For the Record

Not that this hasn't been discussed to death, but because it's important to record such milestones, let it be known, far and wide, that the search for illicit WMD in Iraq is now, officially, and in all ways, over. There were none there:

The top American weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles A. Duelfer, has wrapped up his work there, a step that ends the search for illicit weapons, an intelligence official said Tuesday night.

Mr. Duelfer issued a comprehensive report last fall that acknowledged that Iraq had destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990's, years before the American invasion of 2003. But Mr. Duelfer returned to Iraq for further investigations after that report was issued. In an article in its Wednesday issue, The Washington Post reported that he had ended that work in late December.

The intelligence official said that Mr. Duelfer was still likely to issue several small additional statements on his findings, but that none would contradict the central conclusions that Iraq did not possess illicit weapons at the time of the American invasion.

Shouldn't the Administration make as much noise about this as they did about mushroom clouds and how certain they were they knew...they knew...where the weapons were? Nah...what's the point, they've got a party to get ready for.

I will ask if there's anyone in America left who feels that they and their family are now safer because Bush invaded Iraq? And if so, are they paying attention?

Comments

[votermom]

It's beyond farce ... *weeps*

[cleek]

when Dan Rather's team makes a mistake that results in 30 minutes of "did too! did not!", the howls and shreiking from the right are deafening. when Bush's team makes a mistake (to be charitable)... not so much howling.

oh, and, by the way:

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,... The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.

-- Cheney

[SomeCallMeTim]

There were never any WMD? So what? It still remain true that Hussein had a crash program going to develop magical "space Arabs," who would be able to fly and to shoot laser beams out of their eyes. Of course the invasion was justified.

[Edward]

The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.

does that mean we've won the war??? Wahoo!!!

[rc]

We don't want the first sign of peace to be a mushroom soufle.

[James Casey]

Edward:

does that mean we've won the war??? Wahoo!!!

Cheney didn't specify WHO would win the war once this happened...

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Will not be won until" is just a conditional step, not necessarily a fulfillment. ;)

[Iron Lungfish]

So, Sebastian, do you feel safer?

[Edward]

"Will not be won until" is just a conditional step, not necessarily a fulfillment. ;)

OK, so at least we're one step closer though, right?

Or wait, is it possible that Cheney had neglected to account for the reverse results in his calculations: i.e., that if there were no WMD at all, invading Iraq would actually put us back a major step in the effort?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Absolutely.

And as a non-aside, I want to point out that the thought that Saddam had WMD and WMD programs did not originate with the Bush administration. It was a constant belief held by nearly all of the world's intelligence agencies for more than a decade. This includes such Iraq War detrator nations as France, Germany and Russia.

[kenB]

It was a constant belief held by nearly all of the world's intelligence agencies for more than a decade.

Did they all still believe it even after Blix's team turned up nothing?

[Edward]

the thought that Saddam had WMD and WMD programs did not originate with the Bush administration

Time to shoot and bury that possum. There is a world of difference between believing someone has a weapons program and believing that program justifies an invasion. Clinton (who you left out of your list, but the WH never fails to include) in his time, and then later France, Germany and Russia, all decided it was not worth the risk. In other words, the threat was not that great. Only Bush allowed himself to be worked up into a frenzy (and drag the nation with him) about the suspicion that Hussein had WMD.

[Iron Lungfish]

You want to know why I don't feel safer, Sebastian? Because while the president you voted for twice was launching us into war to head off what turned out to be not an immediate threat, nor a short-term or mid-term threat, but a potential long-term threat, actual short-term and immediate threats were allowed to worsen and spread unchecked: namely North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and oh yeah, the actual terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11.

Does the US have the capability to head off these threats now that it has spent a vast amount of blood, treasure, and diplomatic capital on the fool's errand of Iraq - a fool's errand that would have become obviously unnecessary had we left inspectors to do their work for a few more months? Can we forcibly disarm Iran if we have to without a draft? Can we forcibly disarm North Korea at all? Can I even mention Pakistan and Saudi Arabia here with a straight face?

This is what's called opportunity cost. You should familiarize yourself with it.

As for "previous administrations," yeah, Clinton had bad, outdated intel, same as Bush. But Bush cultivated bogus intel from unreliable sources (see Chalabi, Ahmed) to drown out the intel he was getting that was telling him Iraq had no nuclear program to speak of. And once again, all he had to do to find out the truth was wait a couple months.

And then he could've spent his energies on something that would've actually protected this country, instead of further destabilizing the region with a setup that at best will deliver a hostile Shiite theocracy and more probably will deliver a civil war.

[Jesurgislac]

Edward: Only Bush allowed himself to be worked up into a frenzy (and drag the nation with him) about the suspicion that Hussein had WMD

And as we discovered the weekend before the election, when the story about Al Qaqaa broke, not even Bush believed Saddam Hussein had those fabled stockpiles of WMD - or if he did, he was so utterly incompetently stupid that it never occurred to him that there would need to be a strategy to deal with those stockpiles.

Easier, looking at the Al Qaqaa debacle, to accept the truth: no one with the kind of access Bush and his senior administration had really believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD in any dangerous quantities that made it worthwhile to invade and secure them. Bush & Co did not invade to secure the stockpiles they claimed they knew were there: they lied because if there were stockpiled WMD, they were a convenient, almost-legal excuse to go to war.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I think this is an important point. Many countries just do not seem to believe that nuclear proliferation is a big enough threat for war--see for example North Korea or Iran. If it is ok for North Korea to have nukes, there really isn't an argument against any possible dictator or tyrant. So France and Germany could believe that Saddam had all sorts of things going on and they would not have authorized war. I strongly disagree with that notion of threat assessment as did Bush and a very large section of the US population. In other words we agreed on the basic facts, but not what to do with the basic facts. The understood basic facts have now been shown to be wrong. This should definitely call into account how we acquired those facts over 15 years. But that doesn't mean that our conclusions about the facts we thought we had were incorrect.

[Edward]

I strongly disagree with that notion of threat assessment as did Bush and a very large section of the US population.

I'd separate those two. Bush had access to the intelligence. All the US population had access to was his hyperbolic propaganda about the intelligence.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"I'd separate those two. Bush had access to the intelligence. All the US population had access to was his hyperbolic propaganda about the intelligence."

Even if I give you that, how does that change the discussion about how France and Germany want to react to threats like North Korea and Iran?

[CaseyL]

Ah...how do France and Germany want to react to NK and Iran?

(Sorry. I should probably know. I don't. Feel free to heap scorn.)

[SomeCallMeTim]

"Many countries [think] it is ok for North Korea to have nukes [; if so,] there really isn't an argument against any possible dictator or tyrant."

Well, if they didn't before Iraq, they sure do now. Surely, given that object lesson, any competent Defense Minister of any country of reasonable size now believes it is important to get at least one nuke, if only to forestall potential invasion. And, absent "we're good, they're bad," constructs, it's hard to see the counterargument. Though I admit I much prefer a world in which we are the only ones that have nukes.

All of which raises the question - will what happens in Iraq be the least important effect of the Bush doctrine/Iraq war?

[rilkefan]

"Many countries just do not seem to believe that nuclear proliferation is a big enough threat for war."

I'd put that as many countries do not see war as the first solution to nuke prolif. - and neither does the US usually.

[Iron Lungfish]

Sorry, Sebastian, you can't blame France and Germany on this one.

If unilateral military engagement is a fine course of action to prevent nuclear proliferation where there is no real threat of nuclear proliferation, then surely unilateral military engagement is a better course of action to prevent nuclear proliferation where nuclear proliferation is actually going on. That is: if the US was going to invade with bits of England and a handful of guys on loan from Australia, then the US should have thought to invaded a place where an invasion was warranted and actually would have done some good. France and Germany don't enter into the picture here.

The key element missing in negotiations with NK and Iran at present is the credible threat of force - the magic word there being "credible." As long as Kim Jong Il can take sanctions, as long as Iran can keep up an inspections runaround, they can keep working on their nuke programs because there's no point at which the US can actually call them to account - and the US can't do that because its military is bogged down in a fool's errand in Iraq.

So if you feel safe, Sebastian, I'll take two of what you're smoking.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Rilkefan, I don't see what that has to do with Iran and North Korea or even Iraq. Iraq kept out inspectors for years and had already fooled the international community about its nuclear program once before.

[blogbudsman]

I'm glad there are no WMD in Iraq. I'm a little skeptical that weapons weren't moved into Syria or Iran along the way, but I'll fold my tent for a moment. It bothers me not that we invaded - there can be no negotiation without real consequences. The contention that Iraq was on the verge of becoming a Cub Med is incomprehensible. I felt naively safe before 9/11 and equally afraid immediately afterward. What a blur that week was. Each day we establish our formidability as a foe against terrorism brings more comfort. The giant was awakened and the paper tiger has retreated. The elections in Iraq should deliver an uppercut that will stun the terrorist world. The taste of defeat will be too strong to misrepresent. With great sacrifice we have brought light to a void that has sustained a generation of worry. The line in the sand analogy may evoke catcalls from many, but it's truly what was necessary at this moment in history. As in most cases it's how we collectively respond to this moment that will determine it's ultimate success.

[Edward]

any room prayers for the dead innocents in your otherwise eloquent prose, Blog?

[CaseyL]

The contention that Iraq was on the verge of becoming a Cub Med is incomprehensible.

You're joking, right? No one made that contention. No one. Although, as I recall, Saddam's human rights record was not a concern of the GOP, conservatives, or the Right back in the 1980's, when Reagan & Bush were busy selling him arms. I also don't recall the GOP, conservatives, or the Right in general making a big fuss about Saddam's human rights record after the first Gulf War, after Bush I encouraged the Kurds to rise up in rebellion, and then reneged on his pledge to assist them in doing so.

So, I'd be real interested to know, who called Iraq "Club Med"?

I felt naively safe before 9/11 and equally afraid immediately afterward.

Yes, I do "get" the fact that 9/11 led to a Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome breakdown for a lot of people. I also "get" the fact that lot of people can be manipulated by the use of fear into supporting policies they would never support otherwise.

What I don't "get" is why, having let their fear be used to turn them into tools of a corrupt and brutal foreign policy, people who believed every Bush's propaganda should now feel so complacent about it.

A non-provoked, pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation on what turn out to be false pretences strikes me as the sort of thing rational people wouldn't approve of. A non-provoked, pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation on what turn out to be false pretences that also turns out to be a monumental cockup strikes me as the sort of thing amoral Machiavellian plotters wouldn't approve of, either!

[Iron Lungfish]

What I would like to hear from those who still support the war is, what tangible good has the decision to invade Iraq brought? Not vague speculation, not some cornball flypaper thesis that I don't think any of you honestly believe in - because nobody was proposing it as a reason for the war before going to war - but what tangible positives the post-war situation has brought that outweigh the negatives. I want to hear a coherent defense of why, looking back at all that's happened and looking forward at al that's likely to happen, it was a good idea to go in. Because I simply don't understand it. I put it down to mypopia, to ego, to guilt or to blinders or partisanship, because I can't fathom how people who appear to be intelligent and informed can be so completely addled as to look at what's happening in Iraq and say, "This is good."

[Jesurgislac]

Blogbudsman: It bothers me not that we invaded - there can be no negotiation without real consequences.

Say I grant that to you as an argument; that the US has to be able to back up any negotiation with the credible threat of being able to invade.

Why doesn't it bother you that the US threw away that credible threat on the invasion of a country which has proved to be no threat at all? Even if you assume Bush made a mistake, why doesn't it bother you that Bush made a mistake so awesomely bad? You think the credible threat of being able to invade is important: now the US doesn't have it, not, at least, until/if the US can get out of Iraq. Yet this doesn't bother you? Can you resolve this contradiction?

Each day we establish our formidability as a foe against terrorism brings more comfort.

How exactly do you imagine that the US has established its formidability as a "foe against terrorism"? List, please.

As for the elections in Iraq: at the moment, I gather they're estimating that 40% of the population probably won't be able to take part in them because of the insurgency. I don't think anyone knows how they're going to work out: I wouldn't try and figure out what the consequences will be until they've actually happened.

[dutchmarbel]

AFAIK France said that violent action might be possible, but Blix should finish his job first. Germany probabely would not have been in favor anyway, their history makes them very carefull about promoting being the agressor. But they have no security council vote. Russia (and China) also signed the declaration that said violent actions might be possible, but only after the council agreed.

So Germany's position is different, but not really important in this context.

At the time I assumed that even if Iraq *had* the weapons (I thougt they might have a few leftovers, but no big new dangerous ones) they did not have the means to threaten anybody with them, because they had no proper transport vehicles (for the gassing of the Kurds Saddam still needed his US helicopters for instance). So even *with* weapons they would nog be an immidiate threat.

Nucleair proliferation is a mutual agreement that no more weapons will be invented but that the countries that do not have nuclear weapons can still have the advantages of nucear technolgy. Which means that the US developing "small nuclear weapons" to actually use in battle is a breech, so the people that defend nucleair proliferation should speak out against that too. I think that the US stating that they are developing nucleair weapons to really use is an enourmous threat to be honest, because than everybody who is *not* on the US' good side will feel they need those kind of weapons too.

Btw: I thought this article in foreign affairs about the real threat of North Korea was rather interesting.

[Phil]

I want to point out that the thought that Saddam had WMD and WMD programs did not originate with the Bush administration. It was a constant belief held by nearly all of the world's intelligence agencies for more than a decade.

***snort*** Did those intelligence agencies also all go on television stating that we knew -- knew -- exactly where all those stockpiles were and would be brandishing them triumphantly any day now? Or was that just us?

[Dianne]

"I felt naively safe before 9/11 and equally afraid immediately afterward."

I also felt terrified on and after 9/11. Not of the terrorists who had already turned themselves into a fine mist of carbon dioxide, water, and trace elements. Not even of the terrorists rumored to be targeting the building I was working in--I discounted that rumor because, even though it was technically a government building, it was also a hospital and who'd be crazy enough to attack a hospital? (The irony of this thought, given the US's behavior in Iraq has come back to me numerous times, but I didn't know that then.) No, what terrified me on 9/11/01 was the thought of what the government's response would be. I think that my fear was well founded.

[blogbudsman]

I choose Jes. If no one believes Iraq was a credible threat, why all the sanctions and no-fly zones and inspections and UN resolutions. Just because, as usual, the bully melts away when confronted doesn't mean bullies needn't be dealt with. Your assessment of mistakes and magnitude are your own, not mine. Not many things are exactly as they seem, and planning to the point of paralysis knowing the circumstances will unfold their own way is not only fruitless but inadviseable. And I would think that, say North Korea would be well advised not to get too goofy while we're quite occupied with Iraq. We don't have to wage a ground war there, you know. And a lot of things bother me. And a can't resolve a artificially constructed contradiction.

[rilkefan]

A comment on the "Russia etc thought there were WMDs" - I believe Putin said they hadn't thought that (perhaps modified by "dangerous WMDs"). And in any case, if country x's belief wasn't strongly correlated (and not in a good way) with our (politically driven) belief, I'd be surprised. And in any case squared, the (in my view already weak) WMD case was crumbling in the leadup to the war.

[blogbudsman]

And CaseyL - that morning of 9/11 my wife and I were flying back to Oregon from the Midwest through Denver. We landed in Denver just as the TV's were showing the WTC towers fall. Announcements were being made that the FAA had shut down all air traffic. Then announcements were being made that they were closing the airports and for all passengers to proceed to the main concourse. Fortunately we were able to stay with friend for a couple days until we were able to get a car rented for the drive back to Oregon. I never saw what you were attempting to create. I saw thousands of serious, determined, clear thinking Americans, first working through their immediate personal crisis of the moment, then absorbing what was happening and what it was beginning to mean for them. I remember that eerie drive across Wyoming and Idaho. The flags in the windows, the calm resolve of the folks we met at the rest areas, diners and the motel in Twin Falls. Paint a picture you can accept, but it's not my picture.

[blogbudsman]

And I truly didn't mean that Iraq was developing into a nation we could banish a certain Chicago baseball team to. My sloppiness, as usual.

[CaseyL]

I saw thousands of serious, determined, clear thinking Americans, first working through their immediate personal crisis of the moment, then absorbing what was happening and what it was beginning to mean for them.

I wonder what they would have said, back then, if you told them that the fellow who masterminded the attack would still be alive, and free, 3 years later...and that the US would spend 1500 lives and billions of dollars attacking a guy and country who had nothing to do with the attack?

[Jesurgislac]

Blogbudsman: If no one believes Iraq was a credible threat, why all the sanctions and no-fly zones and inspections and UN resolutions.

The point is made, Blogs: no one else but Bush & Co even claimed to believe that Iraq was enough of a threat to justify an invasion, and it's now clear that Iraq was not enough of a threat to justify an invasion.

Just because, as usual, the bully melts away when confronted doesn't mean bullies needn't be dealt with.

Who, in your view, is "the bully"?

You seem to think this isn't a policy blunder: that Iraq was such a terrible threat that the US was justified in using up its credible invasion threat. And you assert that it wasn't a mistake to use up the credible threat of invasion on Iraq, even though demonstrably, all the other powers in the world were right: Iraq did not have WMD to justify an invasion. So why do you think that using up the credible threat of invasion on Iraq wasn't a policy blunder?

And I would think that, say North Korea would be well advised not to get too goofy while we're quite occupied with Iraq.

Why not? After all, there's absolutely nothing the US can do to North Korea right now, short of starting a full-scale nuclear war, and they know it. The US simply doesn't have the resources: they're all tied up in Iraq.

Further, do we still need to keep saying this? Invading Iraq had no connection with September 11.

[blogbudsman]

Jes, those two dots may not have been connected, but they were close acquaintences that now we'll never have to worry about spawning more dots. The dot family is slowly but surely sliding down the food chain.

[Phil]

. . . they were close acquaintences that now we'll never have to worry about spawning more dots.

Riiiiiight. That's why global incidents of terrorism are up rather than down in the last year, and why Iraq appears to be overrun with the bastards now. Because we cut the link. Gee, I'd hate to think what would have happened if we hadn't.

[blogbudsman]

Yes Phil, so do I.

[Phil]

You actually think it would be worse? On what are you basing that? If there are no WMDs in Iraq now, then there weren't when we invaded, and it appears that there weren't even quickly activatable programs. So please, tell me, how would it be worse?

[Iron Lungfish]

Phil, blogbudsman can't give you any tangible evidence of any net positives that have come out of this war. If he had, he'd have listed them.

[Jesurgislac]

Seen on livejournal, and made me laugh so much I thought it was worth sharing:

The war in Iraq is almost exactly like getting your d--k stuck in a Chinese Finger Puzzle. There's no way out, and everyone is laughing at you.

[blogbudsman]

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/06/good-news-from-iraq-part-4.html>Good News

[blogbudsman]

http://www.blogsofwar.com/archives/2004/10/10/good-news-from-iraq/>Freedom’s Voices

[blogbudsman]

And as you might suspect, not even all the good news reported is accurate - http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/rayreynolds.htm>Truth or Fiction

[blogbudsman]

And Jes, your comedic career could use a http://users.boardnation.com/~effingpot/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=2070>Boost

[blogbudsman]

And, as a staunch moderate, I realize the good news is difficult to report http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17420-2004Jun5.html>Because of the bad news.

[blogbudsman]

And finally, the inevitable, http://betoniraq.com/max/>Here it comes!!

[liberal japonicus]

bbm
This kind of posting is really not such a good thing because it takes over the 'recent comments' list, putting other comments down and out of view. Could you please put comments like this in one post? Thanks.

[Edward]

Thanks for that netiquette observation, LJ. I would agree that multiple posts by one person is jarring when you first come to the site and look at the recent list...it makes it look the joint is empty and one person is arguing with him/herself.

Which, when I stop to think about it, I'm not sure why blogbudsman is not doing...unless I misunderstood this

And, as a staunch moderate,

Blog, are you saying that you are a "moderate"? What universe did I wake up in today? Dear Lord, where are all the hard core liberals? If nothing else to help these folks see how far right they truly are?

;pppp

[exits to get coffee before commenting futher]

[Jesurgislac]

Blogbuds: And Jes, your comedic career could use a Boost

Heh. Thanks for the link. ;-)

[blogbudsman]

I'll sneak in one last comment to apologize. No excuse, but I wasn't aware of the affect. And I am a moderate, very! Seems like many can't see that far from where they stand.

[Edward]

And I am a moderate, very! Seems like many can't see that far from where they stand.

Funny how that same thought occurs to so many, regardless of where they personally stand...eh? I'll confess that I think I'm a moderate...until I spend a bit of time on LGF or what have you. It's all relative.

[liberal japonicus]

Seems like many can't see that far from where they stand.

I think that as a rule of thumb, statements like this should be presented with some evidence or people may consider the person making such statements to have some problems with paranoia. Or at the very least, not really someone they want to have a discussion with...

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I'm a moderate!

Well a moderate hard-core conservative. ;)

[blogbudsman]

As a moderate, I would never abide by any rule of thumb. "The popular expression http://www.canlaw.com/rights/thumbrul.htm>Rule of Thumb
originated from English common law, which allowed a husband to beat his wife with a whip or stick no bigger in diameter than his thumb. The husband's prerogative was incorporated into American law. Several states had statutes that essentially allowed a man to beat his wife without interference from the courts."

[liberal japonicus]

bbm
I think I am supposed to say "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you"
link

The term "rule of thumb" has been used to mean "rough or approximate measure" for several hundred years. This is amply documented in the Oxford English Dictionary and various other works. On the other hand, there are apparently legal cases in both the United States and Great Britain in which judges established a standard for the maximum diamater of a rod with which a man may beat his wife. I have citations available to specific cases if anyone is interested. I use the word "apparently" because I have not actually gone to the law library to retrieve these cases. What is clear is that the term "rule of thumb" does not have its origin in rulings regarding violence toward women; it predates any legal opinions on the issue.

and

As far as I have seen, "rule of thumb" was first associated with wife-beating by Del Martin in 1976, but she was being whimsical (a point that Sommers fails to make). It was seriously associated with wife-beating by Terry Davidson in 1977, completely without historical foundatio; and authors who cited Davidson jumped to the conclusion that the alleged common law of rule of thumb gave rise to the expression (N.B. I would be grateful if anyone can find earlier associations of "rule of thumb" with wife-beating).

Sommers is partially right on Blackstone, and partially mistaken, both in her book and in her reply to Linda Hirshman's critique (the critique appeared in the Los Angeles Times, 31 July 1994, M5, and the reply on 13 August '94, B1). She reads Blackstone as saying that the old law [before 1660] allowed moderate chastisement but prohibited violence. Not so: Hirshman is right in saying that Blackstone qualified it as excessive violence (he does this by quoting a Latin writ). Sommers is wrong in her reply to say that the sense of the Latin was included in her citation, but right in finding Hirshman mistaken for suggesting that this was current law or Blackstone's own opinion of current law.

Sommers is also mistaken (in her book) in citing Blackstone to say that the courts still permitted husbands of lower rank to restrain wives of their liberty, or that the prohibitions against violence went largely unenforced, especially among the lower rank. What Blackstone says is that moderate violence used to be allowed, but not after the time of Charles II, though the lower rank of people still claimed it as a right; but the courts did still allow husbands (of all ranks) to restrain their wives in cases of gross
misbehavior.

I document all this in an article, "Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband's Stick," to appear in the September issue of the Journal of Legal Education. I unpack all of Blackstone's sources, including Roman civil law, and analyze the American cases in which thumb-measurements or other criteria for the husband's stick are mentioned, and I also deal with an English judge of the king's bench, Sir Francis Buller, who in 1782 was lampooned for his view that husbands could use a smaller-than-thumb stick.

Andy Kelly (aka Henry Ansgar Kelly, English Department, UCLA)

I'd also note that the first 6 results on Google for [rule of thumb] are links debunking the connection. Ouch.

[Jesurgislac]

Edward, one of the reasons I hang out on ObWing is to remind myself that I'm not a moderate - except in the very small circle of people I talk politics with face-to-face. ;-) You need to debate with people of widely different political opinions to your own, and acknowledge they're honest people with honest reasons for believing what they do, to be able to know that a moderate is generally either someone with less impassioned political opinions than your own... or else someone so content with their own political opinions that it's never occurred to them to think how they look to those who don't share them.

[Edward]

I agree Jes...it was by blogging on Tacitus that I realized how far left I seem to some very smart, rational people. It was an eye-opener for sure, as lots of my friends think I'm way to conservative.

[243]

Edward: ... I realized how far left I seem to some very smart, rational people.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is a British web site that measures how far left--right, authoritarian--libertarian one is. It would be interesting to see how the ObWi faithful come out. FWIW I'm -8.62 x -6.36 which is about where I think I should be, although I think of myself as a moderate too.

[rilkefan]

lj: "I'd also note that the first 6 results on Google for [rule of thumb] are links debunking the connection. Ouch."

Unfortunately, google doesn't rank by truth, so this is a dangerous line of argument. I don't know e.g. what one would get for the (to me at least) very confusing question of the camel and the needle's eye, or for one's favorite political hot-button-issue...

[liberal japonicus]

rilkefan
Excellent point. It's just that if something is at the top of the Google search results, it may not be true, but it should mean that you don't go blithely asserting the opposite, especially if it is for snark purposes only. Remember, only you can stop urban myths!

[Eric Farnsworth]

My wife was looking up details of flour milling the other day and read that the rule of thumb was how the miller rubbed the flour on his fingers to test for fineness.
Back to tangible positive results in Iraq: we're spending billions of dollars there. Whoever is receiving those dollars is getting a tangible benefit. The usual suspects, eh? I can't help wondering whether that distribution of tax dollars to Halliburton, etc. wasn't a large part of the real reason for the war in the first place. Otherwise, why wouldn't Bush be totally pissed at those boneheads who got us there? Unless he was getting at least part of what he bargained for.

[liberal japonicus]

Though, on reflecting a bit more, there really is no reason to meet snark with confrontational snark, which is probably what I did in addressing the first assertion that was unattached to any argument. Apologies to bbm for that.