"In Iraq, Things Really Aren't That Bad" - I told you so!

[elf6c]

[mini-hijack]Oops he did it again:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20030616/pl_nm/iraq_usa_bush_dc_3

The Washington Post on Monday cited a former National Security Council counterterrorism aide under Bush as saying the administration’s focus on Iraq undermined domestic security and counterterrorism alliances and could fuel al Qaeda recruiting efforts.

The aide, Rand Beers, resigned shortly before the Iraq war and is now security adviser for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Post quoted Beers as saying the evidence used against Iraq was “pretty qualified” and that many of his government colleagues thought Iraq was an “ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy.”

“I continue to be puzzled by it,” he told the newspaper. “Why was it such a policy priority?”

december? Going to duck this one too?

[/mini-hijack]

The article includes no balance. There are no quotes from spokesperson who believe things aren’t as bad as the UN says they are.

Btw- the man who cites to OP-Ed pieces and rush limbaugh’s web site with a straight face decrying the UN’s story for balance. Heh heh heh, good one. A fine use of ironic humor- much better then those sad attempts at limricks. What?

[december]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
december? Going to duck this one too?

I am debating Beers right now on another thread.

Btw- the man who cites to OP-Ed pieces and rush limbaugh’s web site with a straight face decrying the UN’s story for balance. Heh heh heh, good one. A fine use of ironic humor- much better then those sad attempts at limricks. What?

When I’m debating, I’m usually a partisan. I make no secret of that. I find sources and arguments to substantiate my POV. Newspaper columns and editorials do the same.

But, a straight newspaper article is supposed to be unbiased and balanced. You think it’s ironic that a news article is as partisan as one of my zealous arguments. I think it’s pathetic.

[Skywatcher]

*Originally posted by december *
**The book, Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot
by Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Carlos Alberto Montaner, and Alvaro Vargas Llosa, was a best seller in Latin America. It criticized the leftist governments of Latin America. Naturally, the book was praised by the right and criticized by the left. The fact remains this book is a main-stream, serious publication. Yet based on nothing but your own opinion you feel free to criticize the book and to criticize me for citing it. Although I have no doubt that you want to be open-minded, the effect is to justify your ignoring an opposing POV. **

Originally posted by sailor (bolding mine)
december, a book may be wrong. If it contradicts the rest of the known universe then it certainly is wrong. Your friend may be wrong, he may be mistaken or he may be lying. It happens to you all the time and it can happen to your friend. He even may be non existant. All we have is your word that he exists and he said so. Can we question him? How did he gain knowledge that the practice was sponsored by the state? Who did he talk to? What are his sources? Can we ask him a few questions? I am quite certain his mistake or lie would be quite evident if we could question him. And, please, don’t tell us you have received many emails from unnamed people who side with you on this. Your friends imaginary or not are hearsay if not made up or distorted evidence. Bring him here so we can chat with him and question him. In the meanwhile that piece of evidence is worthless.

>> What are you going to beleive? What sailor tells you or your own eyes?

I know Cuba you dumbbass! I have been to Cuba personally. I have friends there and I have Cuban friends in Florida and in Spain. A couple years ago a friend of mine in Spain helped a Cuban friend of ours escape from Cuba although his wife was left behind. She is waiting for her chance. They have clandestine access to email and ICQ and we communicate with them relatively often. For some months I had an ongoing relationship with a Cuban girl and the only way to communicate with her was by email through these friends. You think I do not know Cuba? What the fuck do you know about Cuba?

You read a book, but you won’t tell us what the book says. Just like president Bush we have to trust you when you say the evidence is damning. My guess is the book does not say what you say it says. My guess is you are lying like you often do. The book has an intro by Vargas Llosa. So what? I still don’t know what it says. It probably does not support your position at all. If it does, it is wrong as it contradicts all available evidence. The fact the Vargas LLosa wrote an intro means nothing. He may know the author and not much about the contents of the book.

This is clearly a waste of time. You are asking us to take your word (that in itself is laughable) that you have a book that says what you say it says but you refuse to answer any concrete questions. We just have to take your word that the Cuban government forced children into prostitution. It’s in a book but the greatest opponents of Cuba, the US government and the Cuban expats, have never heard about this. huh?

Gee, this is a tough one. Should I believe sailor or someone with a proven track record of being selective with his cites?

originally posted by december**
How about reading the book? I’d be happy to debate it with you. **

Sorry, it’s not available from my local library; besides, I try to avoid pointless exercises. Especially one that has potential to come to an abrupt halt when the person responsible for initiating said exercise decides it isn’t fun anymore.

[december]

*Originally posted by Jeff Olsen *
Gee, this is a tough one. Should I believe sailor or someone with a proven track record of being selective with his cites?

The best course would be for you to believe neither of us, but rather to read the book and make your own judgments.

Sorry, it’s not available from my local library;

Too bad. I found it at mine. My library will get specific books from outside the library system via the Reference Desk. Maybe you could get it that way.

besides, I try to avoid pointless exercises. Especially one that has potential to come to an abrupt halt when the person responsible for initiating said exercise decides it isn’t fun anymore.

Are you saying it would be pointless for you to read the book yourself? Or, that it’s pointless to debate it? Or, something else?

[Skywatcher]

Should anyone need evidence of december abandoning threads:two links.

Avoiding Great Debates has its benefits. I’m able to avoid much of december’s inane chatter.

[Skywatcher]

*Originally posted by december *
** Are you saying it would be pointless for you to read the book yourself? Or, that it’s pointless to debate it? Or, something else? **

Could be one, could be the other, could be both. But it doesn’t really matter, does it?

[Eva_Luna]

*Originally posted by december *
In a region where the left lords over the intellectual realm, any book defending markets, free trade, and el gran Satàn up north would have triggered widespread spells of fainting and speaking in tongues.

The reviewer may be speaking in some toungue or another, but it sure ain’t correct Spanish. There is a linguistic error in the review; “el gran Satàn” doesn’t exist in Spanish, because the accent grave doesn’t exist in Spanish (although it does exist in French and Catalan).

Maybe I’m an anal-retentive Romance linguist at heart, but to me this damages the reviewer’s credibility. How can he be familiar with the internal debates of the Latin American political/literary elite if he doesn’t even have a first-year high school student’s knowledge of the language?

Eva Luna, former Spanish/English court interpreter

[Avalonian]

*Originally posted by december *
The fact remains this book is a main-stream, serious publication.

And so, december believes everything it says, of course.

Note to everyone: The printed word is sacrosanct, even when it departs completely from established reailty. As such, we should implicitly trust everything we read in any book, including those written by Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Anne Coulter, and Howard Stern. Do not bother checking facts or comparing what the book presents against what has been proven elsewhere. Ideologies do not matter. Bias does not matter. Conflicting views of reality do not matter. The printed word is unassailable.

I wish there was a bigger one of these for times like this: :rolleyes:

[Mtgman]

It should be noted that “Best-Seller” status is often fairly easy to achieve depending on the type of book. Popular fiction usually has to sell a fair number of books, but since the demand for non-fiction is usually quite a bit lower the “best-seller” bar is lower as well. IIRC around 5000 copies is what it takes to get best-seller in paperback nonfiction in Canada. That’s roughly .01567% of their population.

Best-Seller != mainstream

Although best-sellers CAN be mainstream, it does not follow that best sellers ARE mainstream.

Enjoy,
Steven

[rjung]

I’ve got a number of “main-stream, serious publications” that I doubt december has ever read, much less believed:
[ul]
[li]Stupid White Men …and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!, Michael Moore[/li][li]Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000, by Alan M. Dershowitz[/li][li]Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush, by Molly Ivins[/li][li]The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons[/li][li]Steal This Book and Get Life Without Parole, by Bob Harris[/li][li]Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, by David Brock[/li][li]Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth, by Joe Conason [/li][/ul]
Can’t wait for december’s book reviews… :rolleyes:

[elucidator]

Molly Ivins is a minor goddess of Truth and Justice. People should send her money and encourage thier children to add her to thier bedtime prayers, right after the grandparents.

Well, OK, sorry for the hijack.

[Zoe]

But it was a fine reason for a hijack!

[milroyj]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
Well, dumbfucks, there’s a GD thread on Iraq Reconstruction which touches on many of the same issues, if you think you can argue with me, come right on over and I shall to illustrate your idiocy w/o this small compensation to myself for my time and effort, in fully expressing my contempt for you.

1. Except of course, as you yourself admitted in this thread, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=191183, you’re leaving on another one of your little trips. That seems to be a favourite (see, I can do spelling affectations, too!) tactic of yours–calling for a debate and then begging off for your oh so important responsibilities. In the thread linked above, your OP was at 8:48 am, and then a mere hour later, at 9:51 am, you say you won’t be back for several days. So why make the OP in the first place? Couldn’t it have waited until your return? I can think of only two reasons for such: a)you like to hear yourself talk, i.e., pontification, see above or b)you are posting just to, ahem, garner responses.

2. Nobody gives a flying fuck about your time and effort, other than your sycophants. (Hi Minty, fuck you too, although I had the mistaken impression you were above silly name-calling).

3. Fuck you, Collounsbury.

[minty_green]

So much for engaging the issues on their merits, eh?

Watch out, Col. I think milroyj has a crush on you.

[milroyj]

*Originally posted by minty green *
So much for engaging the issues on their merits, eh?

Yes, mocking user names, calling people whinging worms, lying sacks of shit, etc., is most definitely “engaging the issues on their merits”.

**

Watch out, Col. I think milroyj has a crush on you. **

He wishes.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by milroyj *
Yes, mocking user names, calling people whinging worms, lying sacks of shit, etc., is most definitely “engaging the issues on their merits”.

I never claimed it was. It is, however, perfectly possible (at least in the Pit) to combine a personal assault with timely, useful information and discussion of the issues. You have, for some reason, chosen to ignore the vast substance of Collounsbury’s hugely informative posts in favor of content-free Col-bashing.

Engage the issues, milroy. Or just continue to come off like a jealous schoolgirl. Your choice.

[milroyj]

*Originally posted by minty green *
You have, for some reason, chosen to ignore the vast substance of Collounsbury’s hugely informative posts in favor of content-free Col-bashing.

The irony amazes me. This whole thread quickly became a content-free December-bashing from the get go. Look, he posited a perfectly reasonable question, IMO. “Is the situation in Iraq as bad as the press initially made it out to be?” The second reply, from Desmostylus, started the December-bashing, and the thread declined from there.

My whole point was that even if you think December’s posting style sucks eggs, or that he’s factually wrong, or whatever, people should argue his points, not just mindlessly bash him.

[Skywatcher]

*Originally posted by milroyj *
**My whole point was that even if you think December’s posting style sucks eggs, or that he’s factually wrong, or whatever, people should argue his points, not just mindlessly bash him. **

Normally that would be true but this is december. I beileve the majority of the december bashers did try debating with him at first then tired of his schtick.

[minty_green]

Nice theory, milroy, but Collounsbury’s december-bashing has been accompanied by one hell of a lot of first-rate information. So whatever your reason is for jumping on Col’s case, that certainly ain’t it.

[milroyj]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Nice theory, milroy, but Collounsbury’s december-bashing has been accompanied by one hell of a lot of first-rate information. So whatever your reason is for jumping on Col’s case, that certainly ain’t it. **

First rate information? How do you know that?