House of Eratosthenes

My Facebook comment drew an inordinate number of “likes” as I expressed some marginal sympathy for the opposition — on an issue in which I can certainly see the logic to both sides:

It’s gotta be tough to be an Obama supporter right now. Even if you have that “history began this morning” thing going on…which they always do, of course, and it would be as important to them as ever… the whole rationale for backing action in Syria would be “You just can’t look weak and feckless in the Middle East, you can’t!!!”

Which is true. But the minute you make that argument, you’ve made an argument that President Obama said something not only foolish, not only contrary to his endless campaign rhetoric about smart diplomacy and responsible exits and not acting stupidly…but also, illustrative of why we don’t want Him, or any other democrat, in an office of real power like this.

How did I put it before? Putting democrats in charge of the economy is like putting Col. Sanders in charge of your pet chicken; putting them in charge of the military is like hiring the chicken to cut the lawn.

Two issues here, that may appear to be the same but are actually different. First issue is that Our First Holy Majesty said something stupid, and the second issue is that in doing so, He has defined Himself as being the polar opposite of what He presented Himself to be — since these kinds of intemperate utterances of His have gradually shaped up more as instances of a rule, than of its exceptions.

It’s embarrassing to watch anymore. You don’t even have to wonder “gosh I wonder if He’s sorry he said that?” We don’t need to mull it over, we don’t need to eavesdrop. It’s a given.

But Mister Wonderful continues to hide behind the facade, with “uh” inserted before every other syllable, being the thoughtful scholarly guy He isn’t. It’s annoying, at this point, since we know He could save about thirty or forty percent of the time everyone’s investing in listening to Him, by just dropping it.

Have you tried reading one of these courtesy-transcription jobs that drop all the “ums” and “ers” and “ahs” and seriously asking yourself at the end of each sentence: Waitaminnit, was there really any kind of deep thought involved in saying something like that? Quite an enlightening experience.

None of the rhetorical tricks seem to work.

Can He blame Bush?

Can He create a straw man involving Congressional Republicans?

I think He’s finally found an insurmountable boundary; Himself.
.
- OregonGuy | 08/30/2013 @ 11:19
On the bright side, since we elected Obama instead of Romney, there’s no “better jobs back home” for American youth to pick over becoming a soldier and going to war with Syria.
- muttley | 08/30/2013 @ 12:23
On THIS issue:
Can He blame Bush?
No. Apparently, Ed Schultz(&al.) CAN, for h Him.

Can He create a straw man involving Congressional Republicans?
No. Apparently, Reverend Al Sharpton(&al.) CAN, for h Him.

I think He’s finally found an insurmountable boundary; Himself.
BUT,SURELY NGO minions of (ie,) General Electric/General Motors(&al.) can help h Him reinterpret h Himself for h Him, AGAIN!

10% adulterated gasoline is UP. Diesel fuel is UP. So is Gold.
- CaptDMO | 08/31/2013 @ 07:06
OregonGuy: Can He blame Bush?

There’s no doubt that the Iraq War debacle, including the hype over WMD, has smothered the current debate. It’s a major reason why Britain won’t back the U.S. Odd that actual WMD are less of a concern to many Americans than phantom WMD were in the last administration.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 07:56
Well, considering there was plenty of evidence that the WMD in Iraq was smuggled into Syria, (although the American MSM wouldn’t report it, reliable news sources abroad reported it plenty), it could be argued these are the SAME WMD.

But don’t let that affect your judgment, OregonGay.
- muttley | 08/31/2013 @ 08:58
muttley: Well, considering there was plenty of evidence that the WMD in Iraq was smuggled into Syria, (although the American MSM wouldn’t report it, reliable news sources abroad reported it plenty), it could be argued these are the SAME WMD.

Most nerve agents are unstable and have a short shelf life. Iraq may have exported technology, but Syria has its own advanced WMD programs, and never needed Iraq’s limited technology. The Syrians are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which means they can legally develop chemical weapons, but they are signatories to the 1925 Geneva Protocols, which prohibit their use.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 09:03
Iraq exported chemical and biological weapons to Syria to get them out of the country ahead of the inspectors. The point is that, according to the comment to which I was responding, the “reality” of a particular WMD is apparently determined by who is in office.

Either way, we should not be going into other countries and fighting wars. Our military should ONLY be used to protect our borders. We are not supposed to have alliances. We are supposed to stand alone. If someone tries to invade us, great, we can fuck them up, but, until then, our military should be patrolling our borders, our navy guarding our merchant ships in the oceans, and nothing else.
- muttley | 08/31/2013 @ 09:10
muttley: Iraq exported chemical and biological weapons to Syria to get them out of the country ahead of the inspectors.

There’s no evidence of that. You said it was the same WMD, which is very unlikely for technical reasons.

muttley: Either way, we should not be going into other countries and fighting wars. Our military should ONLY be used to protect our borders.

That’s a nice sentiment, but most people think the world wars changed that calculation. What happens “over there” can have a huge impact on the United States.

muttley: We are not supposed to have alliances.

The U.S. Constitution has provisions for treaties.

muttley: our navy guarding our merchant ships in the oceans

Guarding merchant lines can involve one in conflicts almost anywhere in the world. You are right to counsel caution, however. The U.S. certainly doesn’t want a repeat of the debacle in Iraq.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 09:20
There’s no evidence of that.

lmgtfy.

I found the “Need dirt on George Sada” that appears on the first page to be amusing, as well as very telling of how liberals work with new, & unwanted, information.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 09:26
mkfreeberg: lmgtfy

That’s an odd use of lmgtfy. Anyway, not sure Sada’s hearsay is all that compelling.

We know Saddam had chemical weapons in the 1980s, and used them during the Iran-Iraq War, and against the Kurdish insurgency. However, a great deal of documentary evidence has shown that Saddam had destroyed as much of his stockpiles as he could find, though some were lost during the chaos of that period. It’s possible he transferred some to Syria, but unlikely, and certainly not the weapons purportedly in use by the Assad regime.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 09:47
That’s an odd use of lmgtfy. Anyway, not sure Sada’s hearsay is all that compelling.

All uses of that web site are odd. That’s kind of the point.

The “no evidence” scam is classic sleight-of-hand misdirection, just another example of liberals saying to the country “Here, let us have all the benefit of the doubt on this thing,” and a complacent bored country saying back “um, okay, alright.” It might make sense if Saddam Hussein was served with a no-knock warrant. I might even agree with it, then. BAM the door goes down, our “cops” go in to Saddam’s “apartment,” there are people smoking pot, taking a crap, having sex, completely surprised…provably surprised…and…”no evidence” of what we thought we would find.

As it is: We started knocking in September of 2002. At the latest. That’s when Dubya gave the United Nations the “You guys better think about enforcing this stuff or you’re all going to be completely irrelevant” speech. Over six months before the invasion.

Our cops knocked at Saddam’s door for six months.

When we finally went in, there was “no evidence”? Ha! I would HOPE not!
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 09:58
mkfreeberg: All uses of that web site are odd.

“Conservatives don’t understand irony.”

mkfreeberg: When we finally went in, there was “no evidence”?

There was plenty of evidence, millions of records, all of it pointing to Saddam having abandoned his WMD programs in order to comply with U.N. sanctions.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 10:04
There was plenty of evidence, millions of records, all of it pointing to Saddam having abandoned his WMD programs in order to comply with U.N. sanctions.

You’d better go tell the people still screaming that “Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction” then. They’re laboring under the mis-impression that “neocons” made the whole thing up, when Saddam was known to have used poison gas.

Anyway, “abandoned his WMD programs” is not mutually exclusive from shipping it all to Syria. Although for obvious reasons, that would not be in practical compliance (even though it might have been in the technical sense).

None of this detracts from the main point: Obama’s turned out to be everything He ever said Bush was, and much, much worse, on this issue if on none other.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 10:08
mkfreeberg: They’re laboring under the mis-impression that “neocons” made the whole thing up, when Saddam was known to have used poison gas.

The political left is quite aware that Saddam had and used WMD, including during the Reagan Administration which provided intelligence that allowed Saddam to use WMD most effectively against the Iranians. Saddam no longer had WMD at the time of the invasion, in accordance with U.N. directives.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 10:17
The political left is quite aware…

Another imaginary poll, successfully taken, I see.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 10:21
I guess they were tired of reading minds in the other thread, so they’re trying it here.

Although I must say, “winning” an “argument” must be a heck of a lot easier when you get to pretend that similar things are different, and different things the same. So: There are no vital US interests at stake when a despotic regime gasses its own people and threatens to destabilize the entire region. Except when there are. Which, so far as I can tell, is determined entirely by which letter the current occupant of the Oval Office has behind his name. R = unilateral cowboy warmongering; D = get that man another Nobel Peace Prize!
- Severian | 08/31/2013 @ 11:57
mkfreeberg: Another imaginary poll, successfully taken, I see.

1991: Whatever Happened To The Iraqi Kurds?
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

The U.S. tilt towards Saddam during the Reagan Administration, including the use of poison gas against Iranians and Kurds, was a significant issue on the left long before the U.S. invaded Iraq.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 12:04
Severian: So: There are no vital US interests at stake when a despotic regime gasses its own people and threatens to destabilize the entire region.

Saddam was no longer a threat. Nor is it clear if the U.S. can successfully intervene in Syria.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 12:06
Uh huh. Like the old song says: whatever gets you through the night.
- Severian | 08/31/2013 @ 12:49
I’m curious as to where all this great documentary evidence was that Saddam shut down his WMD programs and destroyed his stocks between the first and second Gulf Wars. Because for a guy who was working that hard to be innocent, he sure spent a lot of time back then playing pea-and-shells, three-card monte, whatever misdirection con game you like, in general screwing around with the guys who were getting paid to, you know, document that he was shutting down the WMD programs.

Oh, you mean when he knew we were planning to come in and and shut it down for him (not to mention shut him down)? In short, when he knew he had no choice in the matter? Ha ha, very funny. But seriously.
- Rich Fader | 08/31/2013 @ 14:50
Rich Fader: I’m curious as to where all this great documentary evidence was that Saddam shut down his WMD programs and destroyed his stocks between the first and second Gulf Wars.

In U.S. hands, including 48,000 boxes of documents, audiotapes and videotapes.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-21-iraq-wmds_x.htm
- Zachriel | 09/01/2013 @ 05:43
mkfreeberg: Another imaginary poll, successfully taken, I see.

1991: Whatever Happened To The Iraqi Kurds?
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm
- Zachriel | 09/01/2013 @ 05:44
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

The U.S. tilt towards Saddam during the Reagan Administration, including the use of poison gas against Iranians and Kurds, was a significant issue on the left long before the U.S. invaded Iraq.
- Zachriel | 09/01/2013 @ 05:44
“We don’t have anything hidden!” the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.

At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would “roam Iraq for 50 years” in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. “When is this going to end?” he asked.
:
Even as the documents make clear Saddam’s regime had given up banned weapons, they also attest to its continued secretiveness: A 1997 document from Iraqi intelligence instructed agencies to keep confidential files away from U.N. teams, and to remove “any forbidden equipment.”

So Saddam Hussein was keeping things hidden while insisting he wasn’t keeping things hidden. That’s called lying.

And it’s y’all’s position that he was “in accordance with U.N. directives”?
- mkfreeberg | 09/01/2013 @ 23:40
Morgan, you fool. Don’t know know that when the facts supporting a leftist’s idea are demonstrably not in accordance with reality, then it must be reality which is wrong? Obviously reality is wrong, because it doesn’t match up with their feelings, and their feelings mean more than yours, because they’re better people than you.

Jeez, man, don’t you know ANYTHING, knuckle-dragger?
- muttley | 09/01/2013 @ 23:56
Yeah, yeah…I know.

Some guy somewhere says one thing, that becomes “overwhelming evidence.” Another guy says something else, and that’s “hearsay.”
- mkfreeberg | 09/01/2013 @ 23:58
Now THAT is an inconvenient truth…
- muttley | 09/01/2013 @ 23:59
muttley: Don’t know know that when the facts supporting a leftist’s idea are demonstrably not in accordance with reality, then it must be reality which is wrong?

The Bush Administration had every reason to make a determination that Saddam had illegal weapons and programs; however, they determined that the weapons had been destroyed, and the programs ended.

mkfreeberg: So Saddam Hussein was keeping things hidden while insisting he wasn’t keeping things hidden. That’s called lying.

Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that he had destroyed his illegal weapons programs.

Claim: Syrian used chemical weapons acquired from Saddam’s regime.

Evidence against: hundreds-of-thousands of documents, including inventories and directives; contemporaneous audio and video tapes; interviews with hundreds of Iraqi officials; investigation by U.N. and the U.S. intelligence concluding Iraqi illegal weapons had been destroyed, and programs ended. In addition, Syria had a more advanced chemical weapons program, and didn’t need to import inferior weapons.

Evidence for: Hearsay from one official.
- Zachriel | 09/02/2013 @ 06:40
And that’s how it’s done, kids. See how easy it is to gather the evidence that says what you want it to, when you really, really want it to?
- mkfreeberg | 09/02/2013 @ 06:50
mkfreeberg: See how easy it is to gather the evidence that says what you want it to, when you really, really want it to?

The U.N. inspectors were reaching the same conclusion before the Iraqi invasion.
- Zachriel | 09/02/2013 @ 06:52
Since the conclusions are in conflict, the question that arises is:

Does any of the other evidence, provide proof that the one official was mistaken or lying? In other words, is there a hard contradiction here?

That’s one way to noodle out apparent contradictions. The other way, of course, is to discard that information which is the least desirable part of the contradiction, to rationalize it away.

Other question that comes up: How do we want to think about contradictions, when we’re deciding matters of national security that involve unknowns?
- mkfreeberg | 09/02/2013 @ 06:57
mkfreeberg: Since the conclusions are in conflict, the question that arises is

The hearsay from one Iraqi official constitutes a conclusion?

mkfreeberg: Does any of the other evidence, provide proof that the one official was mistaken or lying? In other words, is there a hard contradiction here?

Hearsay is intrinsically weak evidence, and in this case, is directly contradicted by a vast amount documentary evidence, testimony, and physical evidence.
- Zachriel | 09/02/2013 @ 07:05
Hearsay is intrinsically weak evidence, and in this case, is directly contradicted by a vast amount documentary evidence, testimony, and physical evidence.

So that’s a yes, there is a hard contradiction there? I notice y’all chose to use the word “contradicted.”
- mkfreeberg | 09/02/2013 @ 07:30
mkfreeberg: So that’s a yes, there is a hard contradiction there?

The vast majority of the evidence contradicts the hearsay. We already said that. Perhaps you mean “directly contradicts”.

Iraq “not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment” — George W Bush
- Zachriel | 09/02/2013 @ 07:36
Okay, let’s consider the question restated then. Y’all are already on record saying Georges Sada’s statements are contradicted by the evidence mentioned in the link y’all posted.

Did y’all mean by that, directly contradicts, or did y’all mean something else?

In ordinary conversation, the distinction is trivial and it isn’t necessary to go down this bunny-trail. But somehow, in this situation in which the prudent move would’ve been to leave Saddam alone and allow his inventories to remain a mystery, ironically, it becomes necessary for us to tease this out.

I find that interesting.
- mkfreeberg | 09/02/2013 @ 07:51
mkfreeberg: Did y’all mean by that, directly contradicts, or did y’all mean something else?

You’re the one who used the term “hard contradiction” and insisted on an answer. As we didn’t know exactly what that term meant, we suggested an alternative wording to see if we understood your sense.

The hearsay directly contradicts the vast majority of the evidence.
- Zachriel | 09/02/2013 @ 08:08
mkfreeberg: But somehow, in this situation in which the prudent move would’ve been to leave Saddam alone and allow his inventories to remain a mystery, ironically, it becomes necessary for us to tease this out.

Weapons inspectors were close to a final determination. The Bush Administration didn’t have eyes to see. They fixed the intelligence to fit their preconceptions.

But that’s all immaterial to the point raised, which was that the WMD Syria used came from Iraq.
- Zachriel | 09/02/2013 @ 08:11
They fixed the intelligence to fit their preconceptions.

Meaning, they did not place infinite weight on the evidence that suggested one thing, and entirely discard the evidence that suggested the other thing. As y’all just did, just now, with the official who said something y’all didn’t like.

They looked at both sides, presuming the worst, and we happen to have some loud opinionated types in our nation who don’t like having it done that way, and are willing to demonize & caricaturize anybody who does it that way. Even though that’s in keeping with industry-accepted best practices of anything that involves any kind of security.
- mkfreeberg | 09/02/2013 @ 10:04
mkfreeberg: Even though that’s in keeping with industry-accepted best practices of anything that involves any kind of security.

Generally, shooting yourself in the foot is not considered good practice in security.

mkfreeberg: Meaning, they did not place infinite weight on the evidence that suggested one thing, and entirely discard the evidence that suggested the other thing.

They deluded themselves. It was obvious then, and it’s more obvious now. But that’s still irrelevant, because this discussion concerns whether the chemical weapons recently used in Syria came from Saddam’s Iraq, and the evidence gathered post-invasion strongly indicates otherwise.
- Zachriel | 09/02/2013 @ 10:27
Generally, shooting yourself in the foot is not considered good practice in security.

Yeah, maybe y’all should go tell Saddam Hussein all about that. How does one get hold of the guy these days, again?
- mkfreeberg | 09/02/2013 @ 10:52

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Syria Makes it Tough to be an Obama SupporterFriday, August 30th, 2013

Syria Makes it Tough to be an Obama Supporter
Friday, August 30th, 2013