"...And the #1 Sign I Need A Social Life..."

...is when you start fisking comments to your own blog.

Although "Fisking" is perhaps too harsh a word. The commenter in question, "Flash", is the type of Democrat we have to count on continuing to exist if our two-party system is to survive; moderate enough to be responsible on many key areas. There are a lot of them out there - outstate DFLers like Bob Lessard, Eastsiders like Randy Kelly, southerners not too far to the left of Zell Miller. They don't control the party, of course - which is why the Minnesota DFL is led by the likes of Ellen Anderson, why the Minneapolis DFL's communications read like Pravda, and why John Kerry is seen (erroneously) as a moderate option to Mad How. But they're out there. So let's not call this a Fisking. It's just...feedback.

Flash wrote in the comments to a post from last week:

In the 2003 SOTU address, GW states:

"We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

While using the word disarm 10 times throughout the speech he mentioned the UN ONLY in the context of disarmement. He only mentions terror ties while discussing the fear of sharing SoDamns WMDs with them. He only talked of attrocities by SoDamn as the reason to get WMDs out of his hands, not as a pretext to war.

Does anyone think the subtext of those remarks wasn't perfectly clear, especially as most of the invasion force was already in place?

To have said "Disarm or get ready for an invasion", in addition to being stratetically bad pool, would have been portrayed in the media as "foaming at the mouth and mongering war". No need for that.

I ask all of you, if SoDamn Who'sInSane could have proven he had disarmed would that have been the end of it. That is clearly what GW implies, and why that is the ONLY reason he used, at the time.

But the other three justifications mentioned in Berg's Law had been iterated many, many times in the previous year; the resolutions, the human rights record and the support for terror. One address, even a SOTU, doesn't a complete policy make.

It is clear, in GW's own words, that the other 3 reasons you give as justifications for war, are really reasons to disarm the man, NOT a pretext to war itself. So much for Berg's law.

Let's take this exactly word for word. "Reasons to disarm" Hussein - precisely how does anyone expect Hussein to have been involuntarily disarmed?

Was there any rational means short of an invasion? Especially given that the UN's inspection program was not only ineffectve, but was in fact designed to be worthless?

I think Berg's law stands...

Posted by Mitch at February 3, 2004 05:01 AM