Monthly Archives: April 2013

QUILTS VI

Over at Rotten Chestnuts, our collaborative blog, one of our co-conspirators has launched a blog-post category called QUILTS — an acronym for “Questions I’d Like To See [Asked].” With the opening of the George W. Bush library, the air is suddenly thick with talk about the legacy of our 43rd president…which was supposed to be a toxic chapter of our country’s history we would never, ever, ever want to recall again. But the time has come to give that another re-think.

The man of the hour predicted this himself, and the day might be here. Gas costs half of what it is now? Businesses looking to expand, doing real work for real people who really want the work done? Triple-A credit rating? Who wouldn’t want to go back?

Our liberals, that’s who. Well, they’ll never admit it, anyway…

We have two problems here. One, there are people who agree with me, that if it’s possible for me to buy a gallon of milk for $3 instead of $4, then I should be able to. If government has a role in that, then its role should be to make sure I can buy milk for the lower price; at the very least, it shouldn’t be trying to make it harder for me to get hold of the milk…or the refrigerator in which I’ll be putting it…or the linoleum for the floor upon which it sits. Or the house with the floor. But — those people would support the liberals in saying, no, let’s keep going “Forward” because they don’t want a guy like Bush in charge. They’re repeating what they’ve been told to think, you see, and what they’ve been told is that George Bush is something of a “douche.” They’re neck-deep in personality politics, and the policies, and their effect, can’t achieve relevance. A little bit of name-calling and these folks suddenly have answers to all the questions. Although, we’re still waiting for things to get better…

Problem Two is simpler: We have people who don’t agree with me. We have people who want high prices. A lot of them aren’t shy about saying this should be government’s job. They’ll never say “make it harder to get hold of” the gas or the milk or the refrigerator or the linoleum or the house or the labor that went into it all…they may never admit to being “in favor of higher prices.” But they’re opposed to the prices being lower.

So. Question I’d Like To See Asked:

Should goods and services be made accessible to the consumers who want to buy them?

Notice I said “accessible,” which might affect the outcome of a poll. It’s not escaped my notice that when people talk about nationalizing health care, they use the focus-group-tested word “access” a lot, which seems to enjoy positive appeal. I’m under the impression we have two Americas right now, an America that seeks to pay for the things it uses up for its own benefit, and another America that doesn’t want to pay for anything. Whoever advocates for a certain policy change, and advocates smartly, will seek to heal that divide but only heal it in service of the goal they’re trying to achieve. “Access to health care” is language carefully crafted for consumption by people who want to get some health care, but not have to pay for it. You’ll notice, in my question, the effect is the opposite: consumers who want to buy them. My meaning is, pay for them.

President Obama, by and large, has been consistent in making all sorts of things more accessible. But only for the people who don’t want to pay for them. For the rest of us, life’s been getting tougher and leaner.

Gas costs double, and it’s much tougher to get a job.

A lot of that is by design. He said He would fundamentally transform America. Say what you will about the rest of His promises, but there’s one He’s managed to keep. We are “fundamentally transforming” America from a country in which people pay for the things they consume, into a country in which they don’t.

And a lot of people like it.

So: QUILTS. Question I’d Like To See Asked. Should prices be lower? Should it be easier for people to buy things? It’s certainly a fair question; I keep hearing a lot of people say they want “the economy” to get better, stronger, more robust, resilient, whatever. Well, in my world that would mean more selling & buying. My idea of an “economy” thrives on consumer confidence; when I’m a consumer, my “confidence” comes from an understanding that replenishment of supplies is affordable, and so is the acquisition of equipment, risk is manageable, payoff is bigger & better. That the opportunity is out there. They seem to have a different idea of what an “economy” is.

Some folks say the media is in the pocket of the democrat party. Other people say that’s bull-squeeze. It would be much easier for me to doubt it, if I were to ever see my question asked in a major media channel that actually counts for something. As it is, we have to leave it to the wild-eyed silly right-wing blogs, like mine. Which I find interesting.

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes.

Loading Likes...

You Don’t Need to See His Papers

Just when I thought my jaw couldn’t hit the floor any harder, I ran across these headlines yesterday:

This is insane.

It really illustrates that the truth in this spoof video is really pretty much on the money.


Of course, we’re not saying that having an Arab name makes you a terrorist. But there is a pattern, and it’s a pattern that people are apparently more than just a little eager to refuse to see. Political correctness has rendered our news media impotently incurious when it comes to certain subjects.

I have a Muslim co-worker who told me, not terribly long after 9/11, that her teenage daughter had come to her and said, “Mom, I know not all Muslims are terrorists, but it does seem like most of terrorists are Muslim”. So it’s not just me.

There is a difference between religions. Even staunch Atheists Bill Maher and Penn Jillette acknowledge that.  Sure there are crazy people of all faiths and non-faiths who have murdered and who were even inspired by their beliefs in many cases — but there is only one major world religion that has an extremely well-established pattern based not only on the relgious writings upon which their religion is based, but is rife with religious leaders who preach violent jihad and has myriad organizations world-wide to do violence, in the name of their God and their religion and who regularly carry it out.  Can we just say that?   Really?  We can’t?

It now appears that our well-mannered Chechens who blew the legs off of Boston Marathon spectators and acually killed three … were likely recruited as disaffected teens with Muslim sympathies by a Saudi Islamic Radicalizing agent Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi.  This is exactly what terrorist organizations do in the middle east.  Now they’re finding ways of getting it done here (helps get around immigration inquiries if your disaffected youth are already here before they are radicalized).

But you’re not hearing about Al-Harbi in the media, because … the Media is deeply invested in this idea that Islam is just like any other religion when it comes to violence, and it is also in thrall with this administration and will apparently do anything to protect it.

We are in big trouble, folks.

UPDATE: Here’s another one from today. I’m sure there are more.

bostonsandyhook

crossposted at The Clue Batting Cage

Loading Likes...

Thoughts From the Campus About Gun Control

Who’s squirming harder: The gentleman appearing from 2:24 through 3:03 pronouncing “if guns are outlawed then only outlaws have guns” to be a “weak argument,” but unable to explain his rationale…or me, watching him. Him, I suppose, if I could film my first reaction in the web cam and measure it…I’m probably just slightly wincing. But it seems like I’m doing more. Lots of proxy embarrassment.

They’re not teaching ’em what to think, they’re teaching ’em how to think. That’s what we’re told…well…I have issues with both the what and the how.

This business of rephrasing the question that is sufficiently simple and crystal-clear, at least in my universe, that if the answer isn’t a slam-dunk, the question itself ought to be easily understood. What is that?? I see it at 0:28, and then I see it again at 1:44. I heard it in the recording of that original American Castrati guy (since removed) who “didn’t support the troops.”

Here’s what I think: Too much development of communication skills is taking place in the classroom environment. Now if I’m right about that, it raises another issue that these students are a bit old to still be developing their basic communication skills…but let’s let that go, because I speculate that the problem began before they graduated from high school. I conclude all this from the pattern I’m noticing, in which as the verbiage plays out and the speaker approaches a crucial point, the enunciation becomes more and more muddled and unclear, and riddled with phonetic and rhetorical ambiguities; a reasonable observer would expect the opposite to take place. Questioned about why you think the things you think, as you approach the point that substantiates it all, you should want your phrasing to become precise & concise. Crisper. Clearer.

These muffin-heads are doing the exact opposite. And with a remarkable consistency.

It is as if they are counting on being interrupted before they get to the part where they hang themselves.

I have a bit of a beef with the next generation being taught, en masse, how to talk this way. Especially when it influences how they think about things — which, it certainly does appear to.

Maybe they need to spend a few minutes listening to this guy.

Ya know??

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes and Right Wing News.

Loading Likes...

Taxes

Ah, yes.  Tragedy?  Well, never let a crisis go to waste, as Saul Alinsky taught ’em.

Saw this on facebook today….

taxespayMmmmm.  Yes.  Ok, show of hands of people who don’t think taxes should pay for police and firefighters and EMT’s?

Out of 10,000 people in the crowd here … oh, I think I see three.  The guy 50 yards to the right of Ron Paul, and a couple of anarchists in dreads passing a phattie back and forth.

So what is the implication here?  Since you’ve agreed to farm out some of our essential security services to local government, whenever we want to expand the size and scope of government and rationalize why more of other people’s money really isn’t theirs because they “didn’t build that” … just … shut up?

Yup, I think that’s pretty much what they’re saying.

Loading Likes...

Externalysis

File this one under “philosophy,” or for clarity’s sake, “How come it is, we think we know the things we think we know?” In these contentious times this doesn’t get a lot of attention. People get so passionate and caught up in what they think they know, that all their energy starts to be plowed into repeating it over and over, and they can’t spare the residual ergs to recall how they decided it was so. But if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that this is precisely when we should re-inspect.

I recall a lengthy dialogue some decade or so ago, with a cousin of mine shortly after I “discovered” that our family, like many others, was descended from Henry Borden of Headcorn, Kent, who apparently left this earthly plane in the year 1470, and therefore we were distantly related to Lizzie Borden of the “took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks” fame. With the little boxes all drawn in and the lines neatly connecting them, the task arose to answer the question: How probable is this? And the answer is rather disquieting. Not only do we have no way of knowing, but much of what is recorded in genealogy is that way, for that is what genealogists tend to write down. “He married her on such-and-such a date, and then they had these children on these dates.” The what-is-known, every couple generations, is plotted or scrawled into a big sheet of butcher paper or some such, then rolled up for safekeeping. The how-do-you-know-that, on the other hand, very seldom enjoys the same benefit of forever-documentation. Even the guy who makes a breakthrough by getting hold of an old property tax document or passenger manifest, tends to footnote the boxes-and-lines very poorly, or not at all.

For the record: I “know” of this Borden link because of an ancestor in the early nineteenth century who had a certain name. Uncle Wally traced us back to that guy, and then I found that name, itself, benefited from some relatives who had done the research on the priors, so I made the link. Is it a strong link? Hell no. This is not a rare name. Although the geography and dates do line up rather nicely. But that’s all we got. No, I’m not putting a lot of faith in it.

Speaking of families: Competence, or lack thereof, of a family member can lead to conflicts that drag on for years. Of course this is always lots of fun. I have noticed those who plead for incompetence tend to use “externalized” arguments, as in, “Everyone who’s ever met him says [blank].” They do this rather consistently, so that they can’t do what I just did in the paragraph above: “I think I’m descended from this peasant out in fifteenth-century Kent, England, because such-and-such.” This is, of course, Philosophy 101 stuff: You can either answer the basics of “How come it is you think you know the things you think you know?”, or else, you can’t.

Bloody Axe“Externalysis” would be a process of rejecting this fortifying knowledge, this “supporting documentation” if you will, keeping in mind only the tasty and tantalizing conclusion. Yeah, baby! I’m related to an axe murderer, innit cool? As it happens, I’m not too fond of the idea of being related to an axe murderer. (The other side of my family, according to legend, is also descended from axe murderers, so I’m not too keen on cluttering up the family tree with these types.) Some other people might find this enthralling. Emotionalism, I notice, is one of the most popular reasons for engaging in this externalization, this remembering-the-conclusion, forget-the-supporting-documentation stuff. People reach conclusions logically or emotionally, and if they reach them through logic they have a tendency to remember the logic. If they don’t, they don’t.

People who reach conclusions by way of emotion have a tendency to argue through the emotion. What else can they do? There is no other option. “How many children have to die before you support gun control” is a great example. Their plan is, when there is convincing to be done at some future time, they’ll do the convincing the same way they got convinced: With an appeal to emotion. Trouble is, it might not work, and if it doesn’t work then they just repeat it over again. It gets embarrassing to watch.

I’m reminded of a comment made a couple months ago when a lengthy argument meandered along about the global warming scam. The other side came back with a false argument that, although the scaremongers had been caught perpetrating fraud, in theory the skeptics were also capable of fraud therefore we should all pretend the scaremongers hadn’t engaged in fraud. I thought this was making my argument for me, since my position was that “We have global warming because all the scientists say so” is such a weak argument that it might as well be rejected summarily, in favor of something more logically resilient that might persuade toward the same outcome, assuming such an argument could be assembled at all. The way I said it was “I choose to internalize my reasoning processes,” to which the other side replied, “Have no idea what that means.”

Oh noes! The dreaded “We win, because we can’t understand you” rebuttal. If high school debate was a poker game, this would be like the straight flush. It burns!

Well if the phrasing is clumsy, it’s clumsy because I’m describing an unfamiliar concept; in my defense, if my phrasing is clumsy because the concept is unfamiliar, this is something that should not be the case. People should know why they know the things they think they know. And it should be readily apparent to all, including the guy who thinks-something-because-of-something, whether such a process is internalized or externalized.

Externalization is certainly valid, and can be valuable. However: If we are laboring toward a common objective of concluding something as reasonably as possible, whatever that conclusion may be, we all become obliged to use reason. In such a situation, I would offer that a certain conclusion should be viewed with a jaundiced eye when all of the arguments supporting that conclusion are, by nature, externalized.

Here, I will define it as best I can: You are failing to internalize, if you are capable of reaching a conclusion sufficiently satisfactory that it becomes your final opinion about the issue for the indeterminate future — yet if, subsequent to that, someone asked you to explain your rationale you wouldn’t be able to do it. The phrase “sufficiently satisfactory that it becomes your final opinion” is significant, because let’s be honest: Once we cross that point, most of us feel pretty safe allowing it to start coloring our biases. The longer we stick to an opinion, the harder it becomes for us to accept something different, and the more work there is for someone to try to convince us of something different. A capable thinker is a stateful thinker, and those who wish to change our minds about it at a later time, no matter how much they might like to, can’t enjoy the luxury of a clean slate. If they could, then that would mean we aren’t capable of learning.

I’m seeing this Boston bombing yesterday has yet to take the gun-control issue out of all the Internet-arguing going on…and from this, I see a rather durable pattern in which the pro-gun-control people are externalizing. They’re externalizing everything, from what I can see. “Justice Stevens said this,” “Justice Scalia said that,” “we already do background checks and that’s not unconstitutional.” It’s true that stare decisis is a valid legal concept, in fact a very influential one that often determines the final outcome. But that is not an absolute, and it cannot be one, for — let’s be honest again — it is an exercise in bureaucracy-making. The thinking is completely externalized: “It’s that way because it’s always been that way.”

I would liken it to visiting a campsite. Just about all of us, conservatives and liberals alike, recognize the virtue involved in preserving a good, healthy environment, especially when we get our flabby butts outside and see nature up close. In my experience with Boy Scouts, the best troops made it a rule to “leave the campsite in a condition better than the way you found it“…not just as good as. This externalized judicial-precedent argument, ultimately, invites a bunny-trail debate about exactly this: If logic is a campsite, have we made it our goal to leave it in as good a shape as the way we found it, or better? It’s actually a pretty important difference. Such a dialogue deliberates about whether it is our place to cure flaws, and to make right what was once wrong.

This is not an across-the-board condemnation of stare decisis. I would say it is a perfectly legitimate function of the Supreme Court, or any higher court for that matter, to issue a writ of certiorari on the finding of a lower court, haul the matter in for a good argument/questioning/decision thrashing, and overturn the opinion on stare decisis grounds. This would be an exercise in making sure justice is even, that people aren’t receiving disparate verdicts for identical situations based on who’s hearing the case. It may be a futile goal, but it’s still a noble one.

But I think we all would, and should, object to stare decisis being an eight-hundred-pound-gorilla absolute. It is, by its nature, externalization; you may find it convincing, but without appealing to a completely different argumentative structure to reach the same conclusion, you can’t explain why to a skeptical audience. And you know the old saying, “You’re always gonna get what you always got, if you always do what you’ve always done.” If we’re constantly reaching conclusions because that’s the way it’s always been, nothing ever gets better.

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes.

Loading Likes...

Happy Tax Day 2013!

Ah, April 15th, the day Americans pay our income tax to the federal government. If you haven’t filled out your tax forms already, there’s only a few hours left to do so, or at least fill out an extension.

On the years when I know I have a rebate coming to me, I like to fill out my 1040 form as early as possible to get my money back. After all, I earned it by working hard, so I’d like my money back as soon as possible. On the years when I know I’ll have to write a check out to the IRS (often addressed to the Infernal Revenue Service), I see no reason to give the government my money any sooner than is required. This normally happens when I sell a bunch of stock. Knowing that I’ll have to pay Uncle Sam for the privilege of capital gains, I take 20-25% of the stock sale and place it into a savings account, or something with a better return rate, and then until April 15th, that money earns me interest before going off to the government.

Berkeley Breathed summed up my feelings about income tax in a “Bloom County” comic from over 20 years ago. Click for the full size.

Paying taxes in Bloom County.

This year, I didn’t wait until the last minute to file my taxes: I waited until the day before to get it done. But not everyone pays income taxes in the United States, and there is a technical term for these non-tax payers: Democrats. [1] [2] [3]

Loading Likes...

How to Explain American Politics to Someone From Another Country or Planet

This was a Facebook post, but it’s really more appropriate here. I didn’t think of blogging it because there’s no one particular event actuating the thought…but it should be written down and preserved for posterity.

In America, the moderates decide the elections. Moderates are not well-informed people. They call themselves “independents” but they’re not. They make their decisions pretty much blindly, by removing the two extremes and accepting without reservation whatever happens to be in between.

That’s good for surveys and scientific samples. Let’s see how it works with politics.

President Obama is not a manager of anything at all; like most accomplished politicians, He is merely a figurehead of a political movement. As such, He could best be seen as merely a proposal. And the proposal is this. One day you’re just minding your own business, and President Obama drives up in a big truck and says “I’m going to take money away from you, since you did not vote for Me, and I’m going to give all your stuff to the people who did vote for Me.” He uses phrases like “just a little bit more” a lot, but even a third-grader could see He has no limitations in mind at all. Obama has no more comprehension of “alright that’s it, I’ve redistributed enough” than your favorite dog does of “alright that’s it I’ve eaten enough.”

That’s the proposal. Three answers materialize, the first one from you: No.

The second answer is a beat-down against the first: “You’re just saying no to President Obama because He’s a black guy.”

The third answer comes from some Michael Moore type of character, who waddles in and opines with some nonsense that private property is mythical, and the house, everything in it, and the bank accounts never belonged to you in the first place.

So. We have: No; “You’re just saying no because it’s a black guy who’s asking”; and, It-was-never-yours. Remove the two “extremes” and blindly accept the middle. What do you get?

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes.

Loading Likes...

Background Checks Do Not Get the Job Done

From here:

Senators are scheduled to vote on a so-called “universal background check” bill being pushed by lifelong anti-gun zealot, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y).  Schumer’s bill–S. 374, the “Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013”– would criminalize virtually all private firearm sales, even temporary transfers, making you a criminal if you simply transfer a firearm to an aunt, uncle, cousin or lifelong friend without the federal government’s approval.  Even worse, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department says that Schumer’s bill will only be effective if it’s coupled with mandatory gun registration.

Needless to say, the NRA opposes the bill. Our president, as usual, seems utterly clueless about the problems with it.

Now, NRA’s director Wayne LaPierre has taken a lot of heat over this – “Why won’t you gun nuts submit to a common-sense, reasonable proposal like this?” (Dontcha just love how gun control advocates love throwing around the terms “reasonable” and “common sense?”

LaPierre’s chief argument is, “When it comes to be background checks let’s be honest. Background checks will never be ‘universal,’ because criminals will never submit to them.” I really see nothing wrong with this, personally. He’s right – imposing universal background checks, like all other proposals advanced by gun-control advocates, simply impact the law-abiding who buy guns, well, lawfully. Those will be the people who are affected – not criminals who break into houses and steal guns or smuggle them in from other countries.

It will affect people who go into stores and buy guns over the counter, not people who trade them in dark alleys. It’s a stupid idea. What part of criminals don’t obey the law because there are ways around it do gun-grabbers not quite get?

Does anyone really believe that people who are intent on committing violence with a firearm, are really going to be deterred from doing so because some gun dealer said, “No, sorry…you failed the background check because of your prior history of criminal activity and/or mental illness?” The people who commit mass murder at schools, shopping malls, and the like…aren’t those the people we’re trying to stop, along with anyone else who wants to get ahold of a gun so he can hurt someone? You know, determined attackers who spend weeks or months planning an assault?

Many of our most infamous shooters had no prior criminal record or history of mental illness, so a background check wouldn’t have stopped them from buying a weapon legally. In fact, gun control advocates are frequently heard to complain about exactly this – that so-and-so bought weapons legally, then went out and did something horrible with them…hence the need to change the laws by making such-and-such illegal to buy.

Here’s the real problem with universal background checks, though: Do people really think that these sorts of individuals can’t simply mosey down to the tough part of town and buy what they need from some shady character, steal one from an unguarded home, or failing that, find some other way to cause mayhem? (The deadliest attack on a school in US history took place using a bomb, not firearms.)

This strikes me as common sense. But some of you might be asking, “If it saves one life, isn’t it worth it?” (Uh huh…and I’m sure these same good-intentioned people will agree that a 25 MPH national speed limit is worth the cost to our transportation network and goods-delivery infrastructure, too. If it saves just one life, right?)

But wait! Wouldn’t a background check have stopped Adam Lanza from committing his gruesome assault at Sandy Hook? No. His mother bought the guns legally, remember? He shot her, stole the weapons, then headed for the school. So a background check wouldn’t have stopped that attack.

It wouldn’t have prevented the shooting at the theater in Aurora, CO either. James Holmes was able to pass a background check of the very sort being proposed “universally” by the Senate bill.

First, some facts. Aside from the cost to law-abiding gun owners (who in my state must pay a $25 surcharge and submit to a 10-day wait), background checks don’t work:

Furthermore, there is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime. In fact, a 2004 National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that the Brady background checks didn’t reduce any type of violent crime. Nor have other later studies found a beneficial effect.

The number of criminals stopped by the checks is also quite small. In 2010, there were over 76,000 initial denials, but only 44 of those were deemed worthy for prosecution and only 13 individuals were convicted. Even those 13 cases don’t tend to be the “dangerous” criminals Obama claims are being stopped.

Besides that, the majority of firearms sales are already subject to a background check through the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). If you reference the article above, you’ll see that the “40% of guns aren’t being sold with a check” figure is completely bogus. So even if this passes into law, it really won’t change anything.

California currently does allow private-party sale of long guns over 50 years old without going through a licensed dealer (background check + paperwork), but this will be changing at the end of 2013 when a new law goes into effect.

Then there’s an even more sinister possibility – that the law could be misused. The information that it gathers from the public could actually be used to confiscate firearms from the law-abiding once Congress or the President think they’ve obtained enough political support for such a move.

Background checks seem to be the gun control proposal du-jour among politicians, because it seems to be the one getting the most traction among the general public. Support for an assault weapons ban, high capacity magazine bans, not so much. You’ll note that Sen Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) renewed assault weapons ban (which would have prohibited new sales of most semi-automatic firearms) didn’t go anywhere, not even in the Democrat-led US Senate.

I was on Facebook the other day and was discussing this. Someone claimed that a majority of hunters support it. I am a hunter…and I said, “Yeah, I’m just begging the government to make it more expensive and more of a hassle for me to purchase a weapon.”

When will the gun-grabbers accept that the real solutions to gun violence simply don’t involve the federal government cracking down on private gun ownership? The real solutions involve making it easier for people to carry concealed and arming places where attacks are likely to occur. 

Loading Likes...

War Based On Lies

Surprise.

Another article (in our local paper) by a chest-bleating liberal zealot who misses having G.W. Bush to kick around (directly) for the world’s woes … lamenting our collective lack of sack cloth and ash as the 10th anniversary of a “war based on lies” and “a policy of torture” passed.

Except for him of course, because it’s all about a public display of proper self-loathing for a hit of GoodPerson™ Highness.

So here’s another liberal chestnut (or maybe a small basket of them) that I wish to address.

Yes, the 2003 Iraq war was based on lies. To be specific, Saddam Hussein’s lies.

See, the 1991 war, the one everyone agrees the U.N. got behind, with the big coalition that included “old” Europe never really ended. There was a cease fire agreement. And in that cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein said that he would comply with getting rid of his chemical weapons and any nuclear weapons programs, and would allow the UN to verify the dismantling and disposing of said systems.

But he didn’t do that. He stymied the inspections every chance he got, and eventually kicked the UN inspectors out. And, though he denied having these weapons anymore when speaking directly to western governments, he told a different story to his people and to those in the Middle East he wanted to impress.

So he lied about complying with the cease fire agreement, and he was lying to SOMEBODY about whether or not he had WMD.

Given the fact that 1) he did have them at one time, 2) the entire world intelligence community, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, and virulent anti-Bush Democrats including Sam Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschel, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, & Henry Waxman believed he had them, and Saddam wanted his people and his local enemies to believe he had them, and he was interfering with UN Inspectors efforts to verify that he was complying with his agreement to get rid of the ones he had … we didn’t so much start a new “illegal” war with Iraq, but rather set about to finish the one he started back in 1991 and lied to get us to stop.

In the mean time he was a known sponsor of international terrorism including Hamas. Despite protests to the contrary, he likely even helped Al-Queda where their interests and his aligned. Not that any of this is necessary to pin what I’ve already discussed above on him, but it certainly doesn’t help.

Had he not lied, but rather complied — there would have been no 2003 restart of the 1991 war.

Hussein lied.  People Died.

Loading Likes...