhere - the descriptions they gave of the size, magnitude and threat of Iraq's program were wayyyyyyyy off base - apparently not unintentionally.
posted by soyjoy at 8:41 PM on June 6, 2003


stavros: Bush and his cadre of lying, murderous scum deserve to be strung up, but I'd settle for their removal and disgrace.

pussy.
posted by quonsar at 8:46 PM on June 6, 2003


*cries*

*resolves to call for public beheadings next time*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:11 PM on June 6, 2003


"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"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."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


via truthout.org
posted by specialk420 at 1:01 AM on June 7, 2003


To those who think Saddam's brutality justified the invasion:

1) Do you therefore despise the Reagan/Bush regimes that not only did not invade (pre-Kuwait) but supported this same brutal dictator? If not, how do you justify your sliding moral scales?

2) There are many brutal, murderous regimes in the world, a number of which (e.g., Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia) we are currently supporting. Is it your opinion that we should invade each and every one until we have cleaned murderous brutality from the face of the earth? (I'm assuming for the purposes of this question that we ourselves are existentially exempt from the category "murderous brutality.") If not, how do you justify your sliding moral scales?
posted by languagehat at 8:21 AM on June 7, 2003


So drop the dolls thing, already.

It's not "the dolls thing." That was just icing on the cake. I've felt the same way about every mass grave -- whether it contained men, women, or children. The dolls are just an extra special Saddam touch. But you might want to ask yourself why it inflames you so much that someone pointed out that detail?

And your arguments are misdirected: I took issue with crumple_and_holepunch's* screed, which was specifically directed at my prior posts. That is what I was responding to. Hell, I personally don't care about Bush and his rationale. I never supported the war for his reasons. (And I don't even support him -- didn't vote for him in 2000 and have no plans to do so in 2004). In fact, if he deliberately lied to the American public to garner support for the war, that can and should be dealt with independently (perhaps up to impeachment). But none of that makes one whit of difference for me in terms of deciding whether the war was justified. See, I'm capable of separating the two. Imagine that!

*TM ColdChef
posted by pardonyou? at 8:41 PM on June 7, 2003


But you might want to ask yourself why it inflames you so much that someone pointed out that detail?

"Inflames," right.

Classic MetaFilter: One person goes on and on about something, another says "hello, the thing you're going on and on about is irrelevant," and the first says, "or is it? Don't you wonder why you're getting so upset about it?"

As to "misdirected" arguments... please reread the FPP. It's great that you can separate Bush's lies and your own feelings about the war; this thread happens to be about the former.
posted by soyjoy at 7:25 AM on June 9, 2003


this thread happens to be about the former.

Agreed. And while I know you tried to direct my argument back to the initial topic by saying "foldy notwithstanding..." , I don't think I was out of line by replying to foldy's histrionics directed against me in this very thread.

(p.s. I'll drop "the doll thing" now. I see you're not inflamed).
posted by pardonyou? at 11:09 AM on June 9, 2003


« Older Play...  |  Read this interesting article ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments