What They're Saying:

  • "Sean writes passionately... Make sure you read the whole thing."
    Captains Quarters

    "Sean has more common sense than the entire New York Times editorial board, and his prose is better, too."
    Amy Ridenour's
    National Center Blog

    "This guy is blowing me away with his posts - I'm just sorry I didn't start reading his blog sooner."
    Who Moved My Truth?

    "Sean is so right he is wrong. It's good to be wrong when you're right. Right? Follow me? Follow Sean:"
    Ryan's Head

    "Sean at Everything I Know Is Wrong is, in my mind, rarely, if not never, wrong. [I think I just wore out my comma key]... His website is one of my favorites and I really enjoy reading his posts."
    The Rocketsled to Hell

The Constitution of the United States


The 101st Fighting Keyboards

« I've been Blogopoly...ised! | Main | The Constitution: Article III »

March 05, 2004


peggy k

Oh, Sean! Too funny. Too right on the money.

Too bad liberals don't comprehend Logic 101 and will NOT follow what you have written!


We may not shoot missiles into countries willy nilly, but Clinton did when he was caught being "slick willy."


The assertion was that Saddam had WMD's. But Saddam didn't.

According to an ABC News report:

"U.S. intelligence officials admit the Iraq link is somewhat circumstantial...Powell provided no evidence of any direct link between Zarqawi's network and Saddam's regime. His assertions of Iraqi involvement are circumstantial..."

And European intelligence even doubts the connection between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda.

So, it's not really logic 101, it's a question of who you believe. so it's more like:

1. debatable

2. unproven

3. yes, but that's not quite what anybody was saying. although i like how you twist the facts around to suit you.



You've missed the point , too. Here it is:

The left is willing to admit things (as they clearly do in this article) that they obviously don't intend to admit, if they feel they can use it to blame the other side for things they themselves are guilty of.

1. Not debatable. The Democrats were pushing for more delay, not less.
2. If you really consider it un-proven ask yourself this: Why was it the center piece (presented as un-deniable fact) of an article in a left-leaning publication attacking the President for not reacting to it soon enough?
3. You said it yourself, “Yes.” Meaning, “Yes,” there were WMD’s in Iraq but that is not what we meant to admit.

Timothy Lang

I am no expert in these issues, but just using pure logic 101, your arguments still don't make sense:

1. You're combining two separate issues here. The democrats were pushing to delay a war to overthrow of Saddam and his administration. Does that mean they were attempting to delay the removal of Zarqawi? No. Again, Zarqawi has no proven ties to Saddam. Two separate things. The proof of an extremist in the country with with weapons is not a reason to go to war with that country's government. It would be like going to war against the US because Timothy McVeigh had a bomb. Now if it can be shown that Zarqawi had ties to Saddam, then it would be a different story- but that hasn't been proven yet.

2. The article was attacking Bush for not acting on his own anti-terrorist policies. Terrorists are terrorists, whether they are Al Qaeda or not. Again, since it is unclear as to whether Zarqawi had ties to Al Qaeda, there is not yet proof that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. One source in the ABC news report said that Zarqawi "is against Al Qaeda." Now if they do later no link Zarqawi to Al Qaeda, then yes, you are correct that they were there before the war. But, currently unproven.

3. Your are still putting a slight twist on the actual question here. The whole debate was whether SADDAM had WMD's. If Saddam had WMD's, that would be the reasoning to go to war against Saddam. But it hasn't been shown that Saddam had WMD's. No proven ties between Zarqawi and Saddam. Just because an extremist operating within Iraq had WMD's, doesn't mean the Iraqi government had them. The Timothy McVeigh comparison is appropriate here again.



1. Democrats were delaying an attack on Iraq. Where was Zarqawi’s weapon’s lab?

“In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq.”

How do you think a missile attack (or any other kind of attack) on Iraqi soil would have been construed?

As far as the Timothy McVeigh analogy, I think you’re probably being a little facetious but here goes anyway. Timothy McVeigh was an isolated civilian extremist. He is a US citizen. I think a closer analogy would be that it would have been like attacking an al-Qaida chemical weapons lab in Iraq.

2. You are still missing the point. If it’s un-proven (and believe me, my first inclination is definitely not to believe MSNBC) why is it presented as fact? Here is the opening paragraph of the article:

“With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.”

3. After seeing the stranglehold Saddam had on Iraq it is hard to believe you could think that a foreign terror organization was running a lab, inside Iraq, producing WMD’s without his knowledge.

My point is not that left-leaning MSNBC has presented a bunch of new facts that prove Bush right (though very likely they have). My point is that they are willing to present as fact, issues which they would have fought against tooth and nail were they not trying so hard to put them in a context which would hurt Bush that they didn’t realize what they were saying.


If the ricin was being produced in Iraq in the run up to the war, why isn't that evidence front and center now? I would think there would be residue from the production process present. Perhaps Mr, Kay was incorrect?

If you would humor me another question? How was this "WMD" under the control of Hussein? I think it common knowledge the northern portion of Iraq was not under the control of Hussein. WMD's under Husseins control were the nominal story to justify the war in Iraq.


Based on your willingness to debate with me over the veracity of the 3 points, I'd say you're unsure about the whole point of your post as well.

If it's that MSNBC doesn't know where they stand on these issues, then I can accept that. If they want to be a respectable news source, MSNBC shouldn't really have a particular stance on news, and should report the news that they deem credible, whether it contradicts their previous reports or not. Whether or not they did this, I don't know, but it sounds like they did based on the article.

On the other hand, if your point is that these 3 facts prove Bush right, then I don't think you can claim that yet. Maybe time will provide more insight into the matter.



I am absolutely sure about the point of my post. I contend that a liberal "news" source, in their glee at being able to say something that they felt would hurt a Republican administration (because they DO have a particular stand on the news), admitted some things that they would never have admitted if they had realized what they were saying. Whether what they said is factually correct or not, they presented it as fact. Therefore, within the context of their own "facts", the three items in my post were admitted to.

Just for the record, I ALWAYS question the veracity of every news source, and so should you (sounds like you do). There is always an axe to grind. I have an axe to grind, and so do you. And, for the record, I’ve enjoyed debating with you. Come back any time.


So many axes, so little time...

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

Subscribe to EIKIW feed.

Day By Day

Advertising One

"Global Warming"

"Climate Change"

Advertising Two

Advertising Three


  • Listed on 

  • blogopoly-piece-everythingiknowiswrong.jpg

  • blogping.png

  • a

TTLB Ecosystem