What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesses on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate.

…the world having witnesses on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate.

You focus on the change being tolerance. I see that. But, what you aren’t focusing on (present in the same quote) is Jack Straw’s assessment that people had witnessed what determined evil people can perpetuate.

How far is that off from saying the people’s awareness had changed? Of that their perception of the world had changed?

I believe part of our disagreement comes from what we see in the very same information. You see Straw’s comment and conclude that there wasn’t a threat and only American’s had become intolerant. I admit you could gleen that from the first part of the quote. But, what I see (and you didn’t address) was the second part of the quote; that I still stand by. Straw’s comments (2nd part) imply that for the first time people had witnessed what evil determined people could perpetrate.

Those are two different ideas contained in the same quote. You see the idea that conforms to your view, I see the one that that conforms to mine.

Again, I think that is were some of our disagreement on the issue stems.

Yeaah, because you know only Feith’s recollections are correct. All those people both in the US and abroad who remember the WMD, the “Iraqi gathering threat”, the Nigerian uranium, the meeting in Germany by the plotters, etc. etc. etc. are wrong because all those events are “misremembered”.

Feith really does think the rest of us are about as stupid as he is.

backup Says:
And this is from Jack Straw in the DSM:

Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesses on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate.

Another way to say it: The threat may not have increased, but people’s awareness (or perception) has changed, because of 9/11.

If you become aware of something, you shouldn’t address it, because it was there a long time before you recognized it?

How the FU(K do you confuse “tolerance” for a threat with “awareness” of a threat?

This is typical of your arguments, Cap’n, and it’s why I have so little respect for your contributions here — your moderate attitude notwithstanding. You take a quote about lessening of tolerance (meaning, presumably, less patience and a greater desire to act) with the dawning of a new “awareness”.

They way you characterized the Secretary’s quote was not at all accurate, and I suspect at least a little dishonest.

You are one of the very few conservatives here who is willing and able to engage in discussion, but your arguments are so often flawed like this that it’s very frustrating for those of us who would enjoy a good debate. It’s why you get called a troll. Usually I think that tag is unfair to you but I admit there are moments…

I will concede that Democrats were more hawkish under Clinton than Bush, when you consider the quotes from 1998.

No, truncated, with no context provided.
From Snopes:

Origins: All of the quotes listed are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaked was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the US. Moveover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by US and British forces during operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S, Cohen and Gen, Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in “degrading Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”

Try again.

Gee, lying has a new moniker. Brilliant you piece of $hit.

o/t: Did you know that many in the Bush Administration have been charged with war crimes? Read it now!

We could not even bribe Turkey with many billions of dollars just to allow our troops to pass thru their country. Does that sound like he was a threat to his neighbors?

Do you know how many thousands of nuclear weapons the US has? How many tons of chemical and biological weapons we have in Fort Detrick MD and Anniston Alabama alone?

Since when is one country allowed to disarm another country for twelve years before invading, occupying, and taking control of their vital resources? The Bush administration is full of war criminals and Feith is one of the major ones.

Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesses on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate.

Another way to say it: The threat may not have increased, but people’s awareness (or perception) has changed, because of 9/11.

If you become aware of something, you shouldn’t address it, because it was there a long time before you recognized it?

I pulled this from the first of the DSM:

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

My question is this: If everyone knew there were no WMD, why was the British SECDEF considering the consequences if Saddam used his WMD ‘on day one’ or ‘on Kuwait’ or ‘on Israel’?

backup Says:

Because you make a poor decision, that turns out bad, is it really criminal?

It is if there is negligence involved, or outright fraud.

Where you see a “bad decision” most of us see the result of deliberate manipulation of intelligence, in the service of a long-expressed goal of an important part of Bush’s support base, the Neocons. The fact that so many of these people benefited handsomely, from Cheney’s former employer getting free access to our national treasury, to Bush being able to exploit the patriotic fervor of a nation “At War” in eeking out a second term in office, should give pause to anyone with a reasonable sense of skepticism about government, which most conservatives claim to have.

The “reality-based community” so famously derided by an unnamed WH staffer, saw the falsehoods and the cooked books before the invasion was launched.

It takes a lot of good will to see the Downing Street Memo and the Sixteen Words and No WMD and Colin Powell before the UN as a series of bad breaks that just didn’t go our way. You, Cap’n, apparently have that much good will to spare for the president and his people. Most Americans are fresh out of “benefits of the doubt”. With good reason.

Mother Jones’ article The Lie Factory, Jan. 2004:

http://www.motherjones.com/ news/ feature/ 2004/ 01/ 12_405.html

I’m heading out again, but I would really like to consider your information.

Do you have links to information that might change my mind?

(I know, assuming my mind can change).

But, ask yourself this:

If it’s so compelling. And the public is so opposed to Bush. And overwelmingly opposed to the war.

Why doesn’t the Democratically controlled congress impeach and imprison Bush and Cheney and right this wrong?

It would/should be easy to do, considering the circumstance.

I am only suggesting that your compelling evidence, is only a selective, partisan view of the facts. A view conceived in the absense of other viewpoints.

If it were more than that, the Democrats would act. It would be their responsibility to act and it would be in their own self interest. A no-brainer.

They don’t act, because it’s not really as you see it.

If we do get the impeachment and criminal convictions, I would concede I was wrong. It’s very possible. Until that time, however, it’s hard for me to understand how Bush really is a criminal and Democrats fail to act.