You do recall what happened to Vizzini about ten seconds after his little speech, right?
By now you must realize that I see these actions differently than you. I don’t see any signs of the conspiracy that you posit, so naturally my reactions are diffent.
I don’t forgive her. It would be insulting of me to forgive her. Seriously. She has no need to apologize. She can say what she wishes and I truly feel nothing but sympathy and sadness for her and her loss.
Crediting the arguments themselves is a different thing, though. I find the arguments bad and insulting. Seeing as other people have stated support and agreement I think those arguments and statements bear analysis. Because of the people supporting them, not because of Sheehan. I have no problem seperating my feelings for Sheehan from my thoughts concerning her statements.
Nothing. They really weren’t equivalent circumstances.
As you know, the voters have already spoken on this issue. To me, this matters not… one… single… wit…
To me, whether you support are against the war, we cannot afford this kind of thinking. We’re committed to our actions in Iraq. We’re going to have to make the best of them. I think they can be truly successful.
I sincerely think that at this time, concerning this issue, we need to stop the partisan bickering, put petty revenge fantasies and recriminations aside and put our thoughts and energies into making sure we achieve the most favorable possible solution to this conflict.
Don’t take the following wrong, but I really feel that recriminations and bickering on the massive partisan scale we see now truly do hurt our efforts in Iraq. I say that without casting blame. We can’t afford to. I say that as a simple observation.
A nice thought except that from the evidence I’ve seen this president didn’t really want a free and Democratic Iraq. He wanted a goverment that appeared democratic that was dependent on and cooperative with US military and economic interests. I think his actions to accomplish this goal has only increased bitterness and resentment and prolonged our military presence there. This translates into more lives lost.
The other four goals might be seen as genuine goals but since the primary goal is tainted and less than honest I can’t see how the others can be accomplished.
Repeating simpleminded questions so Bush can repeat pat answers doesn’t do anybody any good.
I agree with you here. What’s the point of asking questions you know won’t be answered honestly if at all? I find it more useful to simply state that he lied and is no longer worthy of the trust of the citizens of this country.
I’d be interested in hearing what you think the good questions are.
[/QUOTE]
As for the questions to ask Bush, let me start a thread soon.
As I’ve pointed out, there is a pattern of behavior that provides evidence that this president and his administration are untrustworthy. I don’t have to know exactly what the details are of their plans and motives to know I don’t trust them to make decisions that have the best interests of the majority of American citizens at heart.
Certainly the issue of terrorism presents a very real danger that should be much bigger than a hatred of Bush. I have yet to see from you or anyone any convincing evidence that the war in Iraq is the best course of action to fight the war on terror, the best use of our resources, military, diplomatic, and economic. I’ve heard the arguements which are largely speculation. Why should I give any more weight to your feeling of staying the course than Cindy’s of pull out now?
In truth, you have simply asserted that there is such a pattern.
Ok. To convince me your opinion is well-founded (should you wish to do so,) I need a lot more than just a statement of belief.
Because at this point, objections to the wisdom of engaging in a war in Iraq are moot. We’re there. It’s too late to go back and not go to war. Rehashing the moot debate serves no useful purpose.
If you see that, then you must see that the only useful debate is to consider the best course of action going forward. Cindy Sheehan’s argument is grounded in the past about what we should have done. You should give my words weight because I no longer care primarily about what we should have done. I am concerned with what we should do going forward.
In my thoughts, I am recognizing that there are consequences to failure in Iraq. I am recognizing that if we simply quit and give up we are well and truly screwed. Cindy Sheehan demonstrates no such recognition of the current situation. She simply says that the reasons for doing this sucked, so we should quit.
I think that there are possible paths going forward that lead to success. I think the path of retreat gives victory to our enemies. It shows them that we will quit, that we won’t see things through. Whether or not you beleive Iraq was a logical step in the war on terror, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting militant Islamic fundamentalism. If we quit, we show them that they can win by disheartening us, they can win with car-bombings and terror tactics.
If we show that that is a viable way to defeat us or make us do what they want, we will always be subject to it. Terrorism continues only because it works. So, we have to follow through.
You should listen to what I think because it should be obvious that our bridges are burned as far as Iraq is concerned and its place in the war on terror. We simply have to win.
Of the possible paths to success, one of them is a path where Iraq has a representative democracy that is able to fend for itself so that the US presence can be gradually withdrawn and they can handle and defeat the insurgents. That Iraq can be an Iraq that is independant enough that we will have proven to those that fear that we are imperialistic that we are not interested in a war of conquest. That really do want peace, and free nations working together.
In that path to success we have Israel and Palestine coexisting in an uneasy but somewhat stable truce. We have strong ties to our allies like Saudi Arabia. There is a power shift where stable nonmilitant Islamic forces outnumber, control, and look upon militant fundamentalist Islam with the contempt it deserves.
On that path we demonstrate that terrorism is neither a viable form of warfare nor a useful tool of social change.
My kids grow up in a safer world.
That’s the path to success, and that’s what I think is our only choice to work for.
Then I’d be interested in what you do see when you consider the pattern of behavior I mentioned. That subject seems fit with the thread you propose starting so I’m content to wait.
Really? Perhaps you don’t think any comparisions are valid. Fair enough. Then my question is why should we trust a president who has lied about an issue of such tremendous significance to continue to make those crucial descisions that effect us all?Why should we trust the sincerety of any goals he states?
At that time the evidence of his lie was not nearly as obvious as it is now. The voters are speaking still.
Even if I accepted that we were my question would be, isn’t someone better suited to decide on our actions than the lying jackass that got us there and has botched it every step of the way?
Aside from that I don’t see how or why we are commited to action there without some real indication that it will be of lasting benifit to a democratic Iraq and the US.
This I agree with. I find the partisan bickering offensive on both sides. It’s about real solutions that are best for all Americans, not political games and manipulation to make my team attractive and theirs unattractive. Finding the most favorable possible solution will take a kind of blunt honest examination that we may not be ready for.
I don’t take it wrong. I quite agree. I think dishonest and petty partisan political games should be condemed on both sides. Like you I’m more interested in the truth and real working solutions to the issues.
Your statement does seem to assume that your opinion of success in Iraq is what we should be cooperating to achieve. You’ll have to understand that there are those that don’t agree and it’s not partisan bickering to be vocal about that disagreement. I’m willing to listen to arguements about how and why we can succeed in Iraq. So far I haven’t heard any that have swayed me. It seems like a goal that we really hope will be accomplsihed and many are convinced it is crucial to accomplish. What I want to see is evidence that we truly can accomplish it at a cost that makes it worthwhile. What I want to hear are convincing arguements that this is the best possible way to deal with the real danger of terrorism. I haven’t heard any.
In truth I actually gave you a list of the behaviors that you never acknowledged. It was a partial list but I think it clear enough.
I completly agree. The past behavior of this president does influence how much trust and weight I will give any arguement from him or his cabinet. The opinion of independents with the right credentials would matter a whole lot more.
I think this is a reasonable arguement and I understand it but I think it is flawed. We are not just fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting people who believe we are an imperial forgien power who has invaded their country{we have} I’m doubtful that we can convince them of our benevolence by killing them for defending their own nation. If we had made any significant progress in training and maintaining an Iraqi security force that seemed commited to fighting the insurgents I might feel differently. The Iraqi’s have to demonstrate their willingness and determination to claim their own nation from the Muslim fundamentalists. I just haven’t seen that demonstration.
Ok. To convince me your opinion is well-founded (should you wish to do so,) I need a lot more than just a statement of belief. Hmmm that sounds familiar.
That’s why I’m not swallowing the Bush rhetoric.
I missed this post in scrolling through the lenghty ones. I suppose it’s for me. It’s really endearing the way you enjoy playing with my screen name. :rolleyes:
I realize my ramblings are sometimes confusing and hard to follow. Communicating on the SDMB has helped me with that. You keep refering to my conspiracy theory but I have never called it that. A more accurate description would be an assessment of character. My assessment, based on observation of the events I listed and others, is that this president and those close to him are not people I can trust to do what is in the best interest of the citizens of this country. I am able to seperate those opinions from the issue of terrorism and the situation in Iraq.
“Conspiracy theory” is just a handy way for the apologists to handwave away the allegations that they can’t dismiss with evidence, as if real-world conspiracies never happen.
I don’t see by what rational you draw a connection between the things on your list.
I’ve done some recent travelling and I understand how much America is percieved as imperialistic, but I think you’re insulting the Iraqis to suggest that they are so stupid that they can’t understand why we did what we did. I’ve spoken to soldiers who have come back, and been told that 95% plus of the people understand and are grateful. The Iraqis are committed to fighting the insurgents. Many more of them have died than American soldiers, you know. They need help, training, and equiptment.
I’m sorry. I meant no offense. Seeing as how I’d messed up your screen name accidentally several times in a previous thread, I thought you might find it amusing. Since you don’t, I won’t do it any more (Though you have to admit "CosmicRay is pretty good. Get it… Cosmic Ray?)
I think you communicate well, but thank you for clarifying. What I had thought you were positing was a conspiracy theory or secret agenda type thing, but if you have a general feeling of distaste, distrust, and skepticism… Then I can’t blame you.
Both glasses contain the deadly Iocaine rhetoric of partisan politics, so it doesn’t really matter which glass you choose.
Either way, you end up cackling madly before collapsing onto the ground, dead while I run off into the Fire Swamp with Robin Wright Penn.
I suppose there’s a lesson to be learned in that.
All of them contribute to my character assessment. People who have a sense of honor and justice just don’t do the kind of crap that this admin has been consistantly doing. People who sincerely revere democracy, and human rights don’t consistantly violate them. Anyone can make a bad judgement call or give in to temptation especially in the dirty game of professional politics but what I’ve seen over the past few years presents a pattern I don’t like.
It’s not a matter of Democrat or Republican or even conservative or liberal. I try to judge each issue by itself. I respect honesty and courage, and an elected official who realizes he is a public servant.
I’m sure many Iraqi’s are grateful and want us there. Others are glad Saddam is gone and now want us out. I’m in no way suggesting they are stupid and resent that implication from you. I think a lot of Iraqi’s do understand. why we did what we did and that’s part of the problem. It’s hard to encourage a democracy when you push for the interests of the United States to be higher on the list than the Iraqi’ It seems obvious from what I’ve read that a significant portion of who we’re fighting are Iraqi’s who want us out of Iraq.
Perhaps I’m wrong. I don’t see that statistic reflected in the news. 95% of the people who talked to them is not 95% of the population. I’d be willing to see any evidence that more Iraqi police and soilders have died fighting the insurgents. That would go a long way to changing my mind. A police or army barracks being bombed doesn’t count as fighting. Being killed by a roadside or car bomb doesn’t count either. I’m not trying to be difficult. My impression is many Iraqis’ join the security forces for a paycheck out of desperate need. Do they really have the will to shoot down other Itaqi’s to claim their democracy?
No offense taken, I was just playing too. CosmicRay is pretty good. 
Yeah, but some of these aren’t connected to the administration. You act as if the whole thing is controlled by one central mind, but I don’t think you can demonstrate that the Swiftvets were under Bush’s control.
But to go over your previously posted list:
Bush started these rumors?
My understanding is that they acted independantly. You know, this guy O’neil, who is the head of the Swiftees has had a serious hard-on for Kerry for like 30 years. My father, who is a Marine Veteran of the same war has hated Kerry since I was a little kid and I remember how upset he was after his testimony and appearance on the Dick Cavett show (O’neil was on that same show.) You have to understand that there really is a deep undercurrent of hatred for Kerry among some military types from that period that has nothing to do with Bush. I don’t think you can say he engineered that thing.
Again, this is a very complex incident, and it is not clear who did the outing. Y’know, people on the right feel almost exactly the same way about this incident towards the left as you seem to towards the right. Some argue that the whole thing was a setup by the left to discredit Bush.
Personally, I don’t have enough information to say conclusively what happened since Novak isn’t saying who the original source is, and the people who Rove gave a dispensation to speak still aren’t revealing the important details.
Personally, I think this is a bunch of bullshit. It looks to me like they are purposefully requesting information that they know they are not entitled to specifically so they can claim they are being obstructed, in other words, politics as usual.
Not a big fan of all aspects of this, either.
This I understand and support. There are some who feel that disruption is their perogative and have made such measures prudent and necessary. They have a right to protest, but at their own rally.
This is simply politics and rhetoric and happens regardless of affiliation. If it were exclusive to one side or the other you might have a point, but since it’s ubiquitous, I don’t think you do.
I’m not aware of the terrorists being a signatory to the Geneva conventions nor do I understand (and I might be wrong, I’m not a legal mind) that terrorists enjoy protections under the Geneva conventions.
I haven’t heard that one.
It doesn’t really demonstrate anything to me conclusively one way or the other. I think you have a tough time laying this all at Bush’s feet, but hey, if you don’t like or trust him, that’s your business.
Please don’t get offended. I’m glad you clarified.
Our interests have to come first. We’re not wholly altruistic by any means, but are working together for common interests. I think they want us out of Iraq but not until the new Iraq is strong enough to make it.
Granted, and I suppose the people they talk to are a predisposed sample.
Ok, but I don’t think your being reasonable. There is not a lot of actual combat going on. Most of our soldiers are being killed by bombs and terror attacks and ambushes, and I think they count.
Bombs, roadside ambushes, and sneak attacks are almost exclusively the way the insurgents are fighting.
I dunno. My impession though is that the insurgents aren’t necessarily Iraqi, that a large contingent, perhaps a majority are foreign.
Never said they were. Stop exaggerating my statements. You hate it when others do that to you. If memory serves correctly there was a very short line of connection between one of the Vets and Rove.
It’s a Rove tactic and in my mind it’s exactly the same thing. If you give the nod of approval to these kinds of tactics then you’re guilty. During the Swiftboat incident there was an ad showing a confrontation between McCain and Bush in which McCain tells Bush he should be ashamed of those tactics. Ad to that numerous other attacks on anyone who voiced dissent or presented damaging information. I’m convinced and disgusted.
There’s no doubt some hated Kerry and resented his actions. The way it all came down is classic Rove.
Who, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? I agree it isn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt but the evidence and the attack pattern sure leans heavily toward Rove.
I havn’t examined it that closely. We’re speaking of a place on the Supreme Court which is pretty dam important. If there’s information about Robert’s that’s relevant then I don’t understand the claim of executive privilage. This isn’t the first time this kind of thing has happened.
Not wanting your rallies to become a shouting match where the opposition purposely disrupts is one thing. They went to a ridiculous extreme to shelter Bush from any hard questions. The careful orchestrating of supposed “town hall” meetings. The planting of a phoney reporter in the white house press corp to to ask questions like "aren’t those in the opposition just traitorous idiots?"It all smacks of phoney BS to me.
I’m against this kind of crap no matter where it comes from. It’s bullshit. This kind of rhetoric is the antithesis of what free speech and democracy is all about. This has been a primary theme of this admin’s attempt to manipulate the public. There is a lot of dishonesty in politics and I think it’s way past time the public starts showing that it’s unacceptable.
Surely you’re not saying that all the prisoners at Abu Ghurayb and Guatanimo are terrorists? I’m certain you know better.
Does the name Chalabi ring a bell?
The evidence is there. You’re welcome to reach your own conclusions. I’m not offering any of this as conclusive proof but to make the point that my attitudes are not arbitrary.
Of course we are responsible for our own interests and must put them first. I think we are also required to have respect for the right of other nations and people to determine their own fate. Common interests would be something that benifits both nations and that’s fine unless the benifits are aimed primarily at the elite few.
I think you raise a good point but there has been house to house and street fighting in Falujah and other places. Any examples of Iraqi soilders taking the lead in actual firefights anywhere?
I believe there are many foreign fighters. I’d need evidence to consider a majority.
Even granting that more than a few of the foreign fighters are likely to view our military presence there as a threat to them. I mean, wouldn’t we if the situation was reversed? Saddam was across an ocean with an inferior badly equipped army and he was presented as a threat.
It really sucks to be Robin Wright Penn? 
Here’s two of the links between the Swift Boaters and Bush.
• Kenneth Cordier - Former Bush-Cheney campaign advisor - forced to resign after appearing in Swift Boat Veterans for Bush commercial. [5] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22957-2004Aug22.html)
• Benjamin Ginsberg - Former general counsel to Bush-Cheney - resigned after it was discovered he was advising both Bush and the Swift Boat Veterans. [6] (CNN.com - Bush-Cheney lawyer resigns over veterans flap - Aug 25, 2004)
From: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth_Republican_Connection
This is not going to go away. It is no longer about Cindy Sheehan. She was a catalyst for the majority of Americans who oppose the war, like my neighboor (everyman) who wishes she had never voted for him.