# Bush attacks critics claim pre-war intel was manipulated. Huge balls or delusional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676 "2005-11-12T03:58:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/261 "2005-11-15T22:13:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Is Farrakhan a Democrat? I think so. Do you know differently? If he isn’t, my mistake. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/262 "2005-11-15T22:44:00Z")
[Farrakhan on the political parties in the U.S.](http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg032999.html): > [@](#): > > Oh, to advise somebody to vote for Satan or Lucifer is to still keep you in hell. The Democrats have been disloyal to the needs of black people and the Republicans don’t give a damn. So why should we vote for either one? If you don’t give us justice, it’s time for us to separate and do something for ourselves. Does not look like a Democrat to me. Maybe people should stop taking binary positions and presuming that all other people must fall into one of two camps? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/263 "2005-11-15T23:36:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you will reread you will notice that in both instances that “the left” was referred to, it was qualified. First with “hate-filled”, and then with"extreme". So where is the exaggeration and where is the lie? Okay, seems I’m in the clear when I talk about how the racist Republicans are deliberately supporting this war because they like watching black people and brown people kill one another. Yay for qualifiers, huh? Your exaggeration, your lie, is acting as though the groups you describe are significant, either politically or in this conversation. > [@](#): > > Yes. We are in agreement that that kid walking to school has more “right to continued life” than a soldier who chose to isert himself into harm’s way. I think the U.S. military in general, and each soldier specifically, would agree as well, as they continually put themselves at great risk by tryiing to be very discrimnant in their exercises. Well, I’m afraid I have to give the soldiers [an F for FFort](http://www2.iraqbodycount.org/). When we have verifiable numbers for the deaths of more than 10 times as many civilians as we have for US soldiers, I have to say, it looks to me like the civilians remain at far greater risk than the US soldiers do, and it looks as if however discriminating these soldiers are being, they’re not being nearly discriminating enough. One first step toward solving the atrocity of civilian death would be for the military to keep statistics on the atrocity. They refuse to do so. How on earth can you solve a problem when you refuse to acknowledge its parameters? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/264 "2005-11-15T23:47:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 1. You organize your protest in a way that you exclude sentiments you find objectionable. Surely you wouldn’t let the NRA march in an anti-gun protest. If certain people or groups insist on conveying messages that you feel are counter-productive to your cause or overarching message, tell them to form their own protest. How do I _stop_ them from marching? I’m serious, here. Do I physically restrain them? Have a bunch of guys dogpile them and sit on their chest? It’s a free country, how do I stop someone from exercising their freedom of expression when and where I don’t want them to express it? > [@](#): > > 1. If and when, in spite of your efforts in #1, messages do appear that you feel are over the top or are counter-productive, make statements separating your group from them. What am I supposed to do, dress where to draw the line for every protestor? “Well, let’s see, the guy in the blue hat doesn’t look like he’d agree with sign A, B, and F. And the girl in the orange shirt doesn’t look like she’s on board with sign B, E, and G—but she is fervently behind A and D. Yeah, definitely A and D, and maybe H.” And become so bogged down in refuting every fringe opinion that I’ve never supported and never invited that I can’t articulate what position I’m actually proposing. Why is it so unreasonable to expect people to address the points I’m actually supporting, and not automatically assume that I support every point of view I’m not expressly condemning? > [@](#): > > Given your increasing level of emotion, I’m growing less inclined to attempt to convince you of anything. Considering how poor a job you are of doing it, that might be for the best. I think I was closer to agreeing with you before you tried to defend your position. > [@](#): > > Okay, I can see where this is devolving to. I guess some people cannot even have a discussion as to whether one can oppose the war without shitting on Bush without shittiing on Bush in the process. Because my opposition to the war devolves entirely from how Bush has prosecuted it. I’ve got a surprise for you: I was an early _supporter_ of invading Iraq. Hussein was a monster who was abusing his own people, and international sanctions did nothing but further entrench him in power. International law is pretty meaningless if the international community isn’t willing to enforce those laws. I spent the first year of the occupation defending that smug sonofabitch on these boards, at least in regards to Iraq. Everything that’s wrong with what’s going on in Iraq can be traced back directly to George W. Bush and his coterie of advisors. My entire opposition to the war depends on opposition to George Bush, who has proven once and for all that incompetence truly is worse than malfeasance. > [@](#): > > And if you think that there weren’t instances of troops being insufficient or under-supplied I suggest you read up on WWII. I will offer one example: D-Day. Every one of the tanks—save one—that were supposed to land on the beaches to provide fire power and cover for the men never made it. This contributed to a loss of over 4,500 men, over 2,500 of them American. In ONE DAY! According to you, Roosevelt must have not cared about the troops, right? I’m sure those with fuller knowledge of WWII could supply you with many more examples. But at least we _had_ tanks, and intended them to be on the beaches. I’m not demanding that every military operation go off exactly as planned every single time. I’m not that delusional. But there is a point where you have to recognize that the people in charge of an operation are as much of a danger to the men in the field as the enemy. If it makes you feel any better, thirty years ago I’d have been saying the same thing about Jimmy Carter. As incompetent as Bush is, at least he managed to get the soldiers into contact with the enemy before his incompetence started killing them off. > [@](#): > > When I started posting in this thread I guess I was a bit naive, as I had no idea that someone on these boards would hold those views. I do find them extreme. But if we are in a thread and someone makes a very extreme statement to the opposition (me, in this case), I think it is reasonable to expect that others that oppose (me), on sane grounds, would distance themselves from those statements. Not doing so undercuts the reasonableness of their own arguments. Therefore I feel it safe to conclude that his statements are no that outrageous to others. There’s that broad brush you keep claiming you don’t use. > [@](#): > > I’ve given everyone the benefit of the doubt. To use your Phelps analogy, if we were in a thread and discussing gays in the military and were having a reasonable debate on the matter, and then someone chimes in with Phelps rhetoric in support of my position, I think it is incumbent upon me to separate what I beleive is a reasonable point of view with his vile thoughts. If I do not do that, I run the fear that my silence be equated with some degree of agreement or acceptance of his views. And I think that would be reasonable on the part of my opposition and therefore, detrimental to my cause. No, it’s not, and it’s idiotic to expect that of you. Which is good, because I don’t think I’ve ever seen you, or any other conservative, actually do that. But you guys sure do love holding liberal’s feet to the fire every time someone marginally on our side says something stupid. > [@](#): > > I suggest you read my words more carefully. You want me to not only defend what I am say, but what you think I am saying. I’ve attempted to clarify a point when asked. It is a fact that there are people who are against the war and don’t care about the troops, don’t care _enough_ about the troops, or secretly despise the troops. I heve not painted everyione with the same broad brush. Quite the opposite. My posts have repeatedly acknowledged differing strains of anti-war sentiment. It seems you want me to be able to read minds. I see posts like der trihs’s and signs that appear in marches here in San Francisco and Washington and read about scum like DeGenova from Columbia and see no or little offense taken by those on the same side of the main debate and conclude that what I originally thought was a VERY extreme minority is possibly not so extreme. No, I don’t expect you to read minds. I expect you to stop _pretending_ like you can read minds. Unless someone explicitly states a position, don’t assume that they hold that position. It’s really not hard. I do it every day, and I’m fairly certain confronted by a hell of a lot more mainstream opinions that I find morally objectionable than you do. > [@](#): > > If racism gets put on the table and comments are made by David Duke or Trent Lott or Bill Bennett, it falls to Republicans to either defend the statement or separate themselves from it. Ditto for statements from Harry Belefonte, Julian Bond, or Louis Farrakahn. The onus would be on the Democrats. Bullshit. Both ways, that’s bullshit. > [@](#): > > If your argument against the war (or anything else) gets muddled, watered down, or asinine based on contributions from those who share your main agenda, that’s not my problem to fix. Take some damn responsibility. Or do you want to have your cake and eat it to? You enjoy the energy such extremism brings to your cause, but when debate gets real you want to THEN distance yourself: “Who me? Why in the world would you think that I agree with that idiot?” I take responsibility for the arguements that _I_ make. I’m not going to take responsibility for the arguments that anyone else makes. > [@](#): > > Sorry. Your argument, and the degree to which it is intelligent and reasonable, or extreme and easily discounted, is in your hands. Exactly right. _My_ argument is in my hands. Not yours, not **Der Trihs** , not Louis Farrakhans. Mine, and mine alone. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/265 "2005-11-16T00:12:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If your argument against the war (or anything else) gets muddled, watered down, or asinine based on contributions from those who share your main agenda, that’s not my problem to fix. Take some damn responsibility. Or do you want to have your cake and eat it to? You enjoy the energy such extremism brings to your cause, but when debate gets real you want to THEN distance yourself: “Who me? Why in the world would you think that I agree with that idiot?” > > Sorry. Your argument, and the degree to which it is intelligent and reasonable, or extreme and easily discounted, is in your hands. That was poppycock, the reality is that you use the extreme position of some to justify your disdain for the evidence presented. Even here on this board, the majority on the left already distanced from such extremists, you are entitled to your opinions but not to the facts. We can not dictate the opinions of all that join us in protest, and OTOH the side that is currently in power is not shaking their idiots. Thanks to their influence to the ones currently in power, they are the ones harming the USA right now. As mentioned before, you are only setting up a straw-man here. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/266 "2005-11-16T01:28:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That was poppycock, the reality is that you use the extreme position of some to justify your disdain for the evidence presented. > > Even here on this board, the majority on the left already distanced from such extremists, you are entitled to your opinions but not to the facts. We can not dictate the opinions of all that join us in protest, and OTOH the side that is currently in power is not shaking their idiots. Thanks to their influence to the ones currently in power, they are the ones harming the USA right now. As mentioned before, you are only setting up a straw-man here. Yeah. Besides, the evil commie America hating lefties are not the ones calling for - or hoping for a terror attack on San Francisco, or Divine Wrath upon Dover PA. If they have to be diligent in making constant declarations against their extremists, then the other side has to do the same. Y’all can start by apologizing for Annie Coulter, Phred Phelps and Pat Robertson, and work yer way down. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/267 "2005-11-16T02:41:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > How do I _stop_ them from marching? I’m serious, here. Do I physically restrain them? Have a bunch of guys dogpile them and sit on their chest? It’s a free country, how do I stop someone from exercising their freedom of expression when and where I don’t want them to express it? I don’t know the legalities of protest marches and permits, but there seems to be some mechanism available. I mean, I don’t see Pro Life messages mixed into Pro Choice marches. But if I am wrong and there is no mechanism, #2 becomes more important. My guess is that some mechanism is in place and the march organizers (permit holders) have to make a trade off: between greater numbers and cohesiveness of message. That is their decision and must accept the pros and cons of whichever way they lean. > [@Miller](#): > > And become so bogged down in refuting every fringe opinion that I’ve never supported and never invited that I can’t articulate what position I’m actually proposing. Why is it so unreasonable to expect people to address the points I’m actually supporting, and not automatically assume that I support every point of view I’m not expressly condemning? Because how do you expect someone to know what the point of your march is if it has all these different messages in it? You might have it clear in your mind, and on your sign, but how is an observer to discern what message is agreed to by the whole group, which one is agreed to by 50%, by 25%, by 1%. What if your reasonable message gets overwhelmed by some extreme venom you don’t agreee with at all? Sure, I may be able to detect a messages that is more fringe and those that are more mainstream. But how do I know if that fringe is representative of one person, one hundred, one thousand, or one hundred thousand, 32,384? And isn’t it reasonable for an observer to assume that the people who are marching are pretty much in agreement. If not, why would you go to the trouble of marching together. I appreciate your frustration here. I remember when the girl from ANSWER ran back up to the mic in Washington and yelled “Free Mumia”. I just laughed loud. I was able to separate her statement from the general complaint because it was so completely off point. But how am I, or anyone else expected to discern where the lines are drawn and with whom? > [@Miller](#): > > Considering how poor a job you are of doing it, that might be for the best. I think I was closer to agreeing with you before you tried to defend your position. We can stop any time you like. If you would like this last word simply indicate that you would prefer I not respond, and I won’t. > [@Miller](#): > > But at least we _had_ tanks, and intended them to be on the beaches. I’m not demanding that every military operation go off exactly as planned every single time. Yes, but you forget that they expected a warm welcome, not this protracted fight with an insurgency. It was a huge error, yes. But no one was desirous of sending men and women into battle with equipment they needed. They simply didn’t think it was going to be needed. > [@Miller](#): > > If it makes you feel any better, thirty years ago I’d have been saying the same thing about Jimmy Carter. As incompetent as Bush is, at least he managed to get the soldiers into contact with the enemy before his incompetence started killing them off. It makes me feel no better. I am not a fan of Bush. At all. Regarding this war or domestic issues. He should nerver have been put in office. But he is there. And he will be there for over three more years. My point all along has been: if you are opposed to the war and want to bring our soldiers home, do so in a way that respects them and their commitment to this country. And NO, not ALL anti-war messages do that. Do you think that the entire anti-war crowd should have a free pass? Because they all want our men and women home safe and sound that they have license to say ANYTHING? That is bullshit. With the right to say what you want comes the responsibility to weigh the consequences of your speech. Are you saying you disagree with THAT? > [@Miller](#): > > There’s that broad brush you keep claiming you don’t use. Bullshit again. Are you saying that I cannot/should not have my perceptions of a group steered by their very actions. Your claim is complete bullshit. And you should know it. What you’re really objecting to is my not having been steered more in the direction that you prefer. That’s not on me. I reacted to what an extremist on this board said with surprise. It further surprised me that only a couple of others objected to his rantings. Now, I know how certain people who spoke up feel because they spoke up. Of those who have silent on the issue, tell me, what am I supposed to think, and why? How shall I divine whther they agree and to what degree. While I should be expected to give an _individual_ the benefit of the doubt, as you say, why should I logically assume that der trihs is the only one with what I consider vile thoughts. And, I would add, someone who does agree with der trihs would think that giving him the benefit of the doubt would mean to ascribe those “enlightened” thoughts to him, not to distance him from them. > [@Miller](#): > > No, I don’t expect you to read minds. I expect you to stop _pretending_ like you can read minds. Unless someone explicitly states a position, don’t assume that they hold that position. But that’s exactly what you’re expecting me to do. Guy is walking in the 2003 anti-war march on Washington. He is surrounded by the gamut of messages. He is carrying no sign himself. He is wearing a blue coat. Tell me, what messages should I assume he agrees with and which ones, if any, does he find objectionable? Please, tell me. I’m of the mind that I can tell nothing of his specific thoughts. I can only say that he is a memebr of a groups that believes A,B,C, and D, to varying degrees. That’s it! > [@Miller](#): > > I take responsibility for the arguements that _I_ make. I’m not going to take responsibility for the arguments that anyone else makes. And I think that is a fine strategy for you as an individual. But when you are part of a group, you’re only being fair to yourself if you make it clear what portion of the groups message you agree with and which part you don’t. > [@Miller](#): > > Exactly right. _My_ argument is in my hands. Not yours, not **Der Trihs** , not Louis Farrakhans. Mine, and mine alone. And when you choose to convey that argument it behooves you to make sure that it is not only sent clearly, but received clearly. If there is “noise” consisting of overlapping or competing messages why would you NOT want to take steps to ensure that what you intended to be communicated is what actually is communicated? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/268 "2005-11-16T03:13:19Z")
I’ve been trying and trying to figure out what “support the troops” consists of. As best I can firgure it, it means supporting GW and his war. I refuse to do that. I never thought that there was ever any justification for this war. The UN had acted, Saddam had accepted inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq. The only thing I feel for the troops in Iraq is pity. The poor bastards are there and they are going to stay there indefinitely. And those who have recently rotated back to the ZI will soon be re-rotating back to Iraq. Y’know, it you sat right down and wrote a hundred supportive letters to a bunch of strangers in the forces in Iraq you would get a lot of reactions. Some would be, Gee thanks a lot for taking the time. Others would be, You stinking bastard. The only reason you wrote is to ease your guilty conscience for having put me in this fucking hell hole. Stick you “best wishes” up your ass. But probably the most common reaction would be puzzlement and then the letter would be crumpled up and thrown in the latrine Come on, those who trumpet “support the troops.” What the hell are you talking about? . ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/269 "2005-11-16T04:16:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because how do you expect someone to know what the point of your march is if it has all these different messages in it? You might have it clear in your mind, and on your sign, but how is an observer to discern what message is agreed to by the whole group, which one is agreed to by 50%, by 25%, by 1%. What if your reasonable message gets overwhelmed by some extreme venom you don’t agreee with at all? Sure, I may be able to detect a messages that is more fringe and those that are more mainstream. But how do I know if that fringe is representative of one person, one hundred, one thousand, or one hundred thousand, 32,384? > > And isn’t it reasonable for an observer to assume that the people who are marching are pretty much in agreement. If not, why would you go to the trouble of marching together. I appreciate your frustration here. I remember when the girl from ANSWER ran back up to the mic in Washington and yelled “Free Mumia”. I just laughed loud. I was able to separate her statement from the general complaint because it was so completely off point. But how am I, or anyone else expected to discern where the lines are drawn and with whom? How about you just _ask_? You’re expecting to discern opinions on complex social issues based on pep rallies. Protest marches are about raising awareness, not necessarily communicating a clear agenda. It’s the wrong medium for that sort of fine control of message. It’s an attention grabber and an emotion booster. If you want a nuanced understanding of someone’s position, try reading the books being written by prominent leaders in that position. Check out what they’re saying on the political talk shows. Come here and post a thread. You want to understand something, ask someone who supports it. Rallies aren’t a good way to start a dialogue. > [@](#): > > We can stop any time you like. If you would like this last word simply indicate that you would prefer I not respond, and I won’t. Well, I won’t say don’t reply, but I’m hoping this post will mostly wrap things up. > [@](#): > > Yes, but you forget that they expected a warm welcome, not this protracted fight with an insurgency. It was a huge error, yes. But no one was desirous of sending men and women into battle with equipment they needed. They simply didn’t think it was going to be needed. It was fucking moronic, and they had been warned repeatedly by their own military leaders that it was going to be a lot harder than they thought. And that was only the beginning of what they’ve done wrong. You’re probably just going to roll your eyes at this, but you should really check out Al Franken’s latest book. He’s definetly partisan, but unlike most other partisans (all of 'em, I’m not just slamming your side) he’s pretty scroupulously honest. And it’s absolutely appalling, what Bush’s crew have done in Iraq. > [@](#): > > It makes me feel no better. I am not a fan of Bush. At all. Regarding this war or domestic issues. He should nerver have been put in office. But he is there. And he will be there for over three more years. My point all along has been: if you are opposed to the war and want to bring our soldiers home, do so in a way that respects them and their commitment to this country. And NO, not ALL anti-war messages do that. Do you think that the entire anti-war crowd should have a free pass? Because they all want our men and women home safe and sound that they have license to say ANYTHING? That is bullshit. With the right to say what you want comes the responsibility to weigh the consequences of your speech. Are you saying you disagree with THAT? Of course I agree. And of course I’ve weighed the consequences of my actions. Guess what? I came to different conclusions than you have! I truly cannot comprehend how criticizing George Bush is in anyway disrespectful to the troops. That’s totally non-sensical to me. You might as well tell me that eating carrots is disrespecful to them. And while I do understand what you mean when you talk about criticism of the war giving encouragement to the troops, but I truly believe the effect is minimal, at best, and far outweighed by the longer range good of shortening our involvement there, or at least affecting a change in how the war is prosecuted, to the advantage of our troops there. Certainly, some individuals, like yourself, will be turned off by that message. Others will be drawn to it. Current polls seem to indicate that more and more people are coming over to our side. I’m confident that our strategy is working. Oh, and I’m sorry, but if you got your legs blown off in Iraq, you did lose it for nothing. It’s horrible, it should never have happened, it’s quite literally a national tragedy. But it’s the truth, at least as near as I can tell, and I think that if I really respect the troops, I owe them the that, at the very, very least. > [@](#): > > Bullshit again. Are you saying that I cannot/should not have my perceptions of a group steered by their very actions. You can alter your opinions however you want. I’m _telling_ you flat out that your perceptions will not be accurate if you do so. The people who disrespect the troops are in the definite minority, and are mostly ignored by the mainstream left. They’re not ignored out of tacit support, but out of a differing philosophy in how to manage fringe opinions. > [@](#): > > Your claim is complete bullshit. And you should know it. What you’re really objecting to is my not having been steered more in the direction that you prefer. That’s not on me. I reacted to what an extremist on this board said with surprise. It further surprised me that only a couple of others objected to his rantings. Now, I know how certain people who spoke up feel because they spoke up. Of those who have silent on the issue, tell me, what am I supposed to think, and why? How shall I divine whther they agree and to what degree. While I should be expected to give an _individual_ the benefit of the doubt, as you say, why should I logically assume that der trihs is the only one with what I consider vile thoughts. And, I would add, someone who does agree with der trihs would think that giving him the benefit of the doubt would mean to ascribe those “enlightened” thoughts to him, not to distance him from them. I’m not saying he’s unique, but jeez, if you were so surprised to run into someone with these opinions after this long, doesn’t that argue that his opinion is extremely rare? If it were at all common, wouldn’t you hear it all the time? > [@](#): > > But that’s exactly what you’re expecting me to do. Guy is walking in the 2003 anti-war march on Washington. He is surrounded by the gamut of messages. He is carrying no sign himself. He is wearing a blue coat. Tell me, what messages should I assume he agrees with and which ones, if any, does he find objectionable? Please, tell me. If the over-all march is anti-war, you can safely assume he’s anti-war. Or he’s looking to score with some hippie chicks. Anything else is an unfair assumption. > [@](#): > > And I think that is a fine strategy for you as an individual. But when you are part of a group, you’re only being fair to yourself if you make it clear what portion of the groups message you agree with and which part you don’t. Have I not done that in this thread? What part of my message is unclear, here? I’m only asking that you not take the opionion of one member of the group as representative of the whole group. If everyone were in here talking about how much the troops suck, sure, you’d be able to say, “that group doesn’t support the troops.” But what you’ve got here is 99% of the posters saying, “I support the troops, but not the war,” and 1% of the posters saying, “I don’t support the troops,” and you think the fact that the other 99% don’t immediately dogpile that one guy means they don’t really support the troops? > [@](#): > > And when you choose to convey that argument it behooves you to make sure that it is not only sent clearly, but received clearly. If there is “noise” consisting of overlapping or competing messages why would you NOT want to take steps to ensure that what you intended to be communicated is what actually is communicated? Because it attracts more attention to those messages, and subtracts time spent on the message I want to communicate. It also leads to factionalizing and splintering of our base. We don’t have to like these assholes, but we still need their votes. Just like Republicans and the religious right. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/270 "2005-11-16T04:37:12Z")
I wonder, sometimes, about whether this “before and during the war is not the time to question the war” attitude carries on into other parts of people’s lives. If somebody was accidentally poisoning my dinner, for example, I’d try to tell the cook while it was happening, and then I’d tell the members of my dinner party before they started eating. And if somebody took a bite, I’d yell “STOP EATING THAT!” and call the hospital. **magellan** ’s position seems to be that I should wait until we’re eating dessert so I don’t impede the waiters from serving the food. > [@magellan01](#): > > And isn’t it reasonable for an observer to assume that the people who are marching are pretty much in agreement. I take it you’ve never been to a protest. In 2002, I went to one of the marches against the war. It was sponsored by International ANSWER, who I knew nothing about at the time and don’t support in any fashion. People at the microphone opined on who knows how many topics that had nothing to do with Iraq, and even when they talked about Iraq and America I didn’t always agree with them. And I’m sure people carried signs advocating those positions and tons of others. Since I was in the march, I wouldn’t have even seen most of them. You’d be right to figure the people there generally agreed the upcoming war was a bad idea, but nothing beyond that. By the way, now that Bush is lying about how we got into the war, is it officially okay to say Bush lied? I’m just curious. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/271 "2005-11-16T04:51:40Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m not saying he’s unique, but jeez, if you were so surprised to run into someone with these opinions after this long, doesn’t that argue that his opinion is extremely rare? If it were at all common, wouldn’t you hear it all the time? > [@Miller](#): > > " But what you’ve got here is 99% of the posters saying, “I support the troops, but not the war,” and 1% of the posters saying, “I don’t support the troops,” and you think the fact that the other 99% don’t immediately dogpile that one guy means they don’t really support the troops? Didn’t you get the memo ? I’m the Secret Master of the Left. When the time is right, the rest will throw off their false masks of moderation, seize power and _rule the world_ !! 😃 Seriously, I’ve wondered why **magellan01** and others think I’m one of a horde. I’ve alway thought of myself as the odd one out; it feels _strange_ for someone to assume otherwise. Where _are_ all those people who agree with me ? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/272 "2005-11-16T05:18:02Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Where are all those people who agree with me ? **mswas** is taking a break from the computer at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/273 "2005-11-16T08:06:22Z")
> [@](#): > > **magellan01** : Do you think that the entire anti-war crowd should have a free pass? Haven’t you heard? Freedom is on the march… ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/274 "2005-11-16T16:11:41Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Haven’t you heard? Freedom is on the march… That only applies to those who agree with the president. Everyone else has to stand in the “Free speech zone” and get used to being called “UnAmerican”. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/275 "2005-11-16T16:16:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And, as has been noted on several occasions, already, no defender of the adminstration’s claim that they _thought_ there were WoMD in Iraq has provided any explanation why the military groups whose task it was to secure WoMD sites was ordered to remain miles behind the lines and forbidden to enter “suspected” sites for days after they had originally been taken in combat. > > To fail to secure WoMD sites, leaving them open to be plundered by any insurgents or al Qaida operatives in the area indicates pretty clearly that the administration either knew the sites were empty or that the administration was criminally negligent. May I please have a citation or several re this that I may use in the future? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/276 "2005-11-16T16:17:12Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > That only applies to those who agree with the president. Everyone else has to stand in the “Free speech zone” and get used to being called “UnAmerican”. You do get used to it after a while. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/277 "2005-11-16T16:27:27Z")
Well, well. It looks like the Senators, for political gain, are verging on giving aid and comfort to the insurgents. See this [_Los Angeles Times_ article.](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usiraq16nov16,1,4026768.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true) > [@](#): > > The resolution passed with broad bipartisan support, 79 to 19. Its approval comes as concern over the war’s course is rising even among Republican lawmakers, and as President Bush’s approval ratings have sunk to the lowest of his presidency. > > Although the Republican-sponsored measure stopped short of urging a firm date to begin bringing troops home — and still requires acceptance by the House — its approval signaled a more active role by Congress in pushing for an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. > > The resolution calls for 2006 to be “a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty,” which would create conditions for “the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.” > > It also would require the administration to begin reporting to Congress every three months on progress toward meeting that goal. Report progress to Congress? Can you imagine the effrontery of such a thing? How dare they but into the Commander in Chief’s prerogative to mismanage the war as he sees fit? Just for you who are wondering, the above was sarcasm. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/278 "2005-11-16T17:10:45Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I’ve been trying and trying to figure out what “support the troops” consists of. As best I can firgure it, it means supporting GW and his war. I refuse to do that. I never thought that there was ever any justification for this war. The UN had acted, Saddam had accepted inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq. > > The only thing I feel for the troops in Iraq is pity. The poor bastards are there and they are going to stay there indefinitely. And those who have recently rotated back to the ZI will soon be re-rotating back to Iraq. > > Y’know, it you sat right down and wrote a hundred supportive letters to a bunch of strangers in the forces in Iraq you would get a lot of reactions. Some would be, Gee thanks a lot for taking the time. Others would be, You stinking bastard. The only reason you wrote is to ease your guilty conscience for having put me in this fucking hell hole. Stick you “best wishes” up your ass. But probably the most common reaction would be puzzlement and then the letter would be crumpled up and thrown in the latrine > > Come on, those who trumpet “support the troops.” What the hell are you talking about? > > . It’s a way to tie God and patriotism and all that is good in with whatever Bush decides to do. It’s a way to make the country even more divided. He started the wars that sent the troops there. So, if you diss Bush you are dissing the troops. If you feel the slightest kind intentions for the troops, then you must feel that Bush is The Second Coming Of Gawd. It’s all part of the secret “Are ye wid me or agin me” policy memo. At its simplest, if you don’t blindly support everything Bush says and does, you are a troop hater, America hater, freedom hater, and probably not a very nice person. Black and white. Us and them. Good and evil. All or nothing. This from the once self proclained Great Uniter. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/279 "2005-11-16T17:15:33Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Well, well. It looks like the Senators, for political gain, are verging on giving aid and comfort to the insurgents. See this [_Los Angeles Times_ article.](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usiraq16nov16,1,4026768.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true) > > Report progress to Congress? Can you imagine the effrontery of such a thing? How dare they but into the Commander in Chief’s prerogative to mismanage the war as he sees fit? > > Just for you who are wondering, the above was sarcasm. They dare to do such a thing? Freedom haters! Commie bastids! Traitors! Mutiny Mister Christian! Where are my strawberries! Precious bodily fluids! Traitors! 😃😃😃😃😃 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/280 "2005-11-16T17:19:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > By the way, now that Bush is lying about how we got into the war, is it officially okay to say Bush lied? I’m just curious. No, saying he lied, and even proving he lied is now disallowed as “unauthorized lying and re-writing of history”. Only The Prez is authorized to lie out his ass and re-write the fuck out of history. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=15)