30 thoughts on “Dick Durbin

  1. Jim

    Gently reminding the Senate of the WMD debacle is proof of “partisan prevarication” and “disgraceful madness”? Are Iraq war fans really that thin-skinned?

    1. Jim

      Of course there were lies about WMD in Iraq. Condoleezza Rice was told by DOE briefers that the aluminum tubes were probably not for use in centrifuges. She turned around and went on TV to say that they could only be used for nuclear purposes. Her punishment was a promotion to Secretary of State.

      Just imagine what your reaction would be if Obama made the case for a trillion dollar war with that sort of dishonesty?

      And Durbin prompted the NR screed without even mentioning the lying!

      1. Larry J

        Two of my coworkers were intel specialists in country during the 2003 Iraq invasion. They told me in no uncertain terms that the WMDs crossed the border into Syria. I have more faith in their statements than anything you or Durbin can possibly say.

        1. Jim

          I’ll take the “authoritative” Duelfer Report over your coworkers, thanks. But either way, it doesn’t change the fact that Condoleeza Rice lied. She told the public something that she knew to be false, in order to make a case for war.

          1. Larry J

            My coworkers were actually there at the time and saw what was going on. But how can that possibly compare to an “authoritative report” by someone who wasn’t there?

          2. Jim

            LOL. The Duelfer Report was compiled by the Iraq Survey Group, a 1,400 member team from the Pentagon and the CIA that scoured Iraq for 18 months looking for WMDs, from the invasion to the fall of 2004. They most certainly were there.

            But you go on believing your buddies — they know better (and what’s more, they’re telling you what you want to hear, so they must be right).

      2. DaveP.

        So GWB and Condoleeza Rice were liars for repeating the same intel that had been used by Bill Clinton and John Kerry… because truth is completely subjective and depends on political affiliation to you.

        “Just imagine what your reaction would be if Obama made the case for a trillion dollar war with that sort of dishonesty?”

        Obama and the Dems will spend half again that much in their war against private healthcare and private health inusrance, and you seem totally groovy with that. I guessexpensive wars are okay with Democrats as long as the enemies to be attacked are Americans.

        1. Jim

          So GWB and Condoleeza Rice were liars for repeating the same intel that had been used by Bill Clinton and John Kerry

          No, Rice lied by making a specific statement that she knew at the time to be false. Clinton and Kerry, like many people, were too credulous about WMD reports, but that’s a far cry from what Rice did.

          1. wodun

            “No, Rice lied by making a specific statement that she knew at the time to be false.”

            It is nice that we can agree that Susan Rice made statements she knew was false. After all, by the time she made her statements it was all over the media how it was an AQ offshoot group that was responsible for the attack. If you believe Obama, the offical story from day one was that is was an AQ attack.

            Either Rice or Obama is lying but it is also possible that they both lied.

        2. Jim

          Obama and the Dems will spend half again that much in their war against private healthcare and private health inusrance

          You know where that money will go, right? To private healthcare and private health insurance.

          wars are okay with Democrats as long as the enemies to be attacked are Americans

          These “enemies” are being “attacked” with fusillades of money.

          1. DaveP.

            “You know where that money will go, right? To private healthcare and private health insurance”

            …which makes you a supporter of unabashed crony capitalism.
            It’s just that your political masters told you they were for “tha little guy”- and you believed them.
            Sucker.

          2. Jim

            Do you get whiplash, flipping so quickly from accusing those mean Democrats from attacking private healthcare, to accusing those corrupt Democrats from being in bed with private healthcare?

            If so, there’s good news: in a mere 11 months Obamacare will help you get the treatment you need.

          3. wodun

            “You know where that money will go, right? To private healthcare and private health insurance.”

            Obama campaign donors? How progressive…

          4. DaveP.

            Sorry Jim; I just thought you’d want to be consistant and unhypocritical in your beliefs. I should have known better…

      3. wodun

        “Just imagine what your reaction would be if Obama made the case for a trillion dollar war with that sort of dishonesty?”

        Jim, Jim, Jim, I feel so sorry for you.

        A trillion dollars over ten years? So about $100b a year.

        Obama’s ten year plan puts us well over $12t in debt over ten years with yearly deficits around $1.4t. Those t’s stand for trillion.

        How many Iraq wars could we fight with all that money Obama is spending? If $100b a year on Iraq was such a folly, how do you square that with what is going on now?

        Obama called and he revoked your Iraq was an expensive disaster card.

  2. Arizona CJ

    Durbin is the senator who attempted to excuse the senate’s illegal lack of a budget (not only haven’t they passed one in over three years, they haven’t even proposed one!) by saying that it’s impossible to pass one because the Republicans would filibuster it.

    The senate rules (which he damn well ought to know) don’t allow a filibuster of the budget.

    Thus, Durbin proved himself either a liar or an incompetent fool. (though in all due fairness to the man, these are not mutually exclusive propositions in his case.)

    1. Jim

      Or else he misspoke, and meant that the House wouldn’t pass the Senate’s budget. Remember, Rand finds it tiresome when people don’t assume that their opponents are operating in good faith.

      1. DaveP.

        Condlezza Rice “lied” but Durban “misspokie”.
        One is a woman, and black.

        But I’m SURE that made no difference in your choice of words… right, Jim?

      2. Jim

        So Rice just misspoke? She meant to say “Saddam’s aluminum tubes probably aren’t for nuclear weapons programs”, and it accidentally came out as “Saddam’s aluminum tubes are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs”?

        I don’t think so.

        1. DaveP.

          Like I said: the only one of these two you’re treating with kid gloves is the one who is an old white man, while you attack the one who is one of them is black, and a woman… coincidence? I wonder.

  3. Bilwick

    “Two of my coworkers were intel specialists in country during the 2003 Iraq invasion. They told me in no uncertain terms that the WMDs crossed the border into Syria. I have more faith in their statements than anything you or Durbin can possibly say.”

    I don’t know, Larry. I know as little about this kind of thing as Jim knows about economics, but if I’m going to take anyone’s word on this, surely we can trust people like Jim. I mean, if you can trust people who believe in legalized lotting, who can you trust?

    Leave a comment

    1. Bilwick

      Of course, I meant “looting” and not “lotting.” Although if “lotting” referred to some form of State aggression, Jim would certainly be for it.

    2. Larry J

      I have some interesting coworkers. They told me about capturing a high-ranking Republican Guard type with a few million dollars in a briefcase and a satellite phone. The phone directory had many other high-ranking types in the directory, including many on the famous deck of playing cards (remember those?). They did a little coordination with certain national agencies and started calling people with that satellite phone, one by one. They located and terminated 10 people from that deck with that simple trick. Pretty cool.

      War can sometimes be funny. In one case, they captured a guy with 999 gold bars. The captured gold was locked up in a guarded warehouse. One of their briefers had a good sense of humor with a deadpan delivery. For the next several days, when he briefed about the gold, he briefed a lower bar count. Finally, a general said, “Wait a minute! There were 999 bars of gold. Where did the rest go?” The briefer simply said, “What is your cut?” None of the gold was stolen, he was just having some fun at the general’s expense.

  4. wodun

    Jim, before you go full truther on us about no wmd and war for oil, you might want to check these links.

    Not only were there wmd but Saddam wanted the world to think they were a greater threat than they were. The fear that he had them was just as great a weapon than actually having them. A democrat like yourself should appreciate the use of fear for political purposes.

    Also, don’t forget that wmd was just one of many reasons given for the war. There were violations of UN sanctions. The failure of the oil for food program. The constant attacks on our planes enforcing the no-fly zone. Construction of missiles with ranges larger than permitted in agreements signed after the first gulf war. And there are many other that I am forgetting about.

    There was also the humanitarian aspect as well. Here was a dictator putting people through wood chippers. A man who killed tens of thousands of his own people every year. Contrast that to the call for action in Libya and Syria where far less people have died.

    One of the main criticisms from the left in the lead up to the war was that there were too many reasons. The obstructionist left who felt burned over the 2000 results fought Bush at every turn. They said things like. “Why does Bush want war with Iraq? Is it because of wmd or for violating UN sanctions? Which is it? It can’t be both.”

    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jul-30/182706-uk-experts-to-help-iraq-destroy-chemical-residues.ashx

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

    http://strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20111004.aspx

    1. Jim

      before you go full truther on us about no wmd and war for oil, you might want to check these links

      A truther is the sort of person who would believe that last link (an anonymous, unattributed assertion) instead of believing the Duelfer Report. The other two links don’t say that Saddam had operational WMD in 2003, just that there was uranium (not a weapon) and chemical weapon residue from the 90s (again, not a weapon).

      Saddam wanted the world to think they were a greater threat than they were

      Well, duh. And Bush fell for it, because he wanted a war, and Saddam’s bluff gave him a pretext.

      wmd was just one of many reasons given for the war

      It was the #1 reason. There wouldn’t have been a war without it, because without WMD Iraq posed no threat to US security. And the Bush administration lied to make the WMD case for war.

      1. wodun

        “A truther is the sort of person who would believe that last link (an anonymous, unattributed assertion) instead of believing the Duelfer Report.”

        The Duelfer report and the other two links I provided actually back up what was said in the third link. Is there anything you can refute in it other than attacking the credentials of whomever wrote it?

        From the first link, “Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what’s left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced Monday.”

        The residue wasn’t some crud on the floor that needed mopped up.

        “Well, duh. And Bush fell for it, because he wanted a war, and Saddam’s bluff gave him a pretext.”

        Everyone fell for it. Every single intelligence agency thought he had them. He had the capacity and expertise to make them and while he didn’t have the large stockpiles we thought he had, he did have some chemical weapons.

        “It was the #1 reason. There wouldn’t have been a war without it, because without WMD Iraq posed no threat to US security.”

        But it wasn’t the only reason. Part of the argument was Saddam had the very things listed in the links that would allow him to produce wmd, which he did.

        Also, Iraq did pose a threat to US security without wmd. They were firing on our pilots on a daily basis and the oil for food program that killed a million Iraqi civilians was being used as a recruiting tool for AQ.

        “And the Bush administration lied to make the WMD case for war.”

        By all accounts, Bush actually thought Iraq had wmd so he might have been wrong but that wouldn’t be a lie. While it might be accepted by leftists, it ranks up there with birthers, truthers, people who obsess about the Moon landing, and whether or not there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll.

        1. Jim

          The residue wasn’t some crud on the floor that needed mopped up.

          It wasn’t operational weapons. It was effectively hazardous waste.

          Iraq did pose a threat to US security without wmd. They were firing on our pilots on a daily basis

          And missing. You’re saying we sacrificed 4,000 troops to prevent the theoretical possible future loss of a flight crew?

          the oil for food program that killed a million Iraqi civilians was being used as a recruiting tool for AQ

          That would be a hilarious argument, if the subject weren’t so grim. Which do you think served as a better recruiting tool for AQ, trade sanctions, or an invasion that generated daily videos of U.S. soldiers killing Muslims?

          Bush actually thought Iraq had wmd

          Sure, because “WMD” is a broad term that include things that aren’t terribly threatening (does anyone outside Syria feel all that threatened by Syria’s chemical weapons today?).

          But Rice knew that the aluminum tubes weren’t for centrifuges — the DOE had told her so — and she went on national television to say that they were “only” suitable for nuclear programs. That’s a lie, made to justify the war. She went on to invoke the specter of a mushroom cloud, to drive home the idea that Saddam posed a nuclear threat — another lie. Rice and co. saw that chemical weapons weren’t scary enough — they hadn’t been enough to justify an occupation in 1991. So they hyped a non-existent nuclear threat.

Comments are closed.