Pangloss

What I'm going to tell you is that that is a matter of opinion, not fact. I respect your opinion on it, but the evidence does not exist, and as has been pointed out here on numerous occassion, quite a lot of counter-evidence exists. And that counter-evidence has firmly fallen into the "casual acceptance" category, by the way. If you watch the Sunday political shows, as I do, you'll find it part of the underlying premise of questions from reporters to politicians, etc. That encompasses another underlying premise, which is that several investigations have shown a complete lack of evidence that any analysts were under political suasion to change their findings. You're simply out in the hinterlands on this. That is not to say, however, that you are wrong. You may be right. But the evidence is simply not there. What I do find credible, however, and perhaps even patently obvious, is that the administration was deceptive in the way it "sold" the war to the public, vis-a-vis the shifting of emphasis from terrorism and 9/11 retribution over to the issue of WMDs. They took evidence which they knew was less than 100%, called it 100%, and sold it to the public. They did it right out in the public domain, right in front of our faces, and the only reason that it's not the biggest issue of the 21st century is because the mainstream media is afraid to admit that it screwed the pooch. First of all, even if the administration cherry-picked the data (which I have no problem believing is likely, even if it hasn't been proven either) you still have Democrats (like Hillary Clinton) saying that it was the right decision and backing it even today, even after all further revelations. Sure, you have some (like Kerry) saying otherwise, but you have insufficient evidence of non-partisan motivation here to call their claims objectively accurate. Second, the intelligence committee operates independently of executive branch authority. It reports to the two intelligence committees whether the president wants it to or not. It's illegal for the president to interfere with that process, and such interference is newsworthy, and we would be talking about that if it were the case. On a larger level, I don't really see why you feel it's so important to absolve congress of any blame for Iraq, or why you feel that lessens your case against Bush, but I hope it's not just more ABB-ness. You're really far too intelligent to be taken in by that sort of trap. That source doesn't do that. It does address the issue, and suggests that the relationship may not have been as direct as the administration made it out to be in 2002, but it doesn't address all of the claimed connections, such as the known meetings that took place. As such, it's not proof, and you can't claim that it is. It's an interesting piece, however, and I appreciate you passing it along. I wouldn't be surprised at all if over time we found that any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was minor and more or less unutilized. It is not my position that such a connection is relevent, or a good excuse to invade Iraq. But I think you knew that already. At any rate, if you think that Joseph Wilson is a victim, you've got a lot to learn about politics, my friend. You need to get used to the fact that not everyone is going to follow you down the path every time, bro. Intelligent people can agree to disagree. That doesn't make them "parrots".

Fascinating... thanks for all the replies on this.

It was a discussion about this article on another board that I visit that prompted this question: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1870340,00.html#121 But it's my contention that we've heard this "news" before. Doesn't it usually turn out that the virus was still in their system, it was just rare enough in the bloodstream that it didn't show up in the particular sample that they took? But even if that's not the case, if it's really gone, isn't that non-news as well? Haven't we heard about people truly surviving AIDS before, because their immune systems simply beat it? (Or like you were talking about with that case in Africa -- I believe I've heard of people being naturally immune to HIV as well.)

I don't see how this counters my point that Congress shares in the blame. I also don't see how saying that congress is "equally to blame" is the same thing as saying "congress is fully to blame". It sounds to me like you just need somebody to vent your frustrations at the administration on.

Just curious, does AIDS have a natural survival rate, or is it 100% fatal? I don't mean is it considered 100% fatal. I mean have we seen survivors on a regular basis? And I don't mean people who have the disease but hang on until they're taken out by another disease attacking their weakened immune system. I mean they beat it, lock, stock and barrel, through their own super-poweful immune system. I'm pretty sure I've read about cases like this -- people whose immune systems simply beat AIDS. Also, is it possible that I'm confusing this with the issue of immune systems that reject/destroy the HIV at introduction and don't let it survive and thrive in the system? Thanks!

Sure. But policy should be based on more than what people think. Opinion can certainly affect policy, but it shouldn't set it. It matters not one bit to me that half of Europe is peeved at the US for invading Iraq. It matters a great deal to me that we've placed ourselves in the crosshairs without a specific local gain. IMO the US should take a more mercenary, self-centered approach to foreign policy. After all, that, apparently, is what "being a member of the community of nations" means in this day and age. Ok, I understand you now, and I respect that opinion. I also disagree -- in my view there was a very good reason for the international community to interfere in the affairs of Iraq. That reason was "because that's what it said it was going to do". The UN showed its true nature, and the results is a less united world, not because the United States invaded Iraq, but because the world (minus 50-some-odd nations) refused to stand behind its words and agreements and promises. In terms of the UN acting on its resolutions, it doesn't matter that Iraq had no WMDs. The UN people said Iraq was in non-compliance, and that was following a terminal resolution to enforce. That's it. That's the end of it. There's no argument, no debate, no discussion, that's it. Bear witness: If the UN cannot act on non-compliance after a terminal resolution to enforce, then it will never be able to enforce anything. The monster has no teeth.

Well put. I hope the arab world figures that out.

For what it's worth, the only thing I think the Bush administration did that was inappropriate was to make the tactical switch to WMDs. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that deliberate deception was involved. Bear in mind that if there was a mistake there, congress is equally to blame for that error. They receive intelligence independently -- the administration is unable to either prevent or alter the kind of intelligence that was presented to the intelligence committees on terrorism. So Nancy Pelosi, who said that the evidence was "unequivocal", made the same mistake Bush made. Not to mention John Kerry, who said "there is no question Saddam has chemical and biological weapons". Or Hillary Clinton, or Ted Kennedy, or any of the rest of 'em. We need to get past the politically correct and ABB aspects of this issue.

Bear in mind that what we're seeing here really has nothing to do with the war in Iraq at all. This is a new initiative from the White House to raise poll numbers, and there's no doubt that the origin of this initiative is Karl Rove -- half of what he said today was straight out of the 2004 election campaign playbook. It's also an indication that Rove is still in the "inner circle". From a purely political perspective, I think it's a mistake. At this level of politics, it's either a glaring error or a brilliant move -- one of those deals. But I believe it's a mistake. Bush's poll numbers aren't dropping because he's failing to get his message out. They're dropping because people don't like what they're seeing. Continued presence in Iraq is a small part of it. Oil prices are a much larger part of it. Partisan bickering is an even bigger piece of the puzzle. (Poll after poll shows that Americans are even more annoyed at congress, and have no faith at all that Democrats are offering anything better than Republicans -- extremely revealing statistics, IMO.0 What Bush is doing now is what worked in the election cycle. But that won't work now, because once the election is over what voters want to see are *results*, not more talk. And in this environment more partisan bickering is the LAST thing he should be participating in. My prediction: His poll numbers will drop further.

Two wrongs don't make a right. What the democrats have or have not done is immaterial to the question of whether or not Bush is being deliberately selective in discussing how the war was sold to the American public.

Actually Al Qaeda has declared war on Muslims as well, and the US Government hasn't declared war on Muslims at all -- they're at war against terrorists who happen to be Muslims. And if there's one thing that's certain about these bombings in Jordan, it's that this fact has now been graphically demonstrated to an Arab world that was not previously very interested in the anti-terrorism side of the argument.

Not only is Bush wrong, but it's unfortunate that he has to be corrected by a real national disgrace like Kennedy. I guess the president has forgotten that he only introduced the WMD charge after it was clear that the American public was not behind invading Iraq based solely on a loose, largely unsubstantiated connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11. (A connection which later proved to be correct with regard to Al Qaeda, but incorrect with regard to 9/11.) That according to strongly independent and demonstrably objective journalists like Bob Woodward and Judith Miller. So who's being the revisionist here, really?

Well put.

Oh I'll cut anybody slack just for the askin' -- I'm just that kind of guy. (grin) Bush is definitely not the smoothest-talking politician around. I think we'd all agree that that's not the most important qualification of an elected official, but I can understand that the specifics that come outta that particular pie-hole make people a little nervous sometimes.

Fascinating to watch this showdown between the Senate and the Bush administration on torture and coersion. What do you guys think about it? I happen to agree with McCain and the Senate, with one reservation which I'll get to in a moment. I think we've allowed the executive branch their leeway, we've seen insufficient results or learning from the experience, and it's cost us more than it's gained us -- that seems to be clear. It's time to define what it is that we're going to allow, and then stick to it. BTW, on the Jon Stewart show, McCain outright threatened to override any presidential veto of the bill. Bully for him! My main concern is that the bill may be insufficiently well defined. As we saw with McCain-Feingold, soft money was not removed from political campaigns. I sure would hate to see a repeat of that.

I thought McCain was unusually blatant in his anti-Bush bias. Don't get me wrong -- I was glad to see it. Frankly I'm unhappy with myself that I voted for Bush over McCain in the primaries in 2000. If McCain runs against Hillary in 2008 I'm going to have a seriously hard time making that call. I like the guy a lot.

Um, no. The president has *zero* say on spending outside of the executive branch's budget once it's procured from congress. The House of Representatives controls all spending ("appropriations"). The executive branch submits a budget *proposal*. That's it. That's all it is, end of story. It's purely a matter of political convenience, because of the veto. That submission is generally viewed as the start of the budgetary process. The construction and content of the budget is *entirely* within the purvue of the legislative branch. The president's only control over it whatsoever is the single, master veto, which as you pointed out, has never been exersized by this president. So who's actually to blame for the deficit, the person who suggested a budget that was only slightly in arears, or the 535 members of congress who porked it into a fiscal nightmare?

I'm not baiting you, bascule, and I'm not using two wrongs to make a right. I'm simply pointing out that there is a double standard and a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to popular opinion about George Bush. I think it's a valid opinion and we should simply, respectully agree to disagree on it.

I saw this yesterday and was a bit annoyed by it. They make it sound like the President calls banks around the world and signs off on these loans personally. It's ABB band-wagoning of the worst sort. The budgetary process involves congress as well, and in fact they are the usual source of pork, not the president. That congress is dominated by Republicans at the moment, so it would be at least logically reasonable to blame the current budgetary mess on Republicans. Why they didn't follow that line is a political strategy that I'm still trying to figure out, but it might have something to do with defense of the Legislative branch, I don't know. I have some questions about their numbers, but they're just questions, not criticisms, because I don't have enough information on it. The budget deficit was something like $400 billion, not $1.05 trillion. They only thing I can figure is they're adding up some kind of cumulative total, but I haven't read their actual report so I'm not sure.

Two wrongs don't make a right, basc. I was addressing a larger issue than your personal opinion.

It's a legitimate opinion. But it's logically invalid to draw the conclusion that because he says things like "we have an obligation to defend our people" and "we are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice", that therefore he means that "we can do no wrong". When did you stop beating your wife, bascule? It's also politically correct. The proof of that is that if you turn it around and use that reasoning on other world leaders (Jacque Chirac?), you'd be challenged and taken to task.

Broop, broop, it's the logical fallacy police! (grin)

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051031/nasacuts_spa.html Apparently all science experiments scheduled for the International Space Station have been cancelled by NASA. Ostensibly this is only until "the space station is completed". But NASA has already stated that the 2010 Shuttle retirement deadline, which was originally chosen because that was the prediction for how long it would take to complete ISS, will now be enforced regardless of the status of ISS. Meanwhile NASA is underfunded and USGov is backing away from new deals for Russian space launches. IMO this is just more evidence that we've *already* seen the last shuttle launch we'll ever see.

I don't know, I think we may already be "there". It takes time for the industrial machine to respond to fundamental changes like we've seen in the price of gas. A little patience here may go a long way. We've already seen SUV sales affected (to what degree is debatable, but I think "affected" is a reasonable word). Hybrid sales are through the roof. The public awareness of MPG is obviously much higher. People just don't have a lot of options right now for responding to their new level of awareness through purchases. I'd say wait a year and let's see how Detroit (for example) responds with the 2007 models. That will be a telling indicator. We also need to keep a wary eye on the deficit at the moment. If we give a tax incentive for fuel-efficient cars, we may need to follow-up on that with a general increase in the federal gas tax to make up for the loss. This kind of fiddling makes me nervous -- I'd be very cautious here. The gas tax is about as fundamental to the economy as the Federal Reserve rate.