Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

• Mark Levine June 16, 2004 11:01 pm

  

  I see your point, Bob. Actually, my guest was incorrect. Most of the intelligence community did NOT believe Iraq had WMDs, as witnessed by Colin Powell’s saying so in Egypt in February 2001. There was uncertainty, though, and the few needles saying WMDs (provided by Iranian agent Ahmed Chalabi) in the large haystack saying no WMDs allowed Cheney to “cherry-pick” the intelligence and force the CIA to modify its earlier reports that Iraq was no significant threat to the USA.
  Hence my second point (that perhaps, I did not express as clearly as I would have liked). We KNOW Iran and North Korea are developing WMDs and quite serious onesf and we knew it when we went to war with Iraq. (Nuclear weapons are very very serious. Chemical and biological weapons are a problem but less deadly than conventional ones.) Hence, even if you took the ambiguous information on Iraq and believed quite wrongly that Iraq had WMDs based on trusting the Iranian spy Chalabi, why wouldn’t you go first after the countries that were greater threats, i.e. North Korea and Iran, for whom the evidence was solid and the threat was more dangerous?
  That was my point and why I was not changing the subject. Obviously, though, I failed to get it across as clearly as I would have liked. I hope I’ve explained it more clearly here.

• Bob June 16, 2004 8:25 pm

  

  Mark if I could be a little critical (being the PITA stickler I am) I would say that you should always try to stay directly on topic rather than switching the focus. This is an irritating Republican tactic and is beneath you. For example, if your guest was correct that the entire intelligence community believed Iraq’s WMDs were a significant threat, then this fact does not change because Iran or North Korea are also a threat (your switch of topic center). This is actually extremely frustrating to me because I have noticed it is used every single time the left is challenged on this particular point. It would be better to not make such a statement – that WMD’s were never a threat. Instead agree that WMD’s were in fact considered to be a threat by the world and then argue why that threat as perceived at the time decisions were being made still did not justify the war. At this point you can introduce the relative threats from other parts of the world but you’ve done it without starting out with a lie (okay a distortion ;-).
  Of course you are correct about the ridiculous distortions used in the Bush ads but that is to be expected. Keep up the good work. I do think you scared him off the show. 🙂

• RikAtomika June 15, 2004 4:13 pm

  

  Here in Minnesota Bush is running tons of negative ads. I saw one calling Kerry a pessimist, I couldn’t believe it. The Republicans are constantly using fear and paranoia to keep people in line. It seems like every other commercial is a Bush add. When candidates go negative, it’s to draw attention away from themselves; that being that Bush and his cronies make the Grant administration look honest. This makes me wonder are the people, like todays guest for example, are brainwashed, gullible, or just as corrupt as George and Dick. I wish all my friends were corporate criminals, not.
  Run little Republican run!!! The Democrats are comming!!!
  Rik
  MN

• The Purple People June 15, 2004 4:13 pm

  

  We are unconvinced by Bush ads that blast Kerry–we think Bush is guilty of what his ads accuse Kerry of.

• RM NYC June 15, 2004 3:16 pm

  

  I’d like to get your guests impressions of the former George Bush operative that has joined John Kerry’s campaign. I believe he was a National Security wonk that got fed up with GW’s incompetence.
  Great Show Mark,
  RM NYC