IIRC, Greenspan’s biography also includes being an acolyte of Ayn Rand, High Priestess of the Undead. Existentialists are merely morose and self-absorbed, Objectivists are borderline psychotics.
Well, now I don’t feel so bad about being confused. You were responding to something I’d said 50 posts earlier, despite the fact that you’d already responded to it, and despite the fact that I’d posted a half dozen times since then. Do us feeble-minded folks a favor and include a quote when you do that.
I was referring to an analogy someone else drew (obviously). I didn’t make the analogy, but I certainly agree with it. It’s a perfectly legitimate response to Diogenes, who said:
In fact, the fact that Bush addressed and adopted Clinton’s plan does not mean “that Bush intended from day one to stage an illegal, non-defensive invasion of another country to gain control of its oil,” etc. If reviewing Clinton’s contingency plans means that, then Clinton – who formulated and surely reviewed the plan – is guilty of the same. And I think we can all agree that Clinton did not intend to stage an illegal, non-defensive invasion of Iraq to gain control of its oil. At least I hope we can.
Here is a link to the Today Show transcript. I apologize because I couldn’t find a politically-nuetral site hosting the whole transcript. However, here is a Reuter’s article that supports the accuracy of the quote I provided.
Incidentally, for those of you that are interested, here is an excerpt from Suskind’s book. I would not characterize it as complimentary to Bush, but I have no reason to doubt its authenticity.
Yes, he was. You don’t hear him talk about that “youthful indiscretion” much. In addition to being an acolyte, he actually wrote a chapter or two in one of her non-fiction books. (And no jokes about Rand and non-fiction being an oxymoron.) He’s hardly an Objectivist, however.
AQA, Clinton did not start a war. Bush did. That’s the difference, one that has to be ignored by those reflexively wanting to blame everything bad on somebody else. Doesn’t work.
Bush’s intent to do go to war is implied by his looking at the “plans” (a word you’re falsely using as synonymous with “intentions”) to invade Iraq at his first NSC meeting, sez O’Neill, who was there. The PNAC policy statements membership roster as compared to the Bush White House’s, and Rumsfeld’s own statements on 9/11 that it would be used a pretext no matter the facts, add to that inference. Add to that Bush’s own reply to Diane Sawyer that it didn’t make any difference if Saddam has the bad stuff or just intended to get it. To dispel that picture is, well, what?
“Wake up and smell the coffee, Buttercup.” -Ann Landers
Then you adhere to a highly idealized, ivory tower version of the definition of cooperation. Do you also maintain that copper wire is not a conductor because it has an internal resistance to the flow of electrons?
In the real world, cooperation comes in varying shades, and the more complex a situation, the more difficult it is to arrive at the ideal. Despite Blix’s concerns, the good doctor felt that there was plenty of room for discussions and further efforts with the inspectors in order to bring Iraq into compliance with the UN resolutions. He opposed an immediate invasion Iraq based on the country’s inability to live up to what cooperation could have been if, and only if, we were living in the best of times in the best of all possible worlds.
Unwillingness to settle for anything less than perfection is a sign of an overly rigid world view. Bush has one, you appear to as well.
Age, you do know there’s a big difference between “failed to cooperate” and “failed to cooperate adequately”, don’t you?
From your earlier message:
Note the lack of any conditionals. Now compare that with:
Note the conditional. Saddam was cooperating, just not to a degree that Blix would have liked.
But then, using your logic, since your earlier claim and your cite don’t match up completely, it’s okay for us to conclude that you’re a liar and a fraud, eh? (Not that I would, because I understand shades of grey, but by your own argument…)
Try to follow along: I’m not “blaming” Clinton for the invasion of Iraq. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and bears responsibility for that decision. But O’Neill did not say that Bush intended to go into Iraq before 9/11. If you’re saying otherwise, then you’re misrepresenting what O’Neill said.
The statement of Paul O’Neill. See my prior posts quoting O’Neill from the Today Show.
That’s odd. The dictionary also seems to think the words are synonymous. (emphasis added)
And in fact, I’m trying to point out that before 9/11, Bush reviewed plans to invade Iraq, but did not intend to invade Iraq. I’m trying to distinguish between the two. You, on the other hand, appear to be arguing that Bush looking at plans to invade Iraq means that he intended to invade Iraq. So which one of us is using “plans” as a synonym for “intentions”?
No, I didn’t. I guess in my “highly idealized, ivory tower version of the definition of cooperation,” saying that someone wasn’t cooperating implies that they weren’t cooperating adequately. However, I do feel some small vindication insofar as the [url=]dictionary appears to agree with me.
Do you think Iraq “work[ed] or act[ed] together [with the inspectors] toward a common end or purpose”? Did they “acquiesce willingly” to the inspections? Were they “compliant”?
Please note that if your answer to any of the previous questions is “yes,” then the proper procedure is “puff, puff, pass.” You’re obviously lingering too long on the “puff, puff” part, and not enough on the “pass” part.
But I’m willing to concede your point. Fine. Iraq cooperated insofar as they didn’t stop the inspectors from driving wherever they wanted to go, and didn’t, you know, kill them or anything. So, because of the possibility that someone could have read my prior post and thought that I wasn’t giving the Iraqis sufficient kudos for those things, please feel free to amend my prior statement to “But Hussein backed himself into that corner by refusing to cooperate adequately with UN inspections.” Happy now?
Sorry, but can I have a cite for this? I was unaware that he had expounded on your “idealized world” theory of cooperation. I’d love to read his thoughts.
Thank you, Ziggy. I didn’t realize that that Sally Struthers correspondence school gave out degrees in psychology. On the advice of my doctor, I’ll try to be more pliant with my worldview in the future. So, should I start being more pliant by accepting silly conspiracy theories relating to Bush’s intentions to invade Iraq?
Age, you’re spluttering and foaming rather than debating here. Take your doctor’s advice, and try to visualize a worldview somewhere between abject toadying to all the president’s policies, and seeing conspiracy theories at every turn. I’ll guarantee that a whole world of such possibilities will open itself to you, if you’re willing to make the effort.
My post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and not embittered.
I’ll leave aside your assertion that Bush has a rigid world view, which I doubt is more than armchair psychoanalysis of the type we all do to some extent.
But I would still like to see where Blix ever excused Iraq’s failure cooperate adequately (wink to rjung) because this isn’t an ideal world. I would imagine that he said they weren’t cooperating adequately because he thought that their cooperation was insufficient to garner praise, even in our non-ideal world. Now you’re saying that he excused it? So, leaving my bluster aside, I’d like to see a cite.
And I would like to hear why you think Iraq’s actions were adequate cooperation. Even in the real world, if I was being investigated by the police (on charges of, say, being a jackass in the first degree), and I responded by planting false evidence, lying, intimidating, and harassing, then you wouldn’t say that I was “cooperating adequately,” would you?
I agree. That doesn’t make this any less of a silly conspiracy theory.
I would also point out that your allegation could be levelled against many others on this board, whom you haven’t addressed.
My God are you ever becoming annoying. I DID quote you, and pointed out that the point about Clinton also planning for war was not analagous. THEN, you responded in an oblique manner about how you think WMDs were not the crux of Bush’s justification. It really had nothing to do with my point. So then when I mention this, you claim you never made the point about Clinton. And when I point out that you did make such a point, you get all bent out of shape because YOU forgot that you had said it. It’s not my problem you have such a poor memory; I’m not going to quote, re-quote, and re-quote you again every time I have to respond to one of your obfuscations.
And now, to top it off, you’re trying to further obfuscate the issue by saying “someone else” made the point, but that you agree with it. Well if you agree with it, then that makes it your point as well.
I’ll agree with that. However, Bush DID intend to do so. So they’re NOT guilty of the “same”. Not in any way, shape, or form.
According to 60 Minutes, he DID say that. For Pete’s sake, what do you think we’ve been talking about this whole thread?
C’mon, guy, the military has “plans” for all kinds of military operations. But nobody intends to use them.
Bush intended to actually go to war, as O’Neill has said. Clinton only had his military think about how to do if it came to that. That’s what you’re obfuscating - the difference between going to war and not going to war.
Dictionary cites are so, well, decembrist. Sad, too.
Very well. One month after your article, we have this:
In a related vein, it’s interesting to note that while the American news media was eager to jump on Blix’s earlier denouncement of Iraqi cooperation (as per your earlier cite), they also downplayed the fact that Blix told the New York Times that the there was insufficient evidence to justify a war with Iraq.
Of course, I’m sure you didn’t mention that in your earlier message because it slipped your mind, n’est pas?
That’s your argument? That I’m annoying? :rolleyes:
Please go back to post #99 and show me where you quoted my alleged Clinton analogy.
No, you did not quote me. You didn’t even accurately represent what I’d said.
I suppose it’s possible that I could have gone back through all of my posts and guessed at which statement you referring to. It just seemed easier to ask you what you were talking about.
I was responding to your statement that “Bush tried to get the UN to sanction the war by presenting trumped-up evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” and “direct links to Al Qaeda”.” So in what way was my statement that WMD and terror were not the only justifications for war “oblique” or irrelevant?
Or did you forget that you said that? If it helps, you can go back and look at my posts because I typically try to quote the language to which I was responding.
You keep projecting these emotions onto me. I wasn’t bent out of shape about anything (except maybe a little at ElvisL1ves, but that’s only natural). I’m still not bent out of shape. In fact, I’m smiling right now. This is me —> 
So why don’t you calm down, and let’s get back to the subject at hand?
No, it doesn’t. It’s not my point until I make it.
Is it ok for me to attribute to you the things elucidator says? Of course not. Because his points are not your points, even if you probably would agree with them. People around here call those strawmen.
I pointed out that I agreed with the statement because I was hoping that we could move the discussion along. Now can we please do that?
I understand that you believe that Bush intended to invade Iraq from Day 1 of his Administration. My point is that you can’t reasonably base that belief on Paul O’Neill’s statements, because on the Today Show, O’Neill said that they were simply reviewing and adopting Clinton’s contingency policies on Iraq.
And according to Paul O’Neill and the Today Show, he did NOT say that.
I didn’t mention it because it’s irrelevant.
I’ll concede that Iraq showed either proactive cooperation or substantive progress on the eve or war, when thousands of troops were stationed just outside of Iraq and readying for an invasion.
But my original point was that Iraq backed themselves into a corner by their earlier failure to comply with inspections. Their later cooperation or progress is irrelevant to the fact that the UN had to back them into that corner to begin with.
No, you’re obfuscating my argument.
I’m disagreeing with what O’Neill supposedly said. I’m pointing out that O’Neill himself said that Bush didn’t intend to go into Iraq before 9/11. O’Neill himself said that Bush was merely reviewing Clinton’s contingency plans.
I’ll make you a deal: I’ll stop quoting the dictionary if you stop saying false things about the English language.
That isn’t what O’Neill said at all. He said Bush wanted to invade Iraq (something Clinton never proposed. Supporting regime change is not the same as invading) and he told his henchmen to “make it happen.”
O’Neill also revealed that there never was any evidence of WMDs.
There is nothing that Clinton did that makes Bush’s war any more legal or legitimate or justified.
Over 500 Americans have now died for nothing. Bush is a fucking liar and a killer and that needs to be repeated continuously until the little shit is out of office.
Actually, the far left’s insistance on saying that, rather than simply conceding that “we disagree on policy,” is exactly what will keep him there.
Yes, I “disagree with the policy” of lying to start wars.
I also disagree with the policy of putting American soldiers’ lives on the line (and getting some of them killed) for no good reason. Every President has to face the option of using force to accomplish American goals or save American lives or strategic interests at times, but the naked adventurism of the Iraq war is simply sickening. Hope all those families whose kids come home in caskets and with missing body parts don’t mind the fact that their kids suffered and died for no good reason.
To hell with George W. Bush, he’s a vile piece of shit.