NightLine: Bush Administration begins downplaying WMD

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
I really wish you guys would stop using buzz-words if you don't even know what they mean. Neo-cons is short for neo-conservatives. Neo means new. So neo-con means a new conservative, as in they were not conservative in the past. Bush, Rummy and the others have always been conservative republicans as long as I have heard of them so that is not an accurate term to describe the white house.

The "neo" in "neo-consevative" refers to the new definition of conservative, not the newness of the people. Today's so-called conservatives bear little resemblance to traditional conservative values and philosophies. As just one example, conservatives traditionally oppose budget deficits.

Perhaps you should learn what buzz-words mean before you jump on others.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
You did'nt read the articles.

Yes I did, and they are nice opinion articles.... however the dictionary is found in the reference section because it is fact.

I get the meaning of words from the dictionary. Maybe if you and bowfinger did the same instead of from articles then I wouldn't have to correct you. And yes, it has been a buzz-word of late. Are you going to call up Webster and argue with him? I just gave you the quote from the dictionary and told you about the history of it. If you guys want to keep using it wrong and show others how much you "know" about political words, fine.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
I'm still here and no it isn't weaker and weaker by the day. Come on now, you are really saying that Saddam didn't have any? First of all, they already have several stashes of missiles that were prohibited by the UN. Gee, you mean Saddam didn't bring them out to destroy them with the other stash that the UN caught him with red-handed instead of hiding them? That is a violation that everyone is willing to ignore I guess. Also there may not be a smoking gun yet on WMD, but there is already a hell of a lot of circumstancial evidence. Chemical weapon suits and masks, secret underground centers with highly radioactive material, tons of exiles that came out even before the war and told about them, lots of buried barrels, etc. Look, they had months to hide and get rid of evidence so it will take some time. I'm not one of those that's going to use that as an excuse for it to be ok, but I will give them more time.

Yes, I am saying that there is a significant chance that Iraq no longer had NBC weapons or agents. The evidence presented by Bush & co. was distorted at best. In at least one case, the alleged uranium purchase in Africa, it was proven to be a complete fabrication, a lie. The claims you cite have all been proven false, distorted, or irrelevant.

This has all been hashed to death in this forum. You can also find plenty of details about each claim if you dig around through news sites other than Fox. If you really want specifics on any of these claims, I'll respond. Otherwise, I won't beat a dead horse.

Having said this, I believe the whole issue is a red herring. I maintain that finding or not finding NBC materials is irrelevant to the justification for the war. We already had inspectors in Iraq to determine whether they had truly destroyed the NBC materials. We did not have the legal or moral right to attack Iraq as long as the U.N. chose to continue inspections. There was no immediate and clear threat to the U.S. that justified unilateral action.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, I am saying that there is a significant chance that Iraq no longer had NBC weapons or agents. The evidence presented by Bush & co. was distorted at best. In at least one case, the alleged uranium purchase in Africa, it was proven to be a complete fabrication, a lie. The claims you cite have all been proven false, distorted, or irrelevant.

This has all been hashed to death in this forum. You can also find plenty of details about each claim if you dig around through news sites other than Fox. If you really want specifics on any of these claims, I'll respond. Otherwise, I won't beat a dead horse.

Having said this, I believe the whole issue is a red herring. I maintain that finding or not finding NBC materials is irrelevant to the justification for the war. We already had inspectors in Iraq to determine whether they had truly destroyed the NBC materials. We did not have the legal or moral right to attack Iraq as long as the U.N. chose to continue inspections. There was no immediate and clear threat to the U.S. that justified unilateral action.

That's fine if that's your opinion, however I don't believe Saddam just decided to get rid of them on his own. Maybe that's why some people aren't saying much now because nothing can be proved, YET. So NBC is irrelevant to you? It's not to me. Hoever you are wrong about not having the legal right to attack Iraq. Moral is relative to what you think is moral so nobody can prove that either way. Also the US didn't do anything unilaterally, they had Brits, Australia, and I think Poland with actual troops on the ground.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
Yes I did, and they are nice opinion articles.... however the dictionary is found in the reference section because it is fact.

I get the meaning of words from the dictionary. Maybe if you and bowfinger did the same instead of from articles then I wouldn't have to correct you. And yes, it has been a buzz-word of late. Are you going to call up Webster and argue with him? I just gave you the quote from the dictionary and told you about the history of it. If you guys want to keep using it wrong and show others how much you "know" about political words, fine.

What nonsense. You (maybe) looked up "neo", added it to "conservative", and invented a definition that doesn't match actual usage of the term. You added 1 + 1 and got 3. Webster can't help you if you don't understand context.

Here's a quick definition from Microsoft Bookshelf. It is also a "fact" from a "reference", but I actually looked up the whole term:

ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism (ne´o-k?n-sûr?v?-tiz´?m) noun
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960's: ?The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s? (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

Note that there is nothing about people who are new to conservatism. You misunderstood the term. Move on.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
Yes I did, and they are nice opinion articles.... however the dictionary is found in the reference section because it is fact.

I get the meaning of words from the dictionary. Maybe if you and bowfinger did the same instead of from articles then I wouldn't have to correct you. And yes, it has been a buzz-word of late. Are you going to call up Webster and argue with him? I just gave you the quote from the dictionary and told you about the history of it. If you guys want to keep using it wrong and show others how much you "know" about political words, fine.

What nonsense. You (maybe) looked up "neo", added it to "conservative", and invented a definition that doesn't match actual usage of the term. You added 1 + 1 and got 3. Webster can't help you if you don't understand context.

Here's a quick definition from Microsoft Bookshelf. It is also a "fact" from a "reference", but I actually looked up the whole term:

ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism (ne´o-k?n-sûr?v?-tiz´?m) noun
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960's: ?The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s? (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

Note that there is nothing about people who are new to conservatism. You misunderstood the term. Move on.

LOL! ROTFLMAO Uhhh, read a few posts up. This is the exact definition I gave. Invented my own definition indeed.

Again, I will point out that the key word you are missing is the word MOVEMENT. Here I will bold it for you AGAIN.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
LOL! ROTFLMAO Uhhh, read a few posts up. This is the exact definition I gave. Invented my own definition indeed.

Again, I will point out that the key word you are missing is the word MOVEMENT. Here I will bold it for you AGAIN.

Oops, my mistake. Funny that we posted the same thing at roughly the same time, yet we reach opposite conclusions. I was responding to the first dig you posted, not your follow-up.

The problem here is that you don't recognize that the term "neo-conservative" commonly refers to someone who practices the philosophy of "neoconservatism". It does not imply that the person is new to either conservatism or neoconservatism. Bush and his minions are "neo-conservatives" because they adhere to the new definition of conservatism, not because they are newly conservative.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Moonbeam]

BaDa:

Moral is relative to what you think is moral so nobody can prove that either way.

Yes I did, and they are nice opinion articles.... however the dictionary is found in the reference section because it is fact.

I get the meaning of words from the dictionary
----------------------------
Goodness me are you upside down in the world. Morality is of course absolute and the dictionary is just a list of the way people are using language. The meaning of words, their pronunciation, change with time. Words that aren't words become words, 'irregardless' of what you think.

 

[Moonbeam]

I was responding to the first dig you posted, not your follow-up.
-----------------
Probably realized the 'new' thing wasn't gonna buy him anything and switched to movement. I get those on the toilet.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
LOL! ROTFLMAO Uhhh, read a few posts up. This is the exact definition I gave. Invented my own definition indeed.

Again, I will point out that the key word you are missing is the word MOVEMENT. Here I will bold it for you AGAIN.

Oops, my mistake. Funny that we posted the same thing at roughly the same time, yet we reach opposite conclusions. I was responding to the first dig you posted, not your follow-up.

The problem here is that you don't recognize that the term "neo-conservative" commonly refers to someone who practices the philosophy of "neoconservatism". It does not imply that the person is new to either conservatism or neoconservatism. Bush and his minions are "neo-conservatives" because they adhere to the new definition of conservatism, not because they are newly conservative.

Do you see the difference?

Actually our posts were over a half hour apart, but that's ok that you were a little quick to the draw of accusing me of fabrication without reading my actual definition. I forgive you. The problem is that what you are saying does not match the definition you gave. If what you say were true then the crux of the definition would say "the practice of the philosophy of ..... " but as you posted, it says "An intellectual and political movement.... " if it is a movement, then what did the movement start at and what did it move to? For example, the women's suffrage movement happen when women who accepted the fact that they could not vote (starting point) converted to women to took action to gain the right to vote (end point). A movement must have a starting point and an end point. I again must ask you, what was the starting position before the movement and what was the end position after the movement?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
That's fine if that's your opinion, however I don't believe Saddam just decided to get rid of them on his own. Maybe that's why some people aren't saying much now because nothing can be proved, YET. So NBC is irrelevant to you? It's not to me. Hoever you are wrong about not having the legal right to attack Iraq. Moral is relative to what you think is moral so nobody can prove that either way. Also the US didn't do anything unilaterally, they had Brits, Australia, and I think Poland with actual troops on the ground.

And you are equally welcome to your opinions as well. Two corrections, however. First, I did not say "NBC is irrelevant" to me. I said "finding or not finding NBC materials is irrelevant to the justification for the war." They are completely different.

Second, the various claims you mentioned have been factually refuted by people with first-hand knowledge, usually U.S. military personnel. That is not just my opinion. You still have the right to believe whatever you want, of course. Just recognize that your opinions are supported by misinformation. In general, the claims were preliminary reports and speculation that were later refuted, clarified, etc. The press in general, TV in particular, has been lax in following up on their early breathless reports of the next big smoking gun.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I was responding to the first dig you posted, not your follow-up.
-----------------
Probably realized the 'new' thing wasn't gonna buy him anything and switched to movement. I get those on the toilet.

Oh boy, now someone who doesn't even know what the electoral college is joining the conversation.

The dictionary has the meaning of words at the present time. If you want to make up your own words then you should cut a record with Snoop dog and stay out of politics. Also I didn't switch to anything, when you are 'new' at a philosophy that means you did not hold the philosophy until recently. Hence you had to MOVE to the new philosophy. I'm glad to know you are regular though.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
That's fine if that's your opinion, however I don't believe Saddam just decided to get rid of them on his own. Maybe that's why some people aren't saying much now because nothing can be proved, YET. So NBC is irrelevant to you? It's not to me. Hoever you are wrong about not having the legal right to attack Iraq. Moral is relative to what you think is moral so nobody can prove that either way. Also the US didn't do anything unilaterally, they had Brits, Australia, and I think Poland with actual troops on the ground.

And you are equally welcome to your opinions as well. Two corrections, however. First, I did not say "NBC is irrelevant" to me. I said "finding or not finding NBC materials is irrelevant to the justification for the war." They are completely different.

Second, the various claims you mentioned have been factually refuted by people with first-hand knowledge, usually U.S. military personnel. That is not just my opinion. You still have the right to believe whatever you want, of course. Just recognize that your opinions are supported by misinformation. In general, the claims were preliminary reports and speculation that were later refuted, clarified, etc. The press in general, TV in particular, has been lax in following up on their early breathless reports of the next big smoking gun.

I meant in regaurds to the justification of the war.

Some of these reports have been mis-reported, however there are reports that were not. The chem masks and suites - not a smoking-gun but suspicious. Chemical traces at various places, like in the river (I forget which one). I know this is not hard proof, but I am basically saying that we know he had them, he admitted it, and I don't believe he would destroy it on his own. Legally speaking though, he was bound by the treaty agreement to fully disarm unapproved weapons determined by the UN. The missiles alone are a violation (remember these were stashes never presented to the inspectors) that gives the coalition legal right to invade.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm feeling a bit pedantic this evening, and I apologize to anyone else mired in this exchange. As is often the case, the subject at hand isn't really even relevant to the topic of the thread. Imagine that.

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
Actually our posts were over a half hour apart, but that's ok that you were a little quick to the draw of accusing me of fabrication without reading my actual definition. I forgive you.

For the record, I read and responded to your first definition. It did not come from a dictionary. I didn't notice that you gave another definition in a subsequent post. I'm not perfect, but I try to be very careful to quote people accurately and in context.

The problem is that what you are saying does not match the definition you gave. If what you say were true then the crux of the definition would say "the practice of the philosophy of ..... " but as you posted, it says "An intellectual and political movement.... " if it is a movement, then what did the movement start at and what did it move to? For example, the women's suffrage movement happen when women who accepted the fact that they could not vote (starting point) converted to women to took action to gain the right to vote (end point). A movement must have a starting point and an end point. I again must ask you, what was the starting position before the movement and what was the end position after the movement?

BaDaBooM, your argument is a straw man and I won't continue to try to respond. If you want to continue to misunderstand the common usage of "neo-conservative", more power to you. You will continue to be confused by conversations among people who use the term without knowing or caring about your interpretation. Unless you are a senior editor of a major publication, I sincerely doubt your definition wil replace conventional usage. Feel free to give it your best shot, however.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Sure... bail when you can't answer my question. See you pull your "practice of a philosohpy" out of nowhere while my "intellectual and political movement" is a direct quote. Here's the facts. It's not "my" definition, it is the definition printed in the dictionary. This was the original meaning. Yes, it is becoming more common for people to use it in the way you describe, but it doesn't mean they are right. Perhaps someday it will be changed since, as you've shown, it is easier to just change the definition than to correct the word usage of those that think they know what it means because they read it somewhere. Until then I will go witih the dictionary definition.

Edit: btw, it wasn't another definition. it was a condensed version.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
The chem masks and suites - not a smoking-gun but suspicious. Chemical traces at various places, like in the river (I forget which one). I know this is not hard proof, but I am basically saying that we know he had them, he admitted it, and I don't believe he would destroy it on his own. Legally speaking though, he was bound by the treaty agreement to fully disarm unapproved weapons determined by the UN. The missiles alone are a violation (remember these were stashes never presented to the inspectors) that gives the coalition legal right to invade.

The chemical masks are really not that suspicious. We know Iraq had NBC weapons in the past. We know it used them on multiple occasions. It is a given that they would have appropriate gear for handling NBC materials and operating in a contaminated environment. The only real question is whether it is suspicious that they kept the NBC gear after they allegedly destroyed the materials. Once you get past the media hype, it's not surprising at all. Why would they destroy this gear? They paid good money for it, there's no doubt Hussein hoped to resume his NBC programs someday, and there's always the chance that Iraq would face a foe who used NBC weapons.

I'm not familiar with chemicals in a river.

Yes, Iraq had missiles that the U.N. claimed were in violation of their sanctions. Iraq disagreed with this, but reluctantly agreed to start destroying them. They were in the middle of doing so when we attacked. We knew with 100% certainty that they hadn't finished; therefore we knew with certainty that they still had some of these missiles.

In any case, the missiles were a minor infraction, only slightly exceeding the U.N. limits on weapons range. That doesn't make it right, but it hardly justifies a war. If we're going to attack every country that has any violations of U.N. directives, we'll be at war with much of the world including most of our allies. We'll even have to attack ourselves since we routinely ignore U.N. rules that we find inconvenient.

I am not suggesting that Saddam Hussein was anything other than an evil, lying, brutal thug. I just don't think that's sufficient reason to attack another country.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
Sure... bail when you can't answer my question. See you pull your "practice of a philosohpy" out of nowhere while my "intellectual and political movement" is a direct quote. Here's the facts. It's not "my" definition, it is the definition printed in the dictionary. This was the original meaning. Yes, it is becoming more common for people to use it in the way you describe, but it doesn't mean they are right. Perhaps someday it will be changed since, as you've shown, it is easier to just change the definition than to correct the word usage of those that think they know what it means because they read it somewhere. Until then I will go witih the dictionary definition.

Edit: btw, it wasn't another definition. it was a condensed version.

Please use your dictionary to look up the term "straw man". Or maybe "red herring" - it's got some of both.

 

[Moonbeam]

BaDa, I've responded to your nonsense about the electoral college and as for moving to a philosophy is that The Beacon's Van Theory of Philosophy?

 

[Moonbeam]

A libertarian comment on the definition of neoconservative:

"
Essence


A Political Label to Remember
by George F. Smith


Political labels are difficult to grasp because they're almost never clearly defined. For example, here's how dictionary.com defines neoconservative: "An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: 'The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s' (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)."

What does that tell you about a neoconservative's convictions? Would he or she support free trade? Abolition of the income tax? The government's war on terrorism? Are they simply disillusioned liberals who turned to conservatism?

We might expect the neoconservative.com web site to clear up the matter of who they are. Neoconservatism, they tell us, "is committed to cultural traditionalism, democratic capitalism, and a foreign policy promoting freedom and American interests around the world." [1] Their explanation includes two terms dripping with warmth and vagueness -- cultural traditionalism and "democratic" capitalism -- and an explicit contradiction -- promoting freedom and America's interests.

Perhaps we should step back a little and ask: What is a conservative? Is it someone "favoring traditional views and values" who tends "to oppose change," as dictionary.com says? Do conservatives also support that great ideal of "democratic" capitalism, or is that a monopoly of neoconservatives? We need to know differentiating essentials, and no one seems able to provide them.

"When labels confuse rather than clarify, they should be dropped," writes Mark Skousen, who concluded that "the political spectrum has become a rhetorical version of Abbott and Costello's 'Who's on first?' routine." [2]"

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
BaDa, I've responded to your nonsense about the electoral college and as for moving to a philosophy is that The Beacon's Van Theory of Philosophy?

Yea, and you were schooled by etech and me.

Also, you really think I give a crap what some libertarian thinks? Besides I'm not the one who originally use the "label" neoconservative.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
BaDa, I've responded to your nonsense about the electoral college and as for moving to a philosophy is that The Beacon's Van Theory of Philosophy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yea, and you were schooled by etech and me.
-------------------
AHAHAHAHAHAHA RIIIIIIIGHT. Kindergarten school maybe. You were as absurd and padantic here as there.
-------------------
---------------

Also, you really think I give a crap what some libertarian thinks? Besides I'm not the one who originally use the "label" neoconservative.
------------------------
I don't give a crap what you think some libertarian thinks. I found it interesting and posted it for anybody with a reflective mind. Makes no BaDaBoom to me if that ain't you. You were one who was wound up with definition. And I forgot to mention that by the time a dictionary gets published it's out of date. Language is alive.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
BaDa, I've responded to your nonsense about the electoral college and as for moving to a philosophy is that The Beacon's Van Theory of Philosophy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yea, and you were schooled by etech and me.
-------------------
AHAHAHAHAHAHA RIIIIIIIGHT. Kindergarten school maybe. You were as absurd and padantic here as there.
-------------------
---------------

Also, you really think I give a crap what some libertarian thinks? Besides I'm not the one who originally use the "label" neoconservative.
------------------------
I don't give a crap what you think some libertarian thinks. I found it interesting and posted it for anybody with a reflective mind. Makes no BaDaBoom to me if that ain't you. You were one who was wound up with definition. And I forgot to mention that by the time a dictionary gets published it's out of date. Language is alive.

Then why are there like 5 people telling you to shut up? Also "Language is alive" is really lame arguement.

 

[RuneScaper]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I guess no onw here knows about the PNAC(Project for the New American Century). Its hard to belive there has been no media coverage of this, when i first read it i tought it was a joke. Its imperialism, far more than just wanting oil but power over the world.

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

The fact that it exist is not the most fearfull thing but the fact that its members are the same people in power today. Heres the list of members found on the site:
Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz.

Link to a good article on it

 

[Moonbeam]

Now BaDa, it's very simple. In the first place five people doesn't mean anything. Five people wanted to shut Galileo up too. Secondly, your calling my argument lame only shows that you are lame. If you had an intelligent rebuttal you would use it. I pay no attention to silly remarks of either the numbers or personal claims kind. I am much more trusting of my judgment than yours or theirs. It's a bad habit I picked up somewhere. To compound the problem I don't need to be right. I have been wrong on occasions. Why just the other day I thought I made a mistake. How silly of me.

Runes, I've been on about the New American Century since way way way before the war.

 

[BaDaBooM]

I bet if I took a poll there would be many more than just 5. You should do that; start a new poll and ask how many people in this forum feel that you should be banned.

Runes, I've been on about the New American Century since way way way before the war.

Yes, of course you would be.... I would expect nothing less.