I have to say that I’m baffled by your continuing anger with Sam. He’s fulfilling the criteria in your cites of reasonable debate. He’s not attacking you or calling you names. He’s making arguments. He’s citing his arguments. That you feel they are shitty arguments is not something I really see as my problem (that comes out aggressive, it’s not meant that way.) I think I addressed the one about the “haven’t seen combat yet” quote and shared my opinion and why I think Sam’s interpretation is not the best one. So I did do my part, there. My personal feeling is that you should step back and not take these arguments personally. By all means, refute them if you can. I respect Sam as I respect you. He often makes good arguments, as do you. Sometimes he makes crappy arguments, as do you.
Since I think you are wrong on this particular issue, I really can’t back you up in your condemnation of Sam. If anything, I feel that your hostility towards him reflects more on you than anything Sam has done.
Your point is well taken though that things occur on both sides. I understand that.
I’m only impugning them for what they did after the war. I’ve never once tried to slander their actual service records. That’s the difference.
Have you seen Corsi’s postings on Free Republic, btw? He wrote things which were overtly anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Semitic. After these posts were exposed he didn’t even try to defend them, he just apologized and said that he had been “joking.” Veterans can be bigots you know, I’ve met more than one. ust because someone fought in a war doesn’t make him a saint beyond reproach for all time. I won’t make make any judgements about Corsi’s actual service but I can say that he posted some pretty vile things on the Freeper board because he did.
By that same token, I do not resent anyone who wants to be critical of Kerry’s anti-war actions after he came home. I would respectfully disagree but I think such criticism is ethically inbounds. What I do object to is trying to deny the validity of his actual service.
I don’t want to rehash the Swiftboat thing, but I have to admit to being baffled by your problem with the above quote. As I recall, someone asked whether or not a Swiftboat would deflect a bullet. I did a ton of research into the type of metal used on those boats, its thickness, and its bullet stopping capability. I linked to sources. I found other sources that said that swiftboat sailors were in the habit of hanging flak jackets around the where they were stationed to help stop bullets, because they go straight through the hull.
Having shown that if a bullet hits one of those boats it’s going to leave a hole, I then pointed to the after-action report (which I later showed was likely written by Kerry) which claimed that there was ‘intense fire’ from both banks, which continued for three kilometers. I also pointed out that the boats were stationary on the water for an hour and a half, and that the river was only 75 yards wide, meaning that even if the boats were dead center of the river, it was only a 35 yard shot to hit one of those things, which are the size of a semi trailer.
Since only one boat had any holes in it, and it was entirely possible that those holes were from an earlier action, it seemed to me that the physical evidence did not support Kerry’s and Rassman’s assertion that they were taking heavy fire from the banks, but supported the Swifties’ assertion that the gunfire everyone heard was the automatic suppression fire that all boats unleashed at the banks in case it was an ambush. When they realized there was no return fire, they stopped firing and commenced rescue operations.
Hell, I’ve even said that I didn’t hold those disputed accounts against him, because in a situation like that where all hell breaks loose, it’s entirely possible that he thought they were taking fire, which makes his actions heroic even if they weren’t. Fog of war, and all that.
Have you seen Corsi’s postings on Free Republic, btw? He wrote things which were overtly anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Semitic. After these posts were exposed he didn’t even try to defend them, he just apologized and said that he had been “joking.” Veterans can be bigots you know, I’ve met more than one. ust because someone fought in a war doesn’t make him a saint beyond reproach for all time.
[/quote]
No. I really haven’t seen them. I’d look at them first hand, if they were shown in context, but it really doesn’t matter. If I accept your stance the Corsi is a bigot on message boards, that really is a seperate manner then the accuracy of his research professionally.
Ok. It’s an ad hominem argument though. Corsi’s personal failings, if any, do not directly bear on his research… unless you have reasoning otherwise.
You know what they say? Say what you want about Hitler, but the Fuhrer was a magnificent dancer.
For me this is a tough one. On the one hand, he went, he saw combat, he returned with medals and honor. Why attack it?
On the other hand, the people writing about him were also there. Most of them served there a lot longer. Kerry made his quality of service in Vietnam a cornerstone of his campaign. He trotted out his band of brothers. Edwards said “To know Kerry, you have to talk to the men who served with him.”
Let us suppose for a minute that you are one of the people who served with Kerry. Let us suppose your remembrance and those of your compatriots who served with you have a much different memory of him and his service. Let us suppose Kerry is lying about what he did there. Don’t you have the right to speak up under such a circumstance?
With those suppositions is how I read the book. I have read Kerry’s book, too. I read them carefully, and I really wanted to know the truth.
What I’ve come up with is as follows:
Kerry was opportunistic in his service and sought medals. His service in combat was short. He also served with honor and engaged in acts that heroic. I really don’t see anything wrong with wanting medals or being opportunistic.
Kerry’s actions upon his return, specifically Wintersoldier and VVAW caused a great deal of hatred (justified in my opinion,) toward Kerry. This in turn caused a great deal of emphasis by the Swiftvets on the shortcomings of his Vietnam service.
Personally, if I was crafting the book, I would have spent about 20 pages on Vietnam, not half the book. All that’s needed is “this is where we disagree with Kerry in his account.”
Their emphasis caused the debate to focus on who was on what boat, and a variety of minutiae, which really doesn’t matter. If you read the book, and you accept that everything they say against Kerry in Vietnam is literally true, then Kerry still served honorable.
The emphasis should have been on Wintersoldier. That’s where the real debate is.
So, I agree with you insofar as the focussed impugning of Kerry’s service was gratuitous.
You know, actually, my sister was bitten by a moose once.
No, really!
Mind you, moose-bites can be very painful…
(I know, I know. Cornball. Still, I just couldn’t resist.) Shodan:
You assume wrong.
Sam argues that while conservatives understand liberals, liberals don’t understand conservatives, and are therefore reduced to simply railing at them. I intend to demonstrate that I do understand conservatives by adopting a “conservative” position against you, that is to say, by arguing strenuously in support of the invasion.
Your job is to prove Sam right, demonstrating that you fully understand the arguments against the war, by adopting an anti-war position. So: explain to me why you’re against the invasion, Shodan, since as far as I can tell, we obviously had little other option after 12 years of ineffectual diplomacy and counterproductive sanctions.
You did fairly well on my true/false questionnaire. Regarding the first question, no prevarication, please: just true or false.
Regarding the question on Condoleeza Rice: she conceded afterwards that she was aware that there was some sort of dispute about the tubes “down in the bowels” of the intelligence agencies.
Regarding breaches of 1441: what about those al-Samoud missiles?
Sort of. But those are lame arguments, so I hope you’ve understood your opponents better than that. Scylla:
At the end of the day it’s really between Sam and me, so I guess I should quit harping on it. Dio:
As in, “I’m not Fonda Hanoi John”, right?
You’ve got Sam to soften up the target, so that you can come in and clean up. Don’t think that your strategy isn’t obvious; you’re not that smart.
Now that you mention it, the whole “Wintersoldier” fiasco is a crock, front to back.
The biggest lie, repeated over and over, is that the testimony at the Wintersoldier hearings was Kerry’s. Of course, it was not. He was invited to the Senate hearings to relay what he had heard. Note: he did not barge his way and demand to be heard, he was invited. He related what the had heard. I have little doubt that he believed what he had heard, so did I. In my limited experience, men seldom confess to horrendous acts in order to impress Jodie Foster. But the artfully edited soundbite repeated over and over skillfully elides the crucial fact: Kerry was relating testimony as he heard it.
Then there is the charge that the Wintersoldier investigation was a trumped up show, that the witnesses were imposters, or some were imposters, well, several were imposters…“I have here a list of 250 known Communists”… That was a bad move, Joe. Should have done what the Freepers did, which was to avoid quantification altogether. If you can show that even one of the participants in the VVAW was a fraud, then you are free to use such suggestions as “riddled with”, “lots of”, non-quantified accusations free of pesky facts that might prove uncomfortable.
If even half of the Wintersoldier testimony were offered by impostors, that would be a scathing indictment…of them. Because if the other half are telling the truth, the terrible facts are established, regardless of the motives of the false half.
Then there is my personal favorite for droll congnitive dissonance: the accusation that Kerry is an “admitted war criminal”. Well, yes, in the sense that anyone who particpated in the Viet Nam fiasco was likely to have had some contact with the “Free fire zone” monstrosity. Which is what he said, as a participant, he had some measure of reponsibility, he is, rather remotely, culpable. The oddest thing is that the very people who are intently trying to prove that no such crimes were committed seek to denigrate Kerry for his participation in the very crimes they claim didn’t happen! Cognitive dissonance, as I keep saying, grave threat to the Republic.
Friend Scylla has tried in pin the label of “traitor” on Sen Kerry on specious and self-serving evidence. I invite him for instance, to review the evidence regarding the number of “imposters” who testified at the wintersoldier hearings. Because besides the insistent testimony of Sen Kerry’s political enemies, there is not much of a case. Certainly not sufficient to warrant such a dreadful accusation as “treason”. Unless, of course, one needs an excuse to vote for a man who looked one right in the eye and lied through his teeth.
To sum up: the insinuations and innuendo’s regarding Kerry’s combat servce, as flimsy as they are, hold up better under scrutiny that do the scabrous and vile assassinations of character committed by Sen Kerry’s political enemies, as to his anti-war activity. At least there were some facts, however distorted, regarding his service!
which shows what appears to be a work/argument in progress, and I mean to say, these guys are into it! Lots of interesting lead stuff, but mostly…check out how those guys at Wikepedia do it!
In the interest of brevity and because of what I’ve already said about the inherent futility of engaging in ‘debate’ with True Believers, I’ll just say that yes, rather obviously, I agree with you. There’s no better or greater hammer available to Democrats than the truth – and if it’s “horrible and ugly” so be it. Along with citizenship, comes responsibilities, and any attempt to shield the electorate from the hard core reality of your actions, while mayhaps politically expedient – and I think not, for it comes off as rather patronizing – it is ultimately self-defeating because of the inherent lack of conviction/passion that goes along with said stand. Again, in hindsight, in perhaps the most important issue in this election, Kerry tried selling himself as simply a more competent leader than Dubya while holding similar overall views. Yes, there were matters of nuance between the two stands, and for those really paying attention, real differences in the approach itself – but Kerry lacked clarity and forcefulness in making those distinctions.
Two examples come quickly to mind.
1-The unfortunate “global test” phrasing, really did come of off as bureaucratic jargonese – while some of us were able to discern what he meant (basically because we were already predisposed to read ‘multilateralism and credibility’ into it), overall, it was the kind of softball over the middle that Rove & Co were surely hoping and praying for. One of those “having you cake and eating it too” Kerry moments that only played right into their hands. I mean, who the hell wants Bush-light when you can have the real thing?
How about just coming out and saying what most of us already knew? Namely that this war was started on false premises and outright lies. Yeah, it might be “horrible and ugly,” but godamnit, truth often is. And Kerry should know that more than most, for what good did it do to lie about 'Nam for all those years? Disappointing to say the least.
2-Going from memory, I can’t cite exactly which debate it was in – fairly sure it wasn’t the Town Hall format – but I recall the moderator in that particular one (the older, white-haired guy) setting Kerry up beautifully with a lead-in question mentioning, as per Kerry’s claims, “Bush’s lies leading up to the invasion.” And hotdamn! Is there ever a case to be made on that particular score! Imagine for a minute if you will, giving Mr Svin the stage at that particular moment. Hell, I’d chuck faux modesty aside for a sec, and I would have volunteered myself. The wealth of material on that particular score is almost endless and the best the Bushies could hope for on that matter, is coming off as (charitably) incompetent.
And yet what did Kerry do? Spend a good portion of his allotted time disclaiming the “liars” charge. Please, is this the same guy that said over and over and that “the gloves were off”? Pitty-pat is more like it.
Anyway, so much for the ‘brevity’ I alluded to at the start of this post. Simply too passionate about this whole matter. But allow me to close on one last thought. You know the kind of campaign I wish the Dems would have run? The one that Gore ran on the sidelines, finally free from political restraints, I absolutely loved each and every one of his MoveOn sponsored speeches. Sure, I think we’ve all heard just how ‘radical’ Al’s become…but you know what? All he ever said was the “horrible and ugly” truth.
Question is, can Americans handle the Truth? I think they can. Most of the rest of the world already has and I certainly don’t think that reverse moral/intellectual superiority has any validity either.
People. That’s all we all are. I just wish we’d stop trying to snuff each other out on the basis of all this powerhungry, “we are better than you,” bullshit.
Treis was the only one who implied that I thought you were talking about Scylla. I understood that you were talking about Corsi. My point was that Scylla had pretty well explained why it pays to read things even by Nazis. Well if Corsi is a Nazi, all the more reason to read what he has to say.
Pee pee in your coke: old chinese joke. Perfect hair forever.
Eat a turd or ten, you fuckin’ narcissitic blowhard. There’s not a single argument/justification for this clusterfuck that I’ve not only carefully considered but trashed to Kingdom Come.
All you’ve got left is unwarranted arrogance, blind nationalistic pride and a ton of lies embedded in fairly sophisticated sophistry to back those sentiments.
Bottom line – you’re letting your unquestionable military might and ‘superior’ values do the thinking for you. Justifications only figure in after the fact.
Nothing new under the sun. 'cept for the fact that this time around it might actually spell the end of civilization as we know it. Now there’s something to be proud of. Keep waving your pom-poms. Sure is a worthy cause. Kill, kill and kill some more. Because you can.
Congratulations are certainly in order.
BTW, in order to safeguard your oft’ repeated, self-vaunted integrity, I expect for you not to let up for a minute on the treason charges against Kerry. Because, surely, you don’t want to come off as a hypocrite by using that particular aspersion only in electoral races. For isn’t having a ‘traitor’ in the Senate still a serious matter?
[QUOTE=RedFury]
…Nothing new under the sun. 'cept for the fact that this time around it might actually spell the end of civilization as we know it. QUOTE]
Ahem. Get hysteric often, or just on Sunday nights?
Actually, I remain at about the same level of "hysterics’ as when warmongers labeled my predictions of “tens of thousands of innocents deaths” as a result of this misguided Crusade as same.
Trust me, there’s no satisfaction in saying “I told you so.” Nor will there be in the future where once again I am proven correct. And if the US neocon’s insistance on a hegemonic foreign policy doesn’t make an about face, count on it, there’ll be tons of more dead people. No one but a flag-waving, divinity-driven, pom-pom cheering, nationalistic militant ideologues, fail to see as much. Mind you, not much different from the Osama nutters if you were actually able to sort things out.
Meantime, keep lockstepping. Not sure I can blame you for being MIA when they where handing out brains.
Maybe it’s one of those ‘God’s little jokes’. 'cause if there is One, no doubt you’re one of them. Just one more sample of what a sick sense of humor that Big Guy In The Sky has.
As far as Bush’s motives in waging the war against Saddam, I don’t know of many reasons put forth by his opponents. AFAICT -
[ul][li]It was clear that Iraq had no WMDs[] It is equally clear Iraq had no intentions of obtaining them []The inspection regime (and the oil-for-food program) was working well (after resolution 1441).[]Bush, however, was hell-bent on invading Iraq because:[list][]He wanted to steal their oil []He wanted revenge on them for attempting to assassinate his father []He (or possibly Cheney) wanted to obtain lucrative government contracts for HalliburtonBush knew perfectly well that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and he just wanted to kill people so as to get re-elected.[/ul][/list][/li]
Prevarication?
Here is my response to your first question:
If you find this confusing, then perhaps this response will be less so.
IIRC, there was disagreement about the tubes. One set of experts (in the CIA?) felt they were capable of being used in a nuclear weapons program, and another set did not agree that this was the only possible use to which they could be put. If you are asking if Rice read every single report and gave equal weight to them all, I doubt it. I suspect she did what most executives do above a certain level - read the summary and find out what the consensus is, and then decide based on her view of the evidence.
I may be remembering this wrongly, but I think this is characteristic of a lot of the debate prior to the invasion. In more than one instance, Iraqi violations of the Gulf War cease-fire involved dual-use technologies. There is no absolutely clear smoking gun in many or most cases. There were chemical labs found, but it cannot be absolutely proven that the labs could not have been used for any other purpose than production of WMDs. There were parts discovered for centrifuges, but not proof that they had been used to refine uranium. There was at least one mobile lab discovered, but it could not be demonstrated that it could not possibly be anything except a WMD production facility. There were reports of trucks moving materials into Syria, but no way to show unequivocably that they were hiding WMDs. And so forth.
I think her chain of reasoning - and Bush’s, and mine - ran something like this -
Did Iraq have WMDs in the past? Unquestionably.
Would Iraq use WMDs if they had them? Unquestionably.
Did Iraq have a history of hiding their WMDs and programs? Unquestionably.
Did Iraq have links with other international terrorists? Unquestionably.
Had Iraq demonstrated that they had disarmed, as they had agreed to do in the cease-fire? This is more of a judgement call, but it does not seem unreasonable to me to say, No. Most of this is, in my view, Saddam’s fault for not coming clean for the twelve years prior to resolution 1441. It became virtually impossible to believe him.
And, if I am allowed to cherry-pick quotes from experts after resolution 1441, then Iraq was not believed to be coming clean about their WMDs and WMD programs then either. And Bush, post-9/11, had stated clearly that this was their last chance. 100% cooperation, or “serious consequences”. Serious consequences as defined by the US, not the UN, whose assessment of what needed to be done had more to do with being bribed by Iraq, wishing to continue stealing from the oil-for-food program, and appeasement of the radical fundamentalist Muslim populations of the world than was good for their credibilty.
Again, I am assuming that you are presenting an argument you see coming from the other side, and that I need to argue against it and thus disprove the invasion. Yes?
OK, those missiles were discovered (IIRC) as part of the inspections after resolution 1441, and thus are proof that the inspection regime was working at last. So they cannot be used to justify the invasion.
Well, sort of. I do not find the arguments against the invasion compelling, obviously. And I am trying to come up with arguments that I can take seriously, which sort of limits the scope. If I wanted to reproduce 90% of the arguments against the Iraq war on the SDMB, I can do so rather simply:
Then why didn’t he? If, as you seem determined to believe, Saddam was a raving madman who had no thought to deterrence, did not care if we reduced Baghdad to smoking rubble in the middle of the Godforsaken Desert…
Why didn’t he? What was he waiting for, after ten years of getting bitch-slapped by the US and the UN, what was holding him back? His religious convictions? The need to assemble a coalition? Approval from the UN?
Your argument destroys itself almost as easily as you destroy the strawmen arguments you prop up as representing the “liberal” view.
This is a chestnut. A perfect rose of rhetorical flim-flam. Permit me to disembowel.
Inarguable, but sanitized for your protection. Not “many”, not “most” but none, zero, zip, nada. But who needs proof in support of a premptive, aggressive war when conjcture, supposition, and wildly improbable inference will do nicely. Well, it did for you, some of the rest of us were skeptical. And, you will note, proved right.
Ah, yes, the Trailers of Doom. One must note your generosity, in your willingness to admit that they could not be proven to WMD manufacturing centers beyond doubt. This is quite so. They could not, because they were not anywhere within the galaxy of such things. What they were, and all experts agree at this point, was precisely what Saddam said they were: crude but mobile facilitys to create hydrogen for balloons. I am pleased to note that you did not try to pretend they might have been intended to create the raw materials for hydrogen bombs. A commendable step in your long road to credibility.
There were parts for a centrifuge, count 'em. one! One! You got any idea how long it would take to refine useful material for a nuclear weapon with one piddly-ass centrifuge? And the sucker had been buried under a rose bush for a decade! Are you truly this desperate to pretend that the “Saddam got nukes!” case had even a shred of credibility?
Reports? There were “reports”? Come to think of it, yes, there were, the estimable Fox News, for instance, and the redoubtable Dr. Limbaugh, IIRC. What could possibly account for truck traffic between two neighbors and trading partners? Why, WMD, of course! What else could it have been? Certainly not chickens, or goats, or TVs, or mattresses, or any of a number of items commonly moved by trucks. Have you even the slightest, even the merest, the tiniest scrap of information to support this conjecture? Even a molecule of actual fact would stand out in bold, stark contrast to the tissue of innuendo you have knitted for us here.
An exaggeration, but as close to the truth as you’ve come in many thousands of words. We heartily applaud your lurching, albeit tardy, steps toward truth.