Front page
Archive
Silflay Hraka?


Bigwig is a systems administrator at a public university
Hrairoo is the proprietor of a quality used bookstore
Kehaar works at a regional newspaper
Woundwort is a professor of counseling at a private university

The Hraka RSS feed

Email
bigwig AT nc.rr.com

Friends of Hraka
InstaPundit
Daily Pundit
cut on the bias
Meryl Yourish
This Blog Is Full Of Crap
Winds of Change
A Small Victory
Silent Running
Dr. Weevil
Little Green Footballs
ColdFury
Oceanguy
Fragments from Floyd
VodkaPundit
Allah
The Feces Flinging Monkey
Dean's World
Little Tiny Lies
The Redsugar Muse
Sperari
Natalie Solent
From the Mrs.
ErosBlog
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
On the Third Hand
Public Nuisance
Not a Fish
Rantburg
AMCGLTD
WeckUpToThees!
Electric Venom
Skippy, The Bush Kangaroo
Common Sense and Wonder
Neither Here Nor There
Wizbang!
Bogieblog
ObscuroRant
RocketJones
The Greatest Jeneration
Ravenwolf
Ipse Dixit
TarHeelPundit
Blog On the Run
blogatron
Redwood Dragon
Notables
Greeblie Blog
Have A Cuppa Tea
A Dog's Life
IMAO
Zonitics.com
Iberian Notes
Midwest Conservative Journal
A Voyage to Arcturus
HokiePundit
Trojan Horseshoes
In Context
dcthornton.blog
The People's Republic of Seabrook
Country Store
Blog Critics
Chicago Boyz
Hippy Hill News
Kyle Still Free Press
The Devil's Excrement
The Fat Guy
War Liberal
Assume the Position
Balloon Juice
Iron Pen In A Velvet Glove
IsraPundit
Freedom Lives
Where Worlds Collide
Knot by Numbers
How Appealing
South Knox Bubba
Heretical Ideas
The Kitchen Cabinet
Dustbury.com
tonecluster
Bo Cowgill
mtpolitics.net
Raving Atheist
The Short Strange Trip
Shark Blog
Hoplites
Jimspot
Ron Bailey's Weblog
Cornfield Commentary
Testify!
Northwest Notes
pseudorandom
The Blog from the Core
Ain'tNoBadDude
CroMagnon
The Talking Dog
WTF Is It Now??
Blue Streak
Smarter Harper's Index
nikita demosthenes
Bloviating Inanities
Sneakeasy's Joint
Ravenwood's Universe
The Eleven Day Empire
World Wide Rant
All American
Pdawwg
The Rant
The Johnny Bacardi Show
The Head Heeb
Viking Pundit
Mercurial
Oscar Jr. Was Here
Just Some Poor Schmuck
Katy & Bruce Loebrich
But How's The Coffee?
Roscoe Ellis
Foolsblog
Sasha Castel
Dodgeblogium
Susskins Central Dispatch
DoggerelPundit
Josh Heit
Attaboy
Aaron's Rantblog
MojoMark
As I was saying...
Blog O' Dob
Dr. Frank's Blogs Of War
Betsy's Page
A Knob for Brightness
Fresh Bilge
The Politburo Diktat
Drumwaster's rants
Curt's Page
The Razor
An Unsealed Room
The Legal Bean
Helloooo chapter two!
As I Was Saying...
SkeptiLog AGOG!
Tong family blog
Vox Beth
Velociblog
I was thinking
Judicious Asininity
This Woman's Work
Fragrant Lotus
DaGoddess
Single Southern Guy
Caerdroia
GrahamLester.Com
Jay Solo's Verbosity
TacJammer
Snooze Button Dreams
Horologium
You Big Mouth, You!
From the Inside looking Out
Night of the Lepus
No Watermelons Allowed
From The Inside Looking Out
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Suburban Blight
Aimless
The SmarterCop
Dog of Flanders
From Behind the Wall of Sleep
Beaker's Corner
Bad State of Gruntledness
Who Tends The Fires
Granny Rant
Elegance Against Ignorance
Moxie.nu
Eccentricity
Say What?
Blown Fuse
Wait 'til Next Year
The Pryhills
The Whomping Willow
The National Debate
The Skeptician
Zach Everson
MonkeyWatch
Geekward Ho
Argghhh!!!
Life in New Orleans
Rotten Miracles
Fringe
The Biomes Blog
illinigirl
See What You Share
Truthprobe
Blog d’Elisson
Your Philosophy Sucks
Watauga Rambler
Socialized Medicine
Consternations
Verging on Pertinence
Read My Lips
ambivablog
Soccerdad
The Flannel Avenger
Butch Howard's WebLog
Castle Argghhh!
Andrew Hofer
kschlenker.com
Moron Abroad
White Pebble
Darn Floor
Wizblog
tweedler
Pajama Pundits
BabyTrollBlog
Cadmusings
Goddess Training 101
A & W
Medical Madhouse
Slowly Going Sane
The Oubliette
American Future
Right Side Redux
See The Donkey
Newbie Trucker
The Right Scale
Running Scared
Ramblings Journal
Focus On Reality
Wyatt's Torch

October 24, 2003

Apples vs. Oranges

I was thinking that this comparison was over, fading away like the declarations of teenage love spray painted on bridges across America…..but I was wrong, I heard it again this week, probably on Fox News Channel. Ever since it was first suggested that President Bush may have exaggerated the threat of weapons of mass destruction to lead us into the war against Iraq, the comparison began. When the Democrats first leveled this accusation, the Republicans quickly responded that he did nothing worse than what the previous president had done when he lied under oath regarding his “relationship” with then intern Monica Lewinsky. Herein lies my problem with this.

I will agree that we do not know that Bush lied to us about the potential threat from Iraq. It is completely likely that he acted upon the intelligence he was given which may have suggested that the threat was real and imminent. If he did not lie about this, then it does not matter and we should all, and I do mean ALL of us, including those of us who tend to be Democrats need to get off this man’s back and move forward. However, for argument’s sake let’s say that he did lie and it can eventually be shown that he did. If this were to be the case, then I am horrified by the comparison of the two lies.

Yes, I did vote for Clinton, however, if he had lied about a potential threat to lead us into war then I hope that I would be calling for his head as much as the staunchest Republican, but the comparison is a lame one. Clinton lied about receiving a hummer from an intern…….who gives a shit???? I don’t care that he got one, I don’t care that he lied about one, and I am baffled by the idea that anyone would. He lied, yes, and all of us may have done the same to save ourselves from the embarrassment that would surely follow this revelation. But lying about getting a blow job does not remotely suggest that he would then lie about other matters. This issue is irrelevant to the running of this country. Surely everyone is aware that he is not the only president who cheated on his wife, and blew his goo in the oral………excuse me, oval office. IT DOESN”T MATTER!!!!

Do you really care that Clinton lied about this? George denied his involvement with a different kind of blow in his past, do you believe him? Do you think that he never snorted a line? If he did, does it matter? Hell no, it doesn’t matter, and I don’t think the fact that he got high on smack in his youth will have an effect on his ability to run our government. If he did exaggerate the threat of WMD to facilitate our involvement in Iraq then he should be held accountable. The idea of this occurring is beyond belief to me, but to suggest that Clinton was just as guilty of such a crime is ludicrous. If Bush didn’t do it, then let’s get off the man’s back and let this controversy fade away, just as we should have done when we found out that the last president dumped his wad with an intern.

Posted by Woundwort at October 24, 2003 09:10 PM | TrackBack
Postscript:
First time visitor to House Hraka? Wondering if everything we produce could possibly be as brilliant/stupid/evil/pedantic/insipid/inspired as the post you just read? Check out the Hraka Essentials, the (mostly) reader-selected guide to Hraka's best posts, and decide for yourself.
Comments

> imminent

Actually, both Bush and the relevant Congressional resolution said that we were acting BEFORE the threat was imminent.

Feel free to explain how the problem should have been dealt with. Remember, Iraq has oil and the sanctions weren't working. The whole no-fly thing wasn't sustainable. "Old Europe" wasn't going to do anything about it.

BTW - What should we do about North Korea's nukes? (Giving them stuff didn't work.)

> I don’t care that he lied about one

How about the whole "under oath" thing, for a law that he SIGNED?

I suspect that you're not going to argue against that law in general, so why should Clinton get a pass in specific? (NOW's answer is that he's a talented politician. What are the relevant qualifications?)

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 25, 2003 05:55 PM

Whether we acted BEFORE it was imminent or not is not the question. He has been accused of exaggerating the threat, maybe we should go ahead and bomb Cuba BEFORE it becomes imminent there as well.

I do not feel a need to come up with an explanation of what should have been done, because that was not the purpose of the post. I did not even say that I believed he exaggerated the threat, just that this is the accusation that has been leveled against him and his administration. The difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we have proof that they are developing nuclear capabilities, we do not have to hunt for intelligence to tell us that, they have given us that information themselves.

My frustration is that anybody even cared to investigate his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Who gives a rat's ass? He got a blow job, good for him, why would I ask about that or care to get a panel to investigate him for it? If Bush get's a blow job from an intern I don't care to investigate him either. Personal vs. professional, and I care only about his professional life unless his personal life somehow affects his ability to do his job well, and this episode doesn't qualify for that.

Posted by: Woundwort at October 25, 2003 06:09 PM

Woundwort is arguing with himself again.

> It is completely likely that he acted upon the intelligence he was given which may have suggested that the threat was real and imminent.

> Whether we acted BEFORE it was imminent or not is not the question.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 25, 2003 08:16 PM


> Who gives a rat's ass?

The people suing him. Then the people who think that sworn testimony should mean something.

Please describe the general rule that you're applying. Is it blow-job only by sitting presidents, blow-jobs, sitting presidents, or what?

There are lots of things that I think should not be "federal cases". (This happens to be one of them.) However, once we've decided that something should be a "federal case", I think that we should treat it as such.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 25, 2003 08:18 PM

> I did not even say that I believed he exaggerated the threat, just that this is the accusation that has been leveled against him and his administration.

There are lots of accusations, but Woundwort only repeats some of them.

Take a position.

BTW - It's no secret that Woundwort would like to see Bush lose in 2004. One of the obstacles to that goal is the fact that the election is not between Bush and perfection, but between Bush and one of the Dems running (or Sen. Clinton).

I don't how Woundwort's "discussion of the accusation" (sneer quotes, not literal) helps him achieve his goal. Why?

Because the absolute worst result (for Bush) of this accusation is that he used a bad reason to kick the butt of someone who needed a butt kicking.

Meanwhile, the Dems (with the possible exception of Leiberman, who threw away his credibility in 2000) are the sort who are likely to not deliver a needed butt-kicking.

Raising the accusation merely reinforces this difference.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 25, 2003 08:36 PM

> The difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we have proof that they are developing nuclear capabilities, we do not have to hunt for intelligence to tell us that, they have given us that information themselves.

If I announce that I'm developing nuclear capabilities, will Jimmy Carter visit me?

What folks say is not "proof".

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 25, 2003 08:41 PM

Arguing with myself? I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I will try. Honestly, I have not made the conclusion that Bush exaggerated the threat to lead us into war, but you apparently think I have. I think that Saddam was/is an evil bastard and that Iraq will be MUCH better off with him being gone. The accusation is that he exaggerated the threat, period. You have tried to make it seem that I hate Bush and want to see him crucified for this, and you are wrong. The point of this post was to say that the comparison of Bush to Clinton is a poor one. It wasn't about attacking BEFORE the threat, or after the threat was imminent. I understand that you love the man, but this argument is your's, not mine.

"BTW - It's no secret that Woundwort would like to see Bush lose in 2004. One of the obstacles to that goal is the fact that the election is not between Bush and perfection, but between Bush and one of the Dems running (or Sen. Clinton)."

What the hell is this about? Again, you have made assumptions that are wrong. I did not vote for Bush in the last election, but, unlike you, I am willing to wait and then vote for the best person, and right now I have yet to see a Democrat that fits that criteria. If Bush is the best then I will vote for him, refusing to be confined to party lines. You obviously have made your decision a year in advance, unwilling to hear a side that might be in opposition to your party. I honestly do not know who I will vote for and it very well might be George W.

"There are lots of things that I think should not be "federal cases". (This happens to be one of them.) However, once we've decided that something should be a "federal case", I think that we should treat it as such."

But that is what bothers me about the Clinton situation, who gets to decide what is a federal case, somebody with an axe to grind? And yes, I think it is both hilarious and sad that somebody thought getting a blow job (sitting president or whoever the hell else you want to throw into that) and not coming clean (pardon the pun)about it was a big enough deal to launch an investigation.

I understand you want to have an argument about who should win the presidency, and if your guy wins, congratulations, at this point I'm not sure who my guy is, and I know you will want me to "take a position," but I will opt to wait until closer to the election and then decide.

Maybe I should have shortened the post to make it clearer.........the comparison of Bush to Clinton is a poor one.

Posted by: Woundwort at October 25, 2003 08:54 PM

"What folks say is not 'proof'."

I have to admit that I have no idea now what we are arguing about. You say Bush should have gone in on the intelligence he received but a country telling us they have nuclear weapons should not be believed?

Posted by: Woundwort at October 25, 2003 08:56 PM

> Arguing with myself?

About imminent, yes. Woundwort featured it initially, and now that it seems to be a loser, he'd rather not admit that he ever mentioned it.

He could have admitted the mistake, but ....

> Honestly, I have not made the conclusion that Bush exaggerated the threat to lead us into war, but you apparently think I have.

Not at all. I criticised Woundwort's hiding behind others.

But, let's ask the questions. Does Woundwort think that Bush exaggerated the threat? Does Woundwort think that this exaggeration was bad? What does Woundwort think should happen as a result of said exaggeration if it in fact occurred?

> I understand that you love the man, but this argument is your's, not mine.

Then Woundwort's understanding is faulty. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and I probably won't vote for him in 2004.

I realize that it would be more convenient for Woundwort's argument if he could make that claim, but that doesn't make it true.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 26, 2003 12:14 PM

> What the hell is this about? Again, you have made assumptions that are wrong.

I'm reasonably certain that I was paraphrasing statements that Woundwort has made in the past in either top-level articles or comments on SilflayHraka, that he wants Bush out in 2004.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 26, 2003 12:16 PM

> But that is what bothers me about the Clinton situation, who gets to decide what is a federal case, somebody with an axe to grind?

"Somebody with an axe to grind" is the rule for everyone else, so why should Clinton be any different? We're still waiting for Woundwort's general rule.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 26, 2003 12:20 PM

> You say Bush should have gone in on the intelligence he received but a country telling us they have nuclear weapons should not be believed?

Got it in one. Does Woundwort actually believe that we should take other countries' statements as gospel?

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 26, 2003 12:23 PM

> Maybe I should have shortened the post to make it clearer.........the comparison of Bush to Clinton is a poor one.

Woundwort probably doesn't want to argue that the Bush accusation is "payback", so let's consider a related situation.

Suppose that Gore had won and that he did exactly the same things that Bush did wrt Afghanistan and Iraq.

How would the accusation and discussion change?


Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 26, 2003 12:41 PM

Hell, I want Bush out in 2004.

But my problem is that so far I got nobody to replace him with.

Posted by: bigwig at October 26, 2003 03:25 PM

Yes, I do think that this accusation is payback, does that make you happy now? If Gore had done the same thing the discussion would not be different. You want so badly for me to be so Democratic that I don't picture Dems. doing anything wrong, but you are out of luck here.

"I'm reasonably certain........"

Sounds very sure.

I think I must have hit a nerve with this post.

Posted by: Woundwort at October 27, 2003 08:39 AM

> If Gore had done the same thing the discussion would not be different.

Yeah right.

Note that Woundwort still hasn't said what we should do depending on the truth of the accusation (which he's still unwilling to take a position on). As much as he might like otherwise, the accusation is about the election.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 28, 2003 08:28 AM

I like how you continue to talk about me in the third person. Okay, here it is to put this to rest. Bush sucks, I want him to lose the next election and if he did exaggerate claims of the Iraqi threat to lead us to war he should be prosecuted. If he didn't, then perhaps those who claimed he did should be investigated as well. The post was all about the election, and I was trying to be covert in getting people to vote against Bush but you were too smart for me. Bravo.

Posted by: Woundwort at October 28, 2003 09:18 AM

These types of debates are fun. You share your opinion, I share mine, you tell me what I really meant, I tell you what I meant, you correct me again, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by: Woundwort at October 28, 2003 09:45 AM

> I like how you continue to talk about me in the third person.

We know that at least one other person is reading, so it's not like either one of us is writing just for the other.

The idea that the accusation is not about the election is absurd, even if that idea is somehow important to Woundwort's presentation. (Yet, it is payback.)

And, Woundwort has yet to take a position wrt the accusation (with the exception that he denies mentioning imminent).

Posted by: Andy Freeman at October 29, 2003 12:37 AM

But you're talking to him. I have to agree that the the third person usage sounds odd.

It's not quite "It puts the lotion in the basket," but it's close.

:)

Posted by: bigwig at October 29, 2003 12:47 AM

> But you're talking to him.

Not really. I'm talking about him, his positions, etc, and he isn't the intended audience.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at November 2, 2003 06:53 PM

Well, then pardon me for saying this, but it's fucking rude, and fucking stupid.

If you can't participate in a debate with referring to your opponent in the third person, don't bother debating. I'll erase the comments myself.

Posted by: bigwig at November 2, 2003 09:09 PM
Post a comment Note: Comments with more than two dashes per line will be blocked as spam.









Remember personal info?