all-encompassingly

35 Responses to “more use of the “botched joke” excuse”

1. December 23rd, 2006 at 7:56 pm
   Jay

   For someone who likes to think he’s pretty smart, you sure don’t like to think for yourself sometimes, Travis. I’m talking about the John Kerry joke incident.

   Now, before I go on, you have to know that I am not a big John Kerry fan. He has the charisma of a dog turd and a voice that could even put a speed addict to sleep in about two minutes. However, it doesn’t take a good deal of intelligence to know that the Senator was making a dig on the Prez and not on the troops in Iraq.

   You have evidently chosen to jump on the band wagon that thinks that Kerry didn’t botch his joke, and that he thinks that our soldiers in Iraq are stupid. Come on man. Get real. He simply botched a joke. This really isn’t surprising when you consider the source. Kerry is about as adept at telling jokes as Wolfowitz is in predicting the costs of a war.

   Your perpetuation of this misinterpretation of Kerry’s bad joke is kind of childish and it certainly shows that you really don’t have any objectivity.

2. December 23rd, 2006 at 8:16 pm
   Steve

   Amen Jay. Travis, I’ll bet you actually think that Bush’s joke about looking for WMD’s in the Whitehouse was a hoot. It’s funny how you criticize Kerry for leaving the word “us” out and fail to criticize the complete lack of taste our W has.

3. December 23rd, 2006 at 10:19 pm
   travis

   For someone who likes to think he’s pretty smart

   where have i said that i’m smart? nowhere on this blog or elsewhere have i claimed that i’m smart or intelligent or a genius. nowhere (with the minor exception of when i’m looking for a job) have i bragged about my scholarships or achievements (unlike some people). i have, frequently, questioned the intelligence of others. i have often done this on the basis of, “if i can figure this out, then anyone should be able to.” i think i am of pretty average intelligence, and so it surprises me when people do things that even i can recognize are idiotic.

   Your perpetuation of this misinterpretation of Kerry’s bad joke is kind of childish and it certainly shows that you really don’t have any objectivity.

   you must have missed the posts where we pointed out john kerry’s pattern of calling the troops stupid or otherwise insulting them. the fact that you ignore an established pattern is kind of childish and it certainly shows that you really don’t have any objectivity. the facts you ignore are here:

   John Kerry: “Troops will be poor, black, and prone to war crimes (and stupid!)”

   video: john kerry’s unflagging support for the our military

   go read that first post and watch the video at the second, then come back and tell me john kerry thinks our men and women in uniform are smart.

   or don’t think for yourself. instead, just trust john kerry’s spin campaign manager. he’ll set you straight. then you can go and tell these democrats who jumped on the “bandwagon” that they need to get off his back because, hey, it was just a botched joke!

   Kerry is about as adept at telling jokes as Wolfowitz is in predicting the costs of a war.

   funny, i thought john kerry was the smooth talker. bush is the bumbler, isn’t he?

   I’ll bet you actually think that Bush’s joke about looking for WMD’s in the Whitehouse was a hoot.

   i’m sorry. you appear to be unacquainted with self-deprecating humor.

   actually, i think it is sad that saddam ignored UN resolution 1441 so that we had to assemble a 30+ nation coalition and enforce it. i mean, since saddam didn’t have any weapons, why didn’t he just submit to inspections?

4. December 23rd, 2006 at 11:14 pm
   Jay

   OK, I take back my comment about you thinking that you’re smart. I made a huge leap in postulating that just because you think anyone that doesn’t agree with you is stupid, that does not necessarily mean that you think that you’re smart. Sorry for the mix up. Moving on now..

   Wow, you really have a hard time talking to someone when they have nuanced opinions don‘t you (and by ‘nuanced’ I mean someone who doesn’t believe EVERY piece of propaganda BS that a given political party can put out) ?

   Try, please try, to understand this. I am not affiliated with a political party. Bush and the Republicans do horribly stupid things, and so do the Democrats. Can you at least agree with this much? If so, then there’s hope for you.

   The joke that Kerry said is squarely in the ‘stupid’ category. I think we can agree on that. But it was stupid because it was an immature pot-shot at the President. And about the whole band wagon thing; I don’t care if every Democrat in Congress jumped on your band wagon. They have their political careers to save. I heard the joke with my own ears. And with the help of a little something called CONTEXT I can easily conclude that it was very obviously directed at his former competitor in the 2004 election. Yeah, I can decide that myself. I don’t need Hannity, Carlson, or anyone else to tell me what Kerry meant. Thinking for oneself is a good thing. I recommend it some time.

   Speaking of context, I find the quote about the troops being poor and black very interesting. Unfortunately the link you had didn’t work. I would like to put that quote into context as well so I can understand what Kerry was getting at. If he was insulting the troops, then shame on him (although I would find that hard to believe). I am sure that this quote will make a lot more sense when I understand the flow of the conversation. Please repost the link, and I will listen to it and try to make sense of it.

   Also, your last paragraph makes me think that you stopped paying attention to current events in march of 2003 with your two-cents worth about the war. Also, I think it’s interesting (and dichotomous) that you justify the war in Iraq saying that it was to enforce a UN resolution as if you support the UN. But then overlook the fact that the UN didn’t want the US to go to war in Iraq in 2003. So, is the UN legitimate? If so, then we should not have gone in until they said it was ok. And if they’re not a legitimate body, then their initial resolution should not be enforceable. Please walk me through this one. I’m a bit confused.

   Also, why did Saddam act like he had weapons even when he didn’t? Well first, he thought we were bluffing (obviously he doesn‘t learn from his mistakes). There are also many other possible reasons for him to carry on as he was. I really don’t feel like going into them. They are widely published, you can do your own homework. Anyway, the Administration has come out and said that they were wrong about the weapons. Why do you believe EVERYTHING else they say, but this one little piece of info?

   Anyway, I can’t believe you are still bringing up the war. I thought it might be too embarrassing for you and like-minded people given the tragic current state of affairs. And don’t even get me started on the 30+ nations in the coalition. 11 of those countries contributed less than 100 troops! And 20 of the other countries had less than 1,000. Come on. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again; get real. Bush Sr. did well in building a real coalition, Bush Jr.- not so much.

   -Jay

   PS- I really don’t want this to spiral into a debate about the Iraq war. The invasion happened. The war continues. Our troops are dying. It sucks and I hope it ends soon with a positive outcome for Iraqis and Americans alike.

5. December 23rd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
   Steve

   So John Kerry’s saying something in the past allows you, Travis, clear insight into the man’s soul. Jay is right about your credibility here Travis (nonexistent). Got news for you, it didn’t work for you guys. You lost the House and Senate.

   Travis, Travis, Travis. Bush is too stupid to pull off self-deprecation. He was gloating (you obviously didn’t see the video). Fortunately someone recorded it so we could see the stupidity of this man. Again, with the loss of American lives at a cost of billions to the taxpayers, it was extremely tasteless.

   You really get a kick out of showing people my past with BYU. Keep in mind, when you guys tried to claim that I only wished I could go there, I was just calling you on it. Not only did I choose not to go there but they were willing to pay me. Now I have to clarify. This was in the late eighties so it was much easier to get in then. Take a lesson Bush. That is self-deprecation (although it is also truthful).

6. December 23rd, 2006 at 11:27 pm
   Steve

   Coalition of the willing? Poland? Try coalition of the bribed, coerced, bought and extorted. Actually, I am stealing that from Kerry.

7. December 24th, 2006 at 1:25 am
   Bill Adkins

   If you want a true example of a ‘botched joke’ I give you the Bush Admnistration. It is a joke and it is botched beyond all description. FUBAR and SNAFU don’t touch it.

8. December 24th, 2006 at 3:19 am
   doug

   Travis, Travis, Travis, (sorry…my fingers are stuck to Ctrl-V, it’s a liberal thing)

   Don’t you get it?

   All of our problems are because of Iraq.

   Wake up dude!

9. December 24th, 2006 at 4:39 am
   travis

   that link is: http://www.all-encompassingly.com/john-kerry-troops-will-be-poor-black-and-prone-to-war-crimes-and-stupid/

   just because you think anyone that doesn’t agree with you is stupid, that does not necessarily mean that you think that you’re smart.

   that’s partially correct. sometimes i think people who disagree with me are, nevertheless, smart. that’s why i don’t call everyone i disagree with “stupid.”

   I think it’s interesting (and dichotomous) that you justify the war in Iraq saying that it was to enforce a UN resolution as if you support the UN. But then overlook the fact that the UN didn’t want the US to go to war in Iraq in 2003. So, is the UN legitimate? If so, then we should not have gone in until they said it was ok. And if they’re not a legitimate body, then their initial resolution should not be enforceable. Please walk me through this one. I’m a bit confused.

   here is one way of looking at the UN legitimacy-question. we recognize the federal government as the legitimate US government. nevertheless, they are accused of doing illegitimate things all the time. the trick, then, is to get the federal government to see it “our” way when they are doing something illegitimate (we have the benefit–the clarity and ease–of calling illegitimate government acts “unconstitutional” but international law is not as well-defined). legitimacy or illegitimacy of US government behavior is conveniently decided by an independent judiciary, whose decisions the executive is then required to enforce. the authority of these bodies is tied to the people, one way or another, through elections (same goes for the legislature, obviously).

   the problem with international law is, states often disagree on how something should be interpreted, as well as who gets to interpret it. there a tenuous tie to the “people” for states’ representatives acting internationally. and, probably most importantly, there is really no centralized enforcement mechanism.

   who is supposed to enforce international law? there is the ICJ (international court of justice) but it has only heard a hundred or so cases in its 60 years of existence. states don’t turn to it like individuals do our domestic courts, which have become almost automatic. in fact, most states seek resolutions to international law through alternative methods, including diplomacy, negotiations, arbitration, sanctions, the assertion of other political or economic pressure, other self-help, and even war. the UN was established to facilitate the peaceful resolution of disputes. the UN failed here, because of corruption.

   china, russia, and france were members of the security council, and the UNSC cannot act without a unanimous vote that includes them (unless they abstain). we now know that russia and france were “in the bag” for saddam because of lucrative contracts-slash-bribes that they received from the dictator. therefore, like the scandalous arrangement between french and russian judges that took away the pairs figure skating gold medal from the canadians at the 2002 winter olympics, corruption threw a wrench in the works here, too. only this time, thousands of lives and the entire course of geopolitics were on the line. i’ll quote, extensively, from iraqfact.com, which is a project of the chicago tribune:

   Resolution 1441, the last of 17 such broad directives to Iraq, was adopted by a 15-0 vote on Nov. 8, 2002. It said the Security Council:

   “… Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 …” and gives Iraq a final 30 days to provide “a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material. …”

   Iraq was to give inspectors “immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access” to verify its compliance. The decree concluded with its admonition that the Security Council “has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.”

   The resolution’s 30-day window dragged into months of stalling and limited compliance by Hussein. By early March 2003, the U.S., Britain and Spain were lobbying the Security Council to set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with the Nov. 8, 2002, resolution.

   On March 7, 2003, the inspectors paradoxically suggested to the Security Council that Iraq had displayed more cooperation, but the inspectors also said they still had 29 areas of unanswered questions about weapons issues. The Tribune reported that those issues included the whereabouts of thousands of chemical bombs and tons of anthrax, VX nerve gas and botulinum toxin uncovered during previous searches.

   U.S. and British officials retorted that, at best, Iraq’s cooperation with the inspectors was reluctant, evasive, incomplete–and clearly a rebuke to Resolution 1441.

   France and Russia nevertheless threatened to veto the proposed ultimatum. In response, Washington, London and Madrid proposed setting a compliance deadline later than March 17. Again, Paris and Moscow threatened vetoes.

   With two permanent members of the Security Council unwilling to support the November resolution for which they had voted, the U.S., Britain and Spain withdrew their proposal for an 18th resolution. They said they instead would rely on the earlier council ultimatums. With diplomacy in tatters, the UN instructed its inspectors and humanitarian workers to leave Iraq.

   On March 17, 2003, Bush primarily cited Iraq’s failure to obey UN orders as the reason for the impending launch of the war. He spoke of Iraq’s weapons programs but pivoted his speech on Hussein’s intransigence:

   “My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

   “Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. …

   “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours,” Bush said.

   “In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours.

   “Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals–including journalists and inspectors–should leave Iraq immediately.”

   Early on March 20 in Iraq–the night of March 19 here–the first missiles struck Baghdad.

   What we know today

   Reasonable minds profoundly disagree on whether Saddam Hussein’s flouting of UN resolutions and sanctions justified the launch of war. But there can be no credible assertion that either Iraq or the UN met its responsibility to the world. If anything, the Bush administration’s citations of cunning chicanery–both in Baghdad and at UN headquarters on the East River–were gravely understated.

   That chicanery is, however, not the only reason why Hussein felt he could dodge international mandates, or why the UN repeatedly permitted him to do so.

   The Bush administration’s strategy of confrontation bucked decades of policy in many countries–the U.S. included. Before Bush initiated what he called a war against global terrorism, many prosperous nations employed a triad defense of stoicism, appeasement and, from Washington and a few other world capitals, occasional bursts of retaliatory missiles or other limited military actions.

   That is not to diminish efforts such as Western Europe’s struggle to control leftist terror groups in the second half of the 20th Century, or Israel’s attempts to thwart Palestinian bombers, or diplomacy to quell bloody violence in Northern Ireland. But those and other experiences with terror assaults had left many governments weary and resigned.

   The notion of attacking Iraq thus came as an especially sharp stick in the eye of nations that, unlike Washington, didn’t see that country as a cradle of terrorism. Yes, Hussein was a pariah, but he had not invaded another country in a dozen years, and many governments wanted proof that he had meaningful ties to groups such as Al Qaeda.

   Bush, having overthrown the Taliban government of Afghanistan, now wanted to eradicate another regime. And he wanted the UN to give him permission.

   The better approach, many governments believed, was containment. They saw Hussein’s grudging agreement to re-admit weapons inspectors, as Resolution 1441 demanded, as proof that the world could limit whatever threat he posed. But was Hussein a reformed man? Or did having the world’s most powerful military poised at his border, ready to invade, prompt him to pay lip service to UN demands?

   As 2003 arrived, the containment caucus had a problem. For years many governments had hoped that a combination of sticks and carrots–in the form of international oversight, threatened sanctions and economic incentives–would keep North Korea from pursuing nukes. The disclosure that Pyongyang had secretly connived for years to build nukes, and now was lengthening the reach of its delivery system, was a nightmare. Its implication: If containment someday failed and Hussein acquired nukes, he would be as invulnerable as the North Koreans who, by numerous accounts, already possessed bombs.

   The reluctance of many governments to embrace Bush’s aggressive agenda was understandable. But the reluctance of those governments to enforce Security Council resolutions for which they had voted arguably was not.

   Did the White House mislead Americans, or the world, about Iraq’s rebuffs to the UN? No. The truthfulness of the administration’s basic case, like Iraq’s hubris, is as self-evident in retrospect as it was at the time:

   For whatever reason, and none is acceptable, Hussein didn’t disclose what weapons programs he had, or no longer had, or schemed to have. He did not have the option–refusal–that he chose.

   Rather than confront that refusal, the UN averted its eyes–not only from Hussein but from its own complicity in his bad acts. Even as Hussein ignored the resolutions, widespread corruption of an important UN effort to help the people of Iraq empowered him to continue abusing them. That corruption allegedly funded Hussein’s purchase of influential friends in nations that, year after year, did not press the Security Council to enforce its edicts against him.

   As long as Hussein laid golden eggs, many powerful individuals and businesses around the world were happy to collect them–and to support his efforts to end the international sanctions against Iraq.

   These patterns of failure emerge from the findings of an inquiry panel led by Paul Volcker, former chairman of this nation’s Federal Reserve, and from the October 2004 report of U.S. chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer. Numerous U.S. congressional investigators and criminal prosecutors also are turning up evidence.

   In a series of reports, Volcker’s team has chronicled the debasement and exploitation of the UN’s oil-for-food program. For seven years before the war, that program let Hussein sell oil and ostensibly use the proceeds to buy humanitarian supplies for citizens suffering hardships caused by the sanctions.

   Under lax UN oversight, Hussein used oil-for-food to wage extortion, bribery and other schemes: Volcker alleges that half of some 4,500 companies around the world that participated in oil-for-food paid $1.8 billion in illegal kickbacks to Iraq’s regime. And, apart from oil-for-food, Hussein also scammed vast revenues by illegally smuggling oil out of Iraq.

   Hussein did use some of the money to help his people. He also diverted booty, Volcker found, to beneficiaries in 66 countries. Significantly, many of these diplomats and other profiteers were clustered in France, Russia and China–three nations with permanent memberships, and veto power, on the Security Council.

   Tariq Aziz, then Iraq’s deputy prime minister, has told probers that Hussein awarded oil allocations to his beneficiaries based on their level of opposition to the sanctions. An Oct. 28, 2005, Washington Post account of Volcker’s fifth and final report summed up the findings: Iraq used its oil wealth to influence some countries’ policies at the UN, awarding Russia $19 billion and France $4.4 billion in oil contracts.

   Charles Duelfer’s October 2004 report on his search for Iraqi weapons succinctly framed Hussein’s modus operandi. Duelfer also said Hussein’s scheme to parlay oil-for-food into the end of UN sanctions almost had succeeded.

   Duelfer wrote: “He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections–to gain support for lifting sanctions–with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD and with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. … By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime …” Once liberated from sanctions, Duelfer concluded, Hussein intended to recreate Iraq’s illicit weapons capability.

   that is from iraqfact.com

   why did Saddam act like he had weapons even when he didn’t? Well first, he thought we were bluffing

   even if he thought we were bluffing about enforcement, this doesn’t explain why he cut off weapons inspections in the first place.

   given the tragic current state of affairs.

   indeed. it is tragic the UN was too impotent to enforce its own resolutions, requiring us, in a dangerous world, to do it for them. it is unfortunate that we had to go in there. and every iraqi civilian casualty and every american military casualty is tragic.

   And don’t even get me started on the 30+ nations in the coalition. 11 of those countries contributed less than 100 troops! And 20 of the other countries had less than 1,000. Come on. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again; get real.

   my point wasn’t to discuss the supremacy of our military among the nations of the world, my point was to note that many, many countries agreed that 1441 should be enforced, even if bribed france and russia, as members of the UNSC, had the power to veto any UN action to enforce it.

   I really don’t want this to spiral into a debate about the Iraq war.

   unfortunately, this is like someone who says, “i don’t mean to insult you, but…” or “i’m not racist, but…” i hate debating the iraq war as much as anybody, yet that is what we are doing here. somebody brought up WMDs. and though it was like listening to fingernails scrape a chalkboard, i responded.

   [the war] sucks and I hope it ends soon with a positive outcome for Iraqis and Americans alike.

   agreed.

   [bill comments] If you want a true example of a ‘botched joke’ I give you the Bush Admnistration.

   indeed. and can you imagine the frustration at the impeachment hearings if bush and cheney got off by saying, “hey, we were only joking. can’t you people take a joke? we’ll apologize for the botched joke that is our administration, but that’s all.”

   that is what annoys me about the ‘botched joke’ excuse. it is like a slippery slope. who knows who will use it in the future, and what he will get away with? we can all thank mr. heinze for this predicament.

10. December 24th, 2006 at 10:02 am
    Bill Adkins

    Oh, I do so look forward to those hearings.

11. December 24th, 2006 at 10:45 am
    Steve

    Travis,

    We don’t need a history lesson here. We lived through those sad events.

    What Russia, China, and France act in their own self interest? Who’d of thunk? Isn’t that what we do; invasion of Iraq come to mind? Interestingly, Russia, China, France, most Europeans (most of the world) was right (no justification for war).

    Really Travis, the love/hate relationship the Republicans have with the UN is comical. So we needed to act unilaterally to fulfill the obligations of the UN? I guess we attack Israel next for its failures. How about sending troops to Darfur? It’s the height of right-wing hypocrisy.

    You are still missing one key component in your narrative above. The intelligence was cooked [The Downing Street Memo(s)/Cheney's Dark War/the "slam dunk case"]. The Bush administration lied to us. Where is the outrage from the puritanical right?! We get outright hypocrisy again.

    You’re missing one other thing Travis. The Kerry botched joke was just that and nothing more. You guys have turned it into something silly. The comparison to the Bush administration is ridiculous because presumably they do not see themselves as a joke. Unforutunately the 0.5 to 1 Trillion dollar joke is on us. I agree with Bill. I can’t wait to see what we uncover. At first I thought we shouldn’t go there but a criminal is a criminal and should be punished.

    Doug, Doug, Doug. Sorry fingers stuck on ctrl V. The “vote for a democrat is a vote for the terrorists” slogan really is a botched (tired) joke. Keep it up though; we’d love to remove right wing zealots from the White House in ‘08. I mean, Carter learned the same thing about blaming the American public. What’s the support for Bush’s new plan (~12% or so)?

12. December 24th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
    travis

    What Russia, China, and France act in their own self interest? Who’d of thunk? Isn’t that what we do; invasion of Iraq come to mind?

    the right of “collective self-defense” is given to states in article 51 of the UN charter. i am yet to find a fundamental right to bribe or be bribed.

    the love/hate relationship the Republicans have with the UN is comical.

    i don’t love the UN. the UN is merely a tool that i would rather live without. like my weed whacker. i wish i could just mow the lawn, and forego the weed whacking. i hate it. it always shoots rocks at my shins. but i begrudgingly use my weed whacker because that is the only decent way, however bad, to get rid of grass in tight spots on my lawn. and if i didn’t whack the weeds, our neighbors might frown at us.

    because i hate the weed whacker so much already, it makes me even more irate when i go to use it and it is broken. i just want it to work. same with the UN. i don’t love it, i hate it. i let my weed whacker live in my garage and don’t break it and throw it out. the least it can do is do its job.

    So we needed to act unilaterally to fulfill the obligations of the UN?

    i bet you were outraged when the international skating union and the international olympic committee unilaterally gave the canadians a gold medal in pairs figure skating in 2002, completely contradicting the judges’ votes.

    did you even read the iraq facts i quoted from iraqfact.com? oh, wait, you’ve already made up your mind:

    We don’t need a history lesson here…..The intelligence was cooked [The Downing Street Memo(s)/Cheney’s Dark War/the “slam dunk case”]. The Bush administration lied to us.

    but i’m not talking about intelligence. i’m talking about iraq’s behavior.

    Did the White House mislead Americans, or the world, about Iraq’s rebuffs to the UN? No. The truthfulness of the administration’s basic case, like Iraq’s hubris, is as self-evident in retrospect as it was at the time:

    For whatever reason, and none is acceptable, Hussein didn’t disclose what weapons programs he had, or no longer had, or schemed to have. He did not have the option–refusal–that he chose.

    Rather than confront that refusal, the UN averted its eyes [source: iraqfact.com]

    like when maniacal muslim terrorists beheaded nicholas berg and his father blamed president bush for their behavior, you want to blame our president for something a maniacal dictator did himself to the detriment of his country. hussein had all the power in march 2003. he could have submitted to inspections. he could have left the country. he could have stopped bribing UNSC member states. he didn’t, so bush, blair, howard, junichiro, aznar, and about 30 other world leaders called him on it. and you blame them and deride their act as “unilateral.”

    The Kerry botched joke was just that and nothing more. You guys have turned it into something silly.

    i agree, i have been joking about the botched joke excuse. can’t you forgive me? i just botched the joke, after all!

    (see how annoying that ever-ready excuse is? please join me in condemning it)

13. December 24th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
    Steve

    That is where you are wrong Travis. It isn’t an excuse. It’s exactly what it was. Kerry shouldn’t have to appologize for criticizing George Bush. You guys politicized it forcing him to do so.

    Have you found a fundamental right to extortion, say threatening to bomb a nation (certainly one that doesn’t condone terrorism) back to the stone age?

    How times have changed. Did you guys appreciate the UN during the Korean War? Do you appreciate what UNICEF does? I’m glad to know that you hate the UN. Now I atleast know it is pointless talking with you about all the good it has done (e.g., reducing armed conflict globally). I recognize that the UN is flawed. The world is better with it though. If Bush had listened we would all be a lot better.

    The difference with the ice skating competition is that they were justified in giving the gold medal to the Canadians. George Bush lied to us about WMD. The war was illegitimate from the start. Try reading some of the allegations. Oh I guess you have made up your mind just as much as I have.

    You mean to the detriment of our country (a quagmire, 3000 lives and counting, 20,000 seriously injured, ~.5 to 1 trillion). Way to go Bush!

14. December 25th, 2006 at 2:18 am
    Ryan

    Steve:

    We don’t need a history lesson here…..The intelligence was cooked [The Downing Street Memo(s)/Cheney’s Dark War/the “slam dunk case”]. The Bush administration lied to us.

    Travis:

    but i’m not talking about intelligence. i’m talking about iraq’s behavior.

    Steve:

    George Bush lied to us about WMD. The war was illegitimate from the start. Try reading some of the allegations. Oh I guess you have made up your mind just as much as I have.

    Brick wall.

15. December 25th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
    Steve

    Brick wall Ryan because you guys don’t acknowledge the fact that it didn’t matter what Hussein did. The administration was going for regime change (Downing Street Memo(s)). So Iraq’s behavior had nothing to do with it despite what Travis would have us believe.

    Bush lied to us. We were sold a bill of goods. The world’s most dangerous people should not have the most dangerous weapons. Ring a bell?

    The scary thing is that now they are after regime change in Iran. Can anyone stop these fools?

16. December 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
    Deon

    Can anyone stop these fools?

    Are you talking about the Bush Administration or Iran?

17. December 25th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
    Steve

    I was speaking of the Bush Administration but I guess it does apply to both. One thing is for sure, the Bush Administration can’t stop Iran. Bombing them will merely slow them down and really tick them off. Additionally, if you want to see our oil economy grind to a halt, do just that. Finally, if you want to make the threat of terrorism by islamic extremists greater (as we have done in Iraq according to our own intelligence estimates) proceed with that asinine plan.

18. December 25th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
    travis

    The administration was going for regime change (Downing Street Memo(s)). So Iraq’s behavior had nothing to do with it despite what Travis would have us believe.

    i’m sorry, steve, but you keep missing my point. please read this handy summary from the chicago tribune again:

    For whatever reason, and none is acceptable, Hussein didn’t disclose what weapons programs he had, or no longer had, or schemed to have. He did not have the option–refusal–that he chose.

    so, my question for you, steve, is this:

    are you retarded? if so, please continue commenting, thinking that your points refute mine.

    please slow down, stop sputtering out talking points, and think about that summary for one second.

    it doesn’t matter if intelligence was cooked or if the neocons wanted regime change: bushitler, blair, tenet, darth cheney, the neocons, and coultergeist all could have been silenced if hussein complied with the unanimous UN resolution 1441 calling for inspections. poof! like magic, there’s no regime change. (because, since the intelligence was fake, there were no weapons to be found).

    cooked intelligence did not determine whether hussein acted or failed to act in the face of a UN resolution. and the coalition of the willing would not have had the right to invade his country without his failure to act.

    if cooked intelligence was behind the unanimous vote for UN resolution 1441, that doesn’t matter either. if hussein had complied, the wishes of the new american nazi party headed by george bush could have been thwarted. if hussein had just allowed inspections to go forward, america would have been proven wrong, and hussein would have gained credibility in the world. he could have continued his practice of fleecing the iraqi people and taking their oil money. he could have kept the rape rooms open. abu ghraib could have remained in business, doing things ten times worse than were ever done there by the american tenants. hussein could have escaped judgment for the kurdish genocide for who knows how long. and steve valentine would have been overjoyed that we just left him alone to do all that.

    so, again, are you so completely dense that you do not understand this?

19. December 26th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
    Steve

    Travis, I’ll ask the same of you. Are you retarded? It didn’t matter what Hussein did. He could have brought Bush over and shown him the lack of weapons stockpiles. It wouldn’t matter. We still were going to invade.

    What?!! You honestly think Bush the zealot, dominionist would have bowed to international pressure?!! The man who wants to increase troop strength in Iraq because he has 12% of the population behind him. The man who truly believes “Old Europe” should be listened to. C’mon I know you’re not dense but to insist this is ridiculous.

    Keep in mind also that Bush, knowing the intelligence was cooked, had a choice too. He didn’t have to invade.

20. December 26th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
    Steve

    Travis. What a cheap shot! Of course I am always overjoyed when raping and pillaging are carried out!

    If that is the case, why am I so upset that the kill rate in Iraq is higher after Saddam (650,000 or so)? Why am I upset that nearly 2 million people have been displaced? Why, am I upset that 3000 Americans have died (>20,000 seriously injured) for a lie? Why am I upset that we are not helping in Sudan (where we really should worry about genocide). Why do I care that the 1/2 trillion dollars could have been used to shore up social security for the forseeable future? Boy, I’m really conflicted because of the horrible human being I am.

    On the other hadn, if you guys really do hold the moral high ground and I truly am evil, why lie to the American public? Why not invade every country where an evil dictator/government perpetrates attrocities against the public (Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, China, etc.)? Why not listen to the generals? Why not go to war with the army you wished you had? Why promulgate stupid foreign policy (axis of evil)?

    After that self assessment, I think I can dismiss your comment as ridiculous. Again your lack of credibility shining through.

21. December 27th, 2006 at 11:35 am
    Steve

    “cooked intelligence did not determine whether hussein acted or failed to act in the face of a UN resolution”

    How do you presume to know this? I mean how do you know that seeing Bush lie through his teeth didn’t force Saddam’s hand. Something like, this guy’s (Bush) a maniac. All I can do is call his bluff and hope that Bush will lose in the court of public oppinion.

    I mean, really do you know Saddam’s mind? Again, use some critical thinking skills. At least be open to different ideas.