Facts better for GOP in O8 than 06: by Michael Barone - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-25-2008, 10:55 AM   #41
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
These sweeping generalities are what make it easy for many to tune you out. If you haven't picked up on it, the most reasonable people in the forum are usually the most respected (see: Yolland). All you do is try to infuriate the left.

Your posts are very predictable: you will be very long winded, so as to scare off the simple reader who wants a summary. And you will act as if you have many facts, to scare off the reader who doesn't regularly research the topic. That leaves you to challenging a select few, who you can sweep up into a category of "Democrats with their fingers in their ears." It's a formula that is effective in your eyes, despite the fact that you lack any ounce of respect from anyone on this forum besides the occasional conservative who will drink the Kool-Aid right along side of you.

If I were you, I'd start trying to have discourse based more around comparing sources and being willing to concede certain arguments as opposed to making generalities and re-hashing arguments that were already debunked.

If I were you, I'd stick to discussing the topic rather than other people in the forum. Perhaps you need to read the rules of the forum which you agreed to abide by when you signed up.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:56 AM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
If I were you, I'd stick to discussing the topic rather than other people in the forum. Perhaps you need to read the rules of the forum which you agreed to abide by when you signed up.
What I'm trying to say is: Your posting style makes it impossible to discuss the topic. Hence, my post.
__________________

phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 11:03 AM   #43
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,715
Local Time: 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
What you don't understand is that the administration already won the case for war with the congressional approval that they won in October 2002 just one month after they started making their case. The majority of the speaches qoutes you like to talk about occured after the vote in congress when the President already had the authorization he needed to go to war. In addition, all the polling that gallup did both prior to 9/11 and after shows that a majority of the US public already supported invading Iraq and removing the regime!


so we've totally backed away from the contention that i and "democrats" have been "cherry picking" quotes?

good.

this also completely glosses over what the October 2002 Congressional vote did and did not do, nor does it have anything to do with the fabricated case that the administration made to justify going to war. it's not as if Congress authorized, and Bush bombed the next day. obviously, the Bushies felt they had much, much more work to do nor did they trust the very "case" you cite as such unassailable proof that a war in this manner, on this timetable, was the only conceivable course of action. for if that were the case, then we wouldn't have had any of the drama that gripped the world in late 2002 and early 2003.

the case that you've laid out in here over and over and over again obviously wasn't good enough for the White House. why it's good enough for you is something only you can answer.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 11:04 AM   #44
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so, coming at this in the morning with a night's sleep and a workout behind me, i suppose i really have to say that i am genuinely puzzled and a little sad.

this is post 14,427 and i think i can count on one hand the number of posters -- 3, to be exact -- that i've been unable to have a productive exchange with. and #1 on that list is, obviously, STING. the other two were little spats in LS (not worth mentioning) and EYKIW (when someone refused to consider that, shock, Boy is loaded with sexual ambiguity and that "twilight" is about being approached by a guy).

so i really don't think i'm the problem here. or not the only problem. i think all anyone really wants is interesting, productive dialog, and, yes, possibly to score some points for their "team," but it amazes me how in every single thread on this topic things go instantly downhill in civility, tone, and quality the moment certain posts are re-posted.

just an observation.
Notice that there is a topic for this thread and its not a poster in the forum. I know how interested you are in me and talking about me, but were here to discuss topics and issues not members of the forum. If you really have a problem with me, you don't have to read my post, let alone open up a thread which I started or even respond to it. If what you say is true, why do you have hundreds of post either in response to something I have said or are some strange attempt to characterize my posts like above? Post your opinion on the topic and move on, or don't even engage in it at all. Its that simple.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 11:08 AM   #45
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so we've totally backed away from the contention that i and "democrats" have been "cherry picking" quotes?

good.

this also completely glosses over what the October 2002 Congressional vote did and did not do, nor does it have anything to do with the fabricated case that the administration made to justify going to war. it's not as if Congress authorized, and Bush bombed the next day. obviously, the Bushies felt they had much, much more work to do nor did they trust the very "case" you cite as such unassailable proof that a war in this manner, on this timetable, was the only conceivable course of action. for if that were the case, then we wouldn't have had any of the drama that gripped the world in late 2002 and early 2003.

the case that you've laid out in here over and over and over again obviously wasn't good enough for the White House. why it's good enough for you is something only you can answer.
It was more than good enough for the White House, but the United States did not have the needed military forces in place in Kuwait and the region to invade Iraq until March of 2003. The central case for military action laid down in resolution 1441 is not a frabrication, its a fact! To this day its one that Colin Powell supports as well as the majority of the military.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 11:11 AM   #46
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,670
Local Time: 06:01 PM
Scott's a spokesperson who was told to concentrate his responses on certain terms and avoid other aspects when responding to questions about the war. Which directly supports my argument. And of course Clarke is just a person with an axe to grind to you, because he doesn't agree with your assessment.

As to Colin Powell, yes he supports the use of military force. That does not address, however, the administration's selling of the war to the public, or its handling of the war. His chief of staff at the time of his infamous UN speech wrote a book titled "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown", and referring to Powell's speech at the UN, says "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

David Kay, the CIA's chief weapon's inspector in Iraq after Saddam fell, says "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator." (read CNN.com - Former aide:*Powell*WMD speech*'lowest point in my life' - Aug 19, 2005 for more)

And Powell, when asked about his infamous speech to the UN, said "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." And asked if that speech would tarnish his reputation, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." (from ABC News: Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief)

So while yes, he does ultimately support the war, it's not as if he's perfectly fine with the drum-up to the war as well.
Diemen is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 11:13 AM   #47
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,715
Local Time: 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Notice that there is a topic for this thread and its not a poster in the forum. I know how interested you are in me and talking about me, but were here to discuss topics and issues not members of the forum. If you really have a problem with me, you don't have to read my post, let alone open up a thread which I started or even respond to it. If what you say is true, why do you have hundreds of post either in response to something I have said or are some strange attempt to characterize my posts like above? Post your opinion on the topic and move on, or don't even engage in it at all. Its that simple.

when one poster consistently destroys entire threads, it affects everyone.

i am one of the few who actively engage you. a forum like this isn't so simple as posting speeches on whatever topic. it requires a level of human engagement, of back-and-forth, of acknolwedging another viewpoint and of offering something different. the manner in which one debates, as well as the techniques one uses to debate, not to mention the fact that the quality of an argument is severely undermined when all opposition is summarily dismissed in the most facile manner possible ... all these are quite open for discussion and are not in any way personal attacks.

but if you must view them as such, go right ahead.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 11:20 AM   #48
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,715
Local Time: 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
It was more than good enough for the White House, but the United States did not have the needed military forces in place in Kuwait and the region to invade Iraq until March of 2003. The central case for military action laid down in resolution 1441 is not a frabrication, its a fact! To this day its one that Colin Powell supports as well as the majority of the military.


if it was good enough for the white house, why the need for all the speeches that hyped the WMD threat? why the need for Cheney to talk about Saddam restarting his nuclear program? why was 1441 obviously not good enough for the UN?

and why do you invoke Colin Powell, a man who's career is defined/tarred by Iraq, as some sort of beacon of truth? and why would the military be in support of an action that they've been called upon to perform?

you'll dismiss Clarke and McClellan -- and the entire CIA -- but present Powell and the "majority" of the military as unimpeachable sources of truth?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-29-2008, 06:29 PM   #49
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
when one poster consistently destroys entire threads, it affects everyone.

i am one of the few who actively engage you. a forum like this isn't so simple as posting speeches on whatever topic. it requires a level of human engagement, of back-and-forth, of acknolwedging another viewpoint and of offering something different. the manner in which one debates, as well as the techniques one uses to debate, not to mention the fact that the quality of an argument is severely undermined when all opposition is summarily dismissed in the most facile manner possible ... all these are quite open for discussion and are not in any way personal attacks.

but if you must view them as such, go right ahead.
Unless your a moderator why are you engaging in a discussion that has nothing to do with the thread topic? If you really believe that there is some type of a problem, you talk to a moderator or start another thread. Discussing other peoples alleged posting habbits or them, rather than discussing the issues or the thread topic, is precisely the thing that destroys threads. This thread is becoming a perfect example.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-29-2008, 06:52 PM   #50
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
if it was good enough for the white house, why the need for all the speeches that hyped the WMD threat? why the need for Cheney to talk about Saddam restarting his nuclear program? why was 1441 obviously not good enough for the UN?

and why do you invoke Colin Powell, a man who's career is defined/tarred by Iraq, as some sort of beacon of truth? and why would the military be in support of an action that they've been called upon to perform?

you'll dismiss Clarke and McClellan -- and the entire CIA -- but present Powell and the "majority" of the military as unimpeachable sources of truth?
1441 was good enough for the UN as the results have shown. No condemnation of the invasion in 2003 or even an attempt at one, followed by years of annual approvals of the occupation. There are few military operations that the UN has given more approval to than this one.

There were attempts by the administration to get additional support beyond what they already had, and it is true that much of what they did post November 2002 was try and strengthen Tony Blair politically in Britain where he indeed was having problems. But the majority of the case was made and the resolutions from Congress and the United Nations successfully obtained during the first two months from September to November 2002.

Also, gallup polling has already shown that a majority of the public already supported an invasion to remove Saddam from power prior to 9/11 destroying this myth that the President had to "hype" intelligence in order to get the public to support the war.

The administration presented the information that it thought was important and its only in retrospect given what has so far been found in Iraq, that large numbers of people claim that the administration hyped the threat. Bush's father was accused of hyping the threat as well back in 1990-1991. In fact, there is always some corner of America that accusses whatever administration takes the United States to war of hyping the threat or the need to go to war.


Clarke speaks for himself, not the entire CIA. Same with McClellan. Powell and a number of other officials both inside and outside the administration are far more credible and experienced on the issue than either Clarke or McClellan. The majority of the military from annual polling that has been done have consistently supported both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as being the strongest source of support for President Bush in general.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-29-2008, 07:08 PM   #51
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Scott's a spokesperson who was told to concentrate his responses on certain terms and avoid other aspects when responding to questions about the war. Which directly supports my argument. And of course Clarke is just a person with an axe to grind to you, because he doesn't agree with your assessment.

As to Colin Powell, yes he supports the use of military force. That does not address, however, the administration's selling of the war to the public, or its handling of the war. His chief of staff at the time of his infamous UN speech wrote a book titled "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown", and referring to Powell's speech at the UN, says "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

David Kay, the CIA's chief weapon's inspector in Iraq after Saddam fell, says "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator." (read CNN.com - Former aide:�Powell�WMD speech�'lowest point in my life' - Aug 19, 2005 for more)

And Powell, when asked about his infamous speech to the UN, said "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." And asked if that speech would tarnish his reputation, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." (from ABC News: Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief)

So while yes, he does ultimately support the war, it's not as if he's perfectly fine with the drum-up to the war as well.
Clarke and his positions did not get the level attention that he felt that it should. He is rather open about having an axe to grind.

Has the United States ever fought a war where there were no mistakes and the intelligence was always perfect? I understand that the left thinks that they can score political points by talking about this piece of intelligence or that piece of intelligence being wrong, but much of the intelligence on the same issues was discovered to be wrong in the First Gulf War, for example that Saddam was 10 years away from a nuclear weapon when in fact he was only 6 months away based on what UN inspectors found after going into Iraq in 1991.

In any event, none of the specific pieces of intelligence that are often brought up as having been incorrect would have changed the ultimate outcome of the vote in congress in October 2002 or the vote in November at the UN in 2002 which is all that was needed to go to war. Both resolutions would have been approved. Saddam's failure to comply, the breakdown of the embargo and sanctions as means of containing him, were more than enough to secure the votes needed in October 2002 and November 2002.

By the way, David Kay is another official who still ultimately supports the removal of Saddam despite the mistakes on intelligence information.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×