Comments on: INSIDE THE WMD DEBATE http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/inside_the_wmd_debate/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:43:23 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: John http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/inside_the_wmd_debate/comment-page-1/#comment-4412 John Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2877#comment-4412 So, what you're saying is that the ability to make the <i>right</i> connections between the dots isn't important at all? It's like saying that the answers don't matter as long as we have answers. It's stating that it's far more important to immediately react to the scary picture someone came up with by connecting the dots in any way they wanted to? Just coming up with arbitrary relationships using actual facts is hardly the kind of thing I want going on at the highest levels of this administration. Coming up with the <b>wrong</b> picture is just as bad as coming up with no picture at all. Just because crucial relationships and evidence was dropped from the picture doesn't mean we should start creating relationships and evidence for the hell of it. They have to be the right relationships that are supported by the evidence. Geesh. It's a wonder this species is still alive. They connected the dots and came up with a scary picture of a boogeyman that didn't exist. It's one thing to be fooled by these kind of shenanigans. It's quite another to continue to believe that it's true after the facts show otherwise. This faith based intelligence is pretty wacky and more than a little frightening. So, what you're saying is that the ability to make the right connections between the dots isn't important at all? It's like saying that the answers don't matter as long as we have answers. It's stating that it's far more important to immediately react to the scary picture someone came up with by connecting the dots in any way they wanted to? Just coming up with arbitrary relationships using actual facts is hardly the kind of thing I want going on at the highest levels of this administration. Coming up with the wrong picture is just as bad as coming up with no picture at all. Just because crucial relationships and evidence was dropped from the picture doesn't mean we should start creating relationships and evidence for the hell of it. They have to be the right relationships that are supported by the evidence.

Geesh. It's a wonder this species is still alive.

They connected the dots and came up with a scary picture of a boogeyman that didn't exist. It's one thing to be fooled by these kind of shenanigans. It's quite another to continue to believe that it's true after the facts show otherwise. This faith based intelligence is pretty wacky and more than a little frightening.

]]> By: Guy Cabot http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/inside_the_wmd_debate/comment-page-1/#comment-4413 Guy Cabot Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2877#comment-4413 Exactly right, John. As much as JJ would like us to believe this administration was merely erring on the side of caution in a world of uncertain or 'murky' intelligence, it simply does not pass the smell test. In many cases, this administration chose to act on intelligence which had been debunked or deemed highly unlikely or simply fabricated stories to fit their desired conclusions. Exactly right, John.

As much as JJ would like us to believe this administration was merely erring on the side of caution in a world of uncertain or 'murky' intelligence, it simply does not pass the smell test.

In many cases, this administration chose to act on intelligence which had been debunked or deemed highly unlikely or simply fabricated stories to fit their desired conclusions.

]]> By: dwight meredith http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/inside_the_wmd_debate/comment-page-1/#comment-4414 dwight meredith Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2877#comment-4414 A National debate about how sure we should be of an iminent threat before launching a preemptive war would be interesting. We did not have one last time because we were assured that the the administration had solid, indisputable, bullet proof facts of both an al qaeda connection as well as WMD including a nuclear program. We could not wait because the warning sign might be a mushroom cloud. The existence of reasons for a war that were not central to the arguments made by Mr. Bush do not mitigate his behavior. If a person defrauds you into buying an investment that you could have been convinced to purchase without the fraud, does your willingness to buy make the salesman any less dishonest? A National debate about how sure we should be of an iminent threat before launching a preemptive war would be interesting. We did not have one last time because we were assured that the the administration had solid, indisputable, bullet proof facts of both an al qaeda connection as well as WMD including a nuclear program. We could not wait because the warning sign might be a mushroom cloud.

The existence of reasons for a war that were not central to the arguments made by Mr. Bush do not mitigate his behavior. If a person defrauds you into buying an investment that you could have been convinced to purchase without the fraud, does your willingness to buy make the salesman any less dishonest?

]]> By: CalPundit http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/inside_the_wmd_debate/comment-page-1/#comment-4415 CalPundit Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2877#comment-4415 <strong>The Marketing of War</strong> THE MARKETING OF WAR....Last night I mentioned this Washington Post article that lays out in considerable detail the administration's persistent efforts to link Saddam Hussein to a nuclear weapons program even as the evidence for such a program was cru... --- The Marketing of War
THE MARKETING OF WAR....Last night I mentioned this Washington Post article that lays out in considerable detail the administration's persistent efforts to link Saddam Hussein to a nuclear weapons program even as the evidence for such a program was cru...

---

]]>