tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post199405649473443618..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-55389059762356872722007-08-20T01:31:00.000-04:002007-08-20T01:31:00.000-04:00Again, TVD, unless there was a radical change in t...Again, TVD, unless there was a radical change in the direction of this country, the sanctions could've only been lifted by the US not using its' veto in the SC, which would've been political suicide for any sitting American President.<BR/> <BR/>Do you still find this compelling?<BR/><BR/>"We know where the WMD are..........."<BR/><BR/>or this?:<BR/><BR/>"We can't afford to have a smoking gun be aAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-48348093869865398802007-08-19T13:38:00.000-04:002007-08-19T13:38:00.000-04:00They didn't need to be lifted, they were broken.I'...They didn't need to be lifted, they were broken.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry that I can't find any "mainstream" synopses of the Duelfer Report that actually says what's in it that's exculpatory. At 1000+ pages, nobody's actually read it except sources like the WSJ, which is one more thing you refuse to consider.<BR/><BR/>I just can't find a column from "The Nation" that speaks to stuff like this.<BR/><BRTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-80441736794040177162007-08-19T09:52:00.000-04:002007-08-19T09:52:00.000-04:00Gee, an editorial from the WSJ supporting your POV...Gee, an editorial from the WSJ supporting your POV. How unexpected.<BR/><BR/>Here's an article written at about the same time on the same <A HREF="http://www.slate.com/id/2108000/" REL="nofollow">subject</A>:<BR/><BR/><B>Duelfer's evidence on the corruption of the oil-for-food program is fairly staggering. But what's the proper inference—that the president of the United States needed to use all Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-72787303581632769832007-08-19T01:23:00.000-04:002007-08-19T01:23:00.000-04:00Falsify? It posters my position. In fact it was ...Falsify? It posters my position. In fact it was later discovered that the holes in the sanctions regime were even bigger than we thought---the corruption went all the way to the UN itself!<BR/><BR/>BTW, the Duelfer Report itself <A HREF="http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/8195" REL="nofollow">completely backs Edwards' original argument</A> (and more), until he decided to recant.<BR/><BR/>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-34074099685997709332007-08-19T00:25:00.000-04:002007-08-19T00:25:00.000-04:00All you have to do is falsify what I write here, a...All you have to do is falsify what I write here, and you'll convince more than the lurkers here.<BR/><BR/>and as to history, from the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Duelfer_investigation" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia</A>:<BR/><BR/><B>The Duelfer report, released on 30 September 2004, described in a key finding the impact of the Oil-for-Food Programme on Saddam's regime:<Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-58767688107748163062007-08-18T16:08:00.000-04:002007-08-18T16:08:00.000-04:00A convincing case, or a case convincing to you? I...<A HREF="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5063884.html" REL="nofollow">A convincing case</A>, or a case convincing to you? I've given up on the latter; I write for the lurkers.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-92085178571128802112007-08-18T06:14:00.000-04:002007-08-18T06:14:00.000-04:00Well, TVD, if you say that Edwards didn't pay any ...Well, TVD, if you say that Edwards didn't pay any attention to the Administrations' lies in formulating his decision, then my admiration for him can only go up.<BR/><BR/>Let me put it this <A HREF="http://philosoraptor.blogspot.com/2006/06/lies-and-spin-wmds-63006-edition-its.html#115188259317142318" REL="nofollow">way</A>:<BR/><BR/><B>Yes, TVD, there were Democrats who didn't know any better andAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-68964929689953325472007-08-17T13:36:00.000-04:002007-08-17T13:36:00.000-04:00Of course he's repudiated it. I thought you would...Of course he's repudiated it. I thought you would appreciate the irony that he turned his back on his own good argument, which didn't depend on Curveball.<BR/><BR/>As for the box, it was collapsing.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-13583993516713279562007-08-17T11:22:00.000-04:002007-08-17T11:22:00.000-04:00Also, it isn't wise to cite something that is late...Also, it isn't wise to cite something that is later repudiated by the person in <A HREF="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17378613/" REL="nofollow">question</A>:<BR/><BR/><B>Updated: 6:30 a.m. PT Feb 28, 2007<BR/><BR/>NEW YORK - Democrat John Edwards said Tuesday that honesty and openness were essential qualities for a president, and that he was proud to acknowledge his 2002 vote authorizing the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-60968401602014147672007-08-17T11:17:00.000-04:002007-08-17T11:17:00.000-04:00I wasn't referring to the abstract concept of citi...I wasn't referring to the abstract concept of citizens making properly-informed comments on those who represent them, but her specific opinion on GWB vs. yours.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for surprising me, though.<BR/><BR/>I thought that, as in the past, you would tell the lady that this isn't the time to make judgments about GWB.<BR/><BR/><I>The riff that best characterizes my own support for toppling Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-44834588247166542622007-08-16T18:01:00.000-04:002007-08-16T18:01:00.000-04:00BTW, I like this one a lot. "We" is creepy in all...BTW, I like <A HREF="http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=2496" REL="nofollow">this one</A> a lot. "We" is creepy in all its forms.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-50650404902411015202007-08-16T17:28:00.000-04:002007-08-16T17:28:00.000-04:00I would say to the woman that in a democracy, we a...I would say to the woman that in a democracy, we are all citizen-rulers, and should verify independently anything politicians say.<BR/><BR/>If you take what they say at face value, then just fess up and admit you're a sheep.<BR/><BR/>When Russ Feingold went in and examined alll the intelligence and decided to vote "no," (not a big surprise), that was a principled dissent. Any politician who Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-33949600728950224142007-08-11T11:30:00.000-04:002007-08-11T11:30:00.000-04:00WS, thanks. It would be interesting to listen in o...WS, thanks. <BR/><BR/>It would be interesting to listen in on a dialog between TVD and the woman from Georgia, in the same way that H.L. Mencken once said it would be interesting to see NYC under aerial attack.........Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-16704647613024726682007-08-11T10:37:00.000-04:002007-08-11T10:37:00.000-04:00Nice quote, DA.JimB:Just after responding to you e...Nice quote, DA.<BR/><BR/>JimB:<BR/>Just after responding to you earlier, I weirdly DID recall having used the two different terms intentionally...and for just the reason you seem to suspect: that while the Dems are being strident, they're doing so for a reason...which is better than being mindless.<BR/><BR/>Pretty astute eye there, JimB.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-27812623969121750702007-08-10T11:24:00.000-04:002007-08-10T11:24:00.000-04:00Winston,Thank you for the compliments, and FWIW, t...Winston,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the compliments, and FWIW, this to me sounds a lot more like a genuine mea culpa:<BR/><BR/>http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003107.html<BR/><BR/>His pro-war rationale was infused with genuine liberal idealism, but he doesn't use the craven excuse of "the academy made me do it" to move the target from himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-29200807936802254132007-08-10T02:54:00.000-04:002007-08-10T02:54:00.000-04:00Here's what someone who worked on the GWB 2004 cam...Here's what someone who worked on the GWB 2004 campaign had to say about BDS:<BR/><BR/> <B>I'm not referring to what used to be called Bush Derangement Syndrome. That phrase suggested that to passionately dislike the president was to be somewhat unhinged. <I>No one thinks that anymore. I received an email before the news conference from as rock-ribbed a Republican as you can find, a Georgia Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-63927587330783066812007-08-09T23:43:00.000-04:002007-08-09T23:43:00.000-04:00WS,If your use of those particular adjectives in *...WS,<BR/><BR/>If your use of those particular adjectives in *not* intentional, then (I am curious) why do you think you used those adjectives?<BR/><BR/>JimJim Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322487665818601057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-36388352985510969252007-08-09T23:29:00.000-04:002007-08-09T23:29:00.000-04:00Though I DO agree that being able to admit that yo...Though I DO agree that being able to admit that you're wrong is a necessary condition for being a good reasoner.<BR/><BR/>And the main failing of Bush an his chorus of yes-men is a completely inability to do so.<BR/><BR/>However, though there WERE some good reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, they weren't the administration's reasons. So that part of the Ignatieff piece seems incongruous with Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-78512378498226247742007-08-09T23:21:00.000-04:002007-08-09T23:21:00.000-04:00Anonymous(es? Dunno whether this is two appearance...Anonymous(es? Dunno whether this is two appearances of one Anon, or two different ones...)<BR/><BR/>Two killer comments.<BR/><BR/>The point about the "particular academic species" that thrives on vague references to people like Isaia Berlin, Spengler and Cavell...godDAMN, man, that hits a bull's eye that I hadn't even thought about before. It's a type I'd not classified, but as soon as you Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-40156632097594614692007-08-09T22:26:00.000-04:002007-08-09T22:26:00.000-04:00I would also ask Ignatieff whether this sounds lik...I would also ask Ignatieff whether this sounds like reasoning that originated in the out of touch ether of the ivory tower:<BR/><BR/>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html<BR/><BR/>Just to read it is to lament again the yawning gap between the analytical, intellectual and practical capacities of the two candidates in 2000.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-999166677463805402007-08-09T21:49:00.000-04:002007-08-09T21:49:00.000-04:00Count me among those who aren't impressed with Ign...Count me among those who aren't impressed with Ignatieff's feeble attempt at a mea culpa. As well as this guy:<BR/><BR/>http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/blaming_the_ivory_tower.php<BR/><BR/>Ignatieff belongs to a particular academic species, unnamed because to name it would be crude. Members of the species write high minded, but vague, articles footnoting Isaiah Berlin, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-78715136834495571272007-08-09T17:38:00.000-04:002007-08-09T17:38:00.000-04:00This is germane, and not entirely bad.<A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine/05iraq-t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=cb304d04accc6df8&ex=1343966400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss" REL="nofollow">This is germane</A>, and not entirely bad.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-59444409035599201342007-08-09T16:24:00.000-04:002007-08-09T16:24:00.000-04:00The delegitimization process is usually complete b...The delegitimization process is usually complete by the 15th post, but even if we ignore my own gems---and "we" will ;-)---this is a treasure trove for the mindful reader.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-49320823379994159502007-08-09T15:34:00.000-04:002007-08-09T15:34:00.000-04:00JimB:Yeah, I think you're right that mindless is w...JimB:<BR/>Yeah, I think you're right that mindless is worse than strident...but I'm not sure whether my use of different terms there was really intentional...<BR/><BR/>Good idea, Mystic.<BR/><BR/>But I'm out of this particular thread.<BR/><BR/>It's just making me crazy.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-62440973205048776702007-08-09T12:02:00.000-04:002007-08-09T12:02:00.000-04:00This comment thread has collapsed into the pit of ...This comment thread has collapsed into the pit of incomprehensibility.<BR/><BR/>Lately, threads here have gotten that way. We're going to have to start a mandatory policy - every 15 posts, we need summaries of the issues at hand and the points made.<BR/><BR/>You know, to make it somewhat coherent.<BR/><BR/>Liike, Tom says x, WS disagrees with x, Tom cites y, WS shows y to be poo, Tom says z, etcThe Mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00813641115915460692noreply@blogger.com