What makes you think I am jumping to conclusions? The people who jumped to conclusions (demonstrably wrong conclusions) were the propagandaphagi who ate up all the horse shit generated by the Bushites and who systematically refused to consider real evidence, even when provided by respectable and efficient organizations of professionals.
The necessary data to make an informed decision on the matter of Iraq as a credible and active or imminent threat were already available at the time of the Iraq war - and I am talking about rigorous scientific evidence here as well as analysis of the intelligence available. I am emphatically not referring to intellectually bankrupt public opinion resulting from partisanship, alarmism, propaganda, mental insufficiency, or other shortcomings/deceit.
Even back then there were posters on these boards who bothered to research the issue and use our higher faculties, instead of slurping up the pre-digested pap the Bushites distributed. Read up and enjoy - it will become obvious who jumped to conclusions and who did not.
Even back then, huh? And the rest of the world has been SO in the dark. Well, thanks for lifting the veil, Abe. I owe you one - and here it is - Find: "The Man Behind the Fake Niger Documents". Don’t break a leg jumping to MORE conclusions. This story is a LONG way from over.
BTW, haven’t read that thread yet, but I will. On dial-up here, long-distance at that. Remember the “no one’s time can be that cheap” crack?
I can only repeat that I am not jumping to conclusions when I say that it was no secret the case for war was overstated given the available evidence (a reading of the thread I previously linked - and countless others - will quickly demonstrate my point). Indeed, what a number of posters have been calling for on these boards for years is adequate evidence to support the case of the Bushite half-baked argument for war. There never was satisfactory reasonable evidence - what’s more, there were abundant signs of deceit throughout the entire matter, and I am not talking about Saddam hiding weapons. There was a clear and frequently baseless push to war, no “tough decisions” as you commented.
I linked that thread to show that even at the time the affair was developing there were a minority who were actually scrutinizing the evidence and stating valid objections to the arguments presented by the White House and various government organs.
Now, to address very quickly the recent allegations over the Yellocake Planter: no doubt the mystery is not yet solved. What we are concerned with here are the facts: sloppy or non-existent intelligence (remember Colin Powell telling us that the location of WMDs/programs were known?), misdirection, juxtaposition of unrelated issues (9/11 and Iraq), and a host of documented irregularities tend to raise alarm flags among critical observers.
That the story is not over makes no difference to my original point: the yellowcake “intelligence” was just as bad as the aluminium tubes “intelligence” and both were (along with other items) harshly criticized by experts and laymen alike as soon as these tidbits were deployed to serve as an argument for war.
Sorry, I am violently allergic to obfuscations of the available facts. What you were engaged in struck me as equivocation to divert responsibility for the actions of Bush and cadre, something there’s been a lot of on these boards (the OP has more than a whiff of that). If I was mistaken I apologize, but if that is the case I will also repeat that you might benefit from a review of previous SDMB discussions on the Iraq affair.
And I promise, Abe, I’ll follow and give it a look at these links as soon as possible. Until such time (and probably beyond), it seems this may be one of things over which we’ll simply have to disagree. It’s as obvious as a not-so-covert agent that there are those (maybe your experts?) who will FIND issues over which to disagree with this administration because that is their default state, as there are supporters of the policies (if not the president) who would just as quickly ignore those same issues. I hate to sound trite or “ingénue”, but at this point, until and unless it becomes a “legal” matter, this entire discussion hinges on what one’s root socio-political philosophies are - how they view America’s role in the world. Because there is no a priori “right” or “wrong” answer when it comes to such matters, only the turn of events will either damn or exonerate the players. Until such time, a statement alleging deceit or any other illegality is “jumping to a conclusion” by definition.
This is about the facts, which you have thus far avoided. You can repeat mantras all you want, but the facts are clear: bullshit evidence was leveraged and cherry-picked to push for war in Iraq, a simple fact that was easily visible even at the time the affair was developing (meaning, as I said a number of times, that we are not merely speaking with the advantage of hindsight as you and a few others keep trying to imply).
At some point you might inject real facts and arguments in your prose, instead of yet more equivocatory hand-waving. If you want to allege extreme bias for the multiple sources I have already alluded to or cited, feel free, but do some real work and come up with something either original (i.e., that hasn’t been knocked down a thousand times before in previous discussions, like cheap attempts to impugn Hans Blix’s character) or, at least, factually defensible. Hand-waving doesn’t cut it around here and only sets you up for ridicule.
What is this relativist silliness? The matter is very straightforward. The president and his cadre go before the nation - before the entire world - and proclaim a series of falsehoods. You’re trying to tell me that there is no right or wrong there? Of course there is. Something is either true or false, or it is undetermined.
Hm, it looks like I was fairly accurate in my original impression of your methodology. Your posts are factually ethereal and rely almost entirely on lazy, half-formed allegations of bias, which you deloy in order to encourage readers to “jump to conclusions” on the matter. You do indeed seek to equivocate and obfuscate in a manner designed to distract from the real issues. Until you actually have meat to bring to the table, spare us these smokescreens.
And feel free to demonstrate concretely (third time I ask) how I “jumped to conclusions”, when the arguments I made in this department are in fact well supported here and in the other reiterations of similar discussions. A conclusion is inferred from the premises and facts, you see… “jumping” to conclusions would require issuing a claim that omits due diligence (in whole or substantial part) of the relevant material. I’ve already demonstrated that the latter is not the case as far as I am concerned. Fact: openly sloppy evidence presented. Fact: openly sloppy evidence repeatedly insisted upon in order to pursue goal of war, despite valid and well-supported objections. Conclusion: very strong probability of intent to deceive. Demonstrable in a court of law? I don’t know.
I don’t particularly care about the hyper-legality or non of the affair. I am not out to prove that Bush or whoever is legally guilty of X, Y, or Z. I am not a lawyer, and I am not retentive enough to put stock in hyper-legality. I certainly appreciate a judgement provided by an impartial court, if one can be found, and I would be very impressed if Bush and co were held accountable for the mismanagement of the nation, but I’m more than happy to start with the facts.
After all, when the White House holds up a steaming pile of compost and claims that it is pristine proof, you don’t need a team of overpaid celebrity lawyers to go to work on the issue before you are allowed to consider conclusions based on informed review of the available facts. All that is sufficient is the evaluation of the claim in a scientific (and politically neutral) manner, something that has already been done throroughly and frequently. That you are unaware of or unwilling to face these evaluations is your problem, one which you can easily fix with a modicum of honesty and a few moments of searching and reading.
Then draw whatever conclusions you are able to defend. But this nonsensical equivocation you keep providing is about as palatable and as viable as the Bushite pro-war propaganda.
Well, I’m back, Abe, and I really want to apologize for staying away so long. Not that it matters all that much in the grand scheme of things, but it’s a pain in the neck when life interferes with stuff. We’re setting up an annex for the winter months, and it’s pretty exhausting work.
Anyway, I read that thread from '03 and I was impressed. It showed me two things - you are admirably consistent, and you may even be a bit prescient with regard to a number of your more negative forecasts. I don’t need to tell you, of course, that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
You and a shitload of other negativists interpreted the facts your way, right from the beginning, and the Bush administration took a different view. To say the president “lied” is to accuse him of having a conscious awareness that he was deliberately deceiving the nation, that he knew the words he was speaking were lies. The word “lie” has a specific meaning, and you have proved no such thing, and neither have any of the negativists in the foreign or domestic press. George W. Bush had the responsibility of running this country. He did not have the luxury of kibitzing or second-guessing the decisions and actions of others. He was in the driver’s seat making the tough decisions. You and others would have made them differently based on the same information – or at least that’s what you would have me believe. I really don’t know how you would have reacted were you in his position, nor do I know how you and others would have reacted had the 2004 election gone differently and John Kerry were the one making those decisions, and I suspect you don’t know either. I just know it’s a whole lot easier to be a Monday Morning Quarterback than the guy in the huddle calling the shots on Sunday.
You suggest I do “research”, which I assume means that I should read even more negativist commentary than I already have, and in hopes of what, changing my mind? To what end? I believed then that we needed to mount a formidable defense against Islamo-fascism, the best of which is a formidable offense, and I still believe it to this day. I think we are doing the right thing in Iraq, and so do many freedom-loving Arabs in that country and in neighboring ones. I’ve seen nothing in the terrorists’ “movement” that would cause me to moderate that view. I believe the president had more than enough evidence to justify doing what needed to be done – the right thing.
You evidently would have an administration meet a higher threshold, one that apparently would have no grey areas, no unknowns, no inconsistencies, no incompetence, no human error, no assumptions – only perfect, irrefutable “slam dunk” evidence, to quote George Tenet. We could have waited another ten years for that, waited for another Twin Towers so we might gather more evidence on the global nature of these monsters. We could have probably lobbied our “allies” at the UN to pass another seventeen or *one-hundred *and seventeen toothless resolutions against Iraq, against Iran, Syria, the Palestinians, maybe even against North Korea. Every now and then, just to appease those of us who refuse to be appeased, we could have lobbed a few more Cruise missiles at bogus targets provided by hopelessly flawed and internally conflicted intelligence agencies. Sure, we could have done all that, and we just may do all that someday, but it won’t be with this president at the helm.
Time will remove George Bush from office. He may be hounded to the last by partisan accusations and investigations, which I suppose will make many on your side of this argument feel that they are accomplishing something noble, although I can’t imagine what. History will undoubtedly record the errors in intelligence, judgment and timing in the run-up to the invasion, but history will never cast a shadow on the character of George Bush, the man, no matter how many times his critics utter the word “lie”.
Abe, I didn’t mean to ignore the “jump to conclusion” issue. It simply seems to me that, based on your interpretation of facts, you have jumped, as in leapt, to the conclusion that the president lied. I’ve seen no such proof. Lots of speculation, but no proof. Actually, you’re in good company - there are people jumping to that same conclusion all over the place!
Fair enough. What’s the argument? So far the treatment of the two cases has been equal. Clinton was impeached (= accused, indicted) and tried. Libby has been indicted and will be tried.
Reasonable sentiments, David Simmons, but surely you know there are those who would justify (read: excuse) Clinton’s lies, and in the same breath declare George Bush to be a liar without benefit of indictment or trial. Curiously, there’s not nearly the same level of animus directed toward Libby.
Abe I counsel quiet fortitude. Dishfunctional and his ilk are between Scylla and Charibdis. Having regard to the evidence, their choices are either:
Recant their political identity, announce themselves to be fools and panderers and their hated critics to be their betters, men and women of astute judgment and discernment; or
Given the evidence of an organised campaign of deceit which cannot be reasonably rebutted, then knowingly elect to side with the deceivers and further entangle in deceit.
Both these choices are painful, the majority have opted for the less painful choice; the former and have ceased to debate these issues.
A minority have chosen the more painful option; the latter, which performs a long rot of the soul on its victims. It is a choice that we are starting to see writ large across parts of the North American map.
I haven’t seen any justification of Clinton’s perjury. What I do see is people making a distinction between lying about an extra-martial sex interlude and lying by omission in claiming absolute certainty about Saddam’s powers and intentions when the speaker knew, or should have known, that such certainty didn’t exist.
One lie probably resulting in Clinton being in the doghouse at home. The other has seriously damaged our national security. The limits of our armed forces have been exposed. We are not trusted by the people and leaders of other nations and this has or will affect their willingness to help us in the real problem, international terrorism.
Your counsel of quiet fortitude is well-intentioned, I’m sure, Sevastapol, but of fleeting deliverance. Take it from me… there comes a time when simply being right is not good enough. Events will play out, as they always have, and we shall see who are the panderers and who had the better judgment.
IMHO, regardless of the outcome, the world is changed forever and far better for it.
And I think they are making that distinction in order to justify Clinton’s lies, or at the very least, to minimize or trivialize them. My position was (and is) that a lie is a lie. The consequences may indeed be different, but the act is the same.
This is the first time I’ve seen that turn of phrase, “lying by ommission”. I know that Catholicism makes that distinction, but does the law?
It’s the “or should have known” that gives me problems. If a person makes a statement that he should have known was false, but didn’t, that statement was not a lie. To “lie” requires a deliberate intent to deceive, such that even a true statement can be a lie if the speaker’s intention is to deceive. Bottom line: Not every false statement rises to the level of a lie.
Are we minimizing and trivializing just a little bit here? In my opinion, a president who lies directly to the American people does immeasurable harm to the office, the institution and the image of the presidency and everything he and it represent, not to mention the impact such an act has on the respect held by the general public for the rule of law. For the leader of a democracy which prides itself on being, at the very least, a nation of laws to lie under oath does irreparable damage to the fabric of the democratic ideal itself. But, maybe I’m the only one who sees it that way.
What? If by “national security” you mean the good old pre-9/11 days, you can have ‘em! I would argue that no free nation on earth has ever been on as high alert as we’ve been for the last five years, and the simple fact that we have not been attacked since that time stands as testament to that argument. If you meant something else, please elaborate.
What an interesting way to frame that observation. Along with many others, I would say our volunteer armed forces have displayed to the world our strength and determination tempered by patience and sensitivity, but most importantly, to our enemies we have displayed (to their surprise) our willingness to take casualties in the pursuit of their destruction, and our ability to project massive force with deadly precision… within those “limits” you mentioned, of course.
I don’t think it matters one whit what they say to us or about us in the United Nations - it only matters what they say in their War Rooms at home. Our friends know who they are, and they know we’ll be there when they need us, and our enemies, current and those contemplating that status, can now DEFINITELY trust that this president will do what he says he will do.
Now that I think about it, all those times Clinton threatened to take retaliatory action against the various terrorist groups killing Americans around the world but never followed through, maybe those were lies of omission, too. Is that what you meant?
Which is more than we can say for equivocators, propagandaphagi, and liars, unless of course by consistent you mean “sticking to the story du jour”, which the Bushites have tried hard to do (for example, insisting well past the point of ridicule on such items as 9/11 and Iraqi connections, WMD ordnance AND programs, Iraq as a haven/source of terror, etc.).
You say I am a few things. Thanks. Consistent: yes, as long as my position is supported by the facts - if not, I will change it in a heartbeat. Prescient: not in the least – my superpowers are easily explained in mundane terms, my dear producer of obfuscation: I am able to apply the sceptical method, the critical thinking method, to claims to which I am exposed, and infer therefrom. It’s that simple and that easy, and I have demonstrated that the Revolutionary Abe Method works in the thread I linked for you. The Abe Method can work for you too!
More hot air, dishfunctional. You know that sort of output only gives people opportunity to savage your arguments - which aren’t exactly resistant to begin with. Your entire position relies on the dishonest, despicable, and intellectually deficient method of arguing by equivocation. Let me illustrate:
After I prove to you that I do have very solid ground to support my argument and position, you go and jump to conclusions, engage in logical fallacy, and issue more of your equivocation, all in the space of a few keystrokes.
All you had to do to refute my factually supported arguments was bring forth facts that support an incompatible position and then thrash it out one by one. Or you could have attacked directly the evidence I provided in support of the reasoning. But no, it is much more convenient, if foolishly transparent, to try attack a position rather than an argument, and to automatically assume that well supported arguments that do not agree with your worldview must be the result of bias, and so forth.
Even if I were an automatic negativist (which I am not[sup]*[/sup]) you have done nothing to prove me wrong or attack the arguments I’ve presented.
[sup]* = another fallacy you trip over is that if I come across as negativist it is not necessarily because I am automatically so; it could be (and is) because I have reviewed enough information to reach a strongly negative conclusion. Either way, stop cowering behind your argumentum ad hominem and argue like someone at least modestly informed on rhetoric and debate.[/sup]
It looks like your strongest argument to date remains none other than the old recourse to feeble, cowardly, hyper-legalism.
Note that when I say “Bush” I refer not just to the person of Bush, but also to those in his employ who function as his brain. This should be obvious since I frequently refer to the Administration, the “Bushites”, etc., and very rarely solely to the Commander in Chief as one singular entity. If you want to be technical about it, I revise my statement to read that Bush and his collaborators and supporters as a group - as an Administration, by golly - lied.
Your denial of this oft-discussed point requires at least a component of faith or downright pathological optimism, since the facts are entirely removed from it. Consider just a few items at random, pulled from memory:
The publicly available Neocon plans to wage a little war of their own in MENA, and numerous reports that the Iraq war was already decided long before Saddam doodled in complying with the international community (which Saddam did - the reason Bush could push his war through was a hyper-legalistic interpretation that he extracted from Hans Blix… does that tell us anything about people whose primary recourse is hyper-legalism?).
The fact that the Neocon/Bushite spin machine (Wolfowitz, Libby, et al) was working overtime to produce a specific kind of evidence (Iraqi culpability in nuclear and especially bioterrorism) and resorted to numerous objectionable tactics to do so, including Libby’s efforts to link Iraq with terrororism, Bush’s Iraq and 9/11, the repeated clashes between Neocon and CIA as the Neocons sought to provide any and all possible support for a pro-war argument, regardless of the quality of evidence, etc.
The incredibly embarassing Feb 2003 case for war presented at the United Nations by poor Powell, probably the most honest and internationally respected high-level executive in the administration and the same man who then told the world he was angry at being misled **by his own administration **
The fact that Joseph Wilson DID go to Niger to investigate the claims of Yellowcake traffic… in 2002, before the Iraq war. His report? No indication of or corroboration for the highly suspicious allegations. Wilson, upon seeing that the Bushite case for war was being erected on bullshit, began to leak his own information to the Washington Post and NYT, casting further doubts on the honesty of the Leaders. You could argue Wilson was an anonymous source (at least at the beginning) but it wouldn’t have taken much checking - you know, the stuff that real governments ought to do - to figure out that Niger claims were bogus. As it says in one of the cites I already provided for you:
The administration’s increasingly confused official line on Iraq, that changed from one day to the next as described in the linked thread (I suppose that according to you only “negativists” could identify this execrable pattern?)
The fact that the administration stonewalled every attempt to look into the matter of the Iraq war and refused to cooperate until absolutely necessary
The dramatic resignation of Robin Cook from Blair’s cabinet in the run-up to the war, in which Cook stated that he had seen no real evidence to draw the conclusions that his prime Minister and the US administration were pushing out on to the public - and it must be remembered that Robin Cook would have been privy to the same intelligence Tony Blair was.
And so forth. As I already stated, what Bush’s underlings do is ultimately Bush’s responsibility. It is conceivable that Bush was so in the dark that he didn’t know a war was being engineered on false grounds, but that is a distinctly low porbability at this stage.
You’ve already admitted that I didn’t form my opinion on Monday, but on Sunday, so spare me this idiocy.
Who cares about simplistic unsolicited opinions of eventual potential benefits of the Iraq war? We’re dealing with facts here, with the stated justification and rationale for a war of aggression on a sovereign state, not with wishful thinking by people who gulp down the propaganda. Besides, Saddam was a toothless old bastard who wasn’t in a position to threaten anyone - in fact, when was the last time Saddam really rattled his sabre?? The above argument is nonsensical when applied as a defence of the administration’s actions, and you know it.
Yet another logical fallacy, this time that of the false dilemma. According to you we can have EITHER perfect OR sloppy information. Nonsense of the lowest order: I just need reliable evidence as opposed to easily spotted bullshit. You might be fine with craning back your head and opening wide, I most certainly am not, and I know when someone attempts to try it on me.
You’ve channelling Condoleezza Rice and a number of other liars as you conduct yet more atrocities to logical reasoning. We’ve already established that it was far from proven that Iraq was a threat, particularly to the US. Heck, I doubt even Israel was overly worried about Iraq. And yet here you are, without a shred of evidentiary support, spewing the same old cagal that has already been cleaned up time and time again. Well, it looks like you are a victim of Bush’s juxtaposition of Iraq and 9/11, and of Rice’s “smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud” speeches, which contained no facts, only emotional appeals and scaremongering to achieve a desired result. Thank you for yet another depressing reminder that such tactics work admirably well.
Bullshit, your specious claims have already been addressed in the same old thread I linked. Milossarian made almost exactly the same claim you make above - the difference is that he did so years ago, whereas you have the gall to attempt that nonsense now with the benfit of hindsight. Feel free to bring forward a concrete argument against the UN’s behaviour in this matter and watch as people who actually know what they are talking about shred it for you and make you eat it.
Oh goodness, the partisan card bullshit. Spare me this cagal, you’ve spent your responses so far trying to argue that I am unreasonably biased while studiously avoiding any real contact with the arguments.
That is certainly the funniest thing I have read on these boards for a very long time, possibly ever.
You can interpret peoples’ actions as you like but that doesn’t make your interpretation true. Yes, a lie is a lie and as I said, Clinton was indicted (impeached) and tried. What more should be done?
The comparison in that case was with Bush, not Libby. Libby is accused of perjury. Bush omitted much pertinent information about the intelligence when “informing” the senate and house on intelligence regarding Iraq. One of the things that a witness is expected to do is to respond to questions with “whole truth.”
If you, or your agent on your behalf, say that there is “no doubt” that something is the case when you and the agent know that what you are saying was surrounded by many qualifications as to its reliability, that’s an intent to deceive. GW and his coteries either knew that the intelligence wasn’t what they claimed it was or they incompetently didn’t know.
No you aren’t the only one. No one, the president included, should lie to officials who are conducting an investigation. Clinton was foolish but the consequences to the nation of his telling the truth would have been negligible. Had Bush, Cheney, et al not wildly exaggerated the strength of the case against Saddam, the consequences would have been enormous, and beneficial since we probably wouldn’t be at war right now.
The land armed forces are severely strained by keeping 150000 total troops, approximately 30000 combat forces, in Iraq in addition to their other worldwide duties. The conventional part of the war was very successful although against a second rate power that had never recovered from the previous war. In fact, there was little actual combat against the Iraqi army in this war.
We are either unwilling or unable to provide enough armed forces to enforce law and order in Iraq so that the infrastructure, such as the oil industry, can be restored and people can go about their daily lives in relative safety. I call these things a limitation on what our armed forces can do.
And the fact that GW will do what he says he will do is what scares them and scares me. GW makes bad choices. The world is not entirely run from “war rooms.” The reception that GW got at the recent conference in Argentina doesn’t bode well for cooperation from the other American governments on trade or much of anything else. I don’t know what they are saying secretly in their war rooms, but publicly they are saying, “Up yous.”
Yeah, the two Clinton administrations were certainly tough times. Americans were afraid to travel anywhere in the world for fear they might be victims of terrorist groups engaged in slaughter. Sure, I remember it well.
Why wait, the facts are in. You are the panderer to deceit and your enemies have the better judgment.
Indeed your humble opinion has a great deal to be humble about.
Abe, it’s a sign of the rot having taken hold that Disfunctional cannot give a direct answer to the straightforward questions from you, or from me e.g.:
Did President Bush tell us the evidence of Iraqi WMD was certain?
Normal people have no trouble with such a simple inquiry. With the infected it’s a different story.
That thread contains yet more exhaustive evidence and arguments that there was a substantial deal of dishonesty involved in the Iraq affair from the very start throughout many US organs, including the White House and Bush himself.
One interesting link from that discussion (a link similar to one I already provided) is the following. I hope you won’t try to sweep this under the carpet too, Dishfunctional:
Now note the date on that piece: the information required to make an informed (as opposed to spoon-fed by the administration) decision on the Iraq matter was available to the American people and (in fact) most of the world before the invasion. I paid attention at the time. You didn’t, and still don’t seem willing to.
According to one of Dishfunctional’s arguments, the sort of evidence provided above would have to be the work of “negativists”, not of scientists, inspectors, reporters, and intelligence professionals. Is “negativist” the new label that the school of rhetorical equivocation applies to people and organizations in command of clear and well-supported facts that do not support a specific and untenable position?
Now, also from that very useful thread (but not new on the SDMB):
Iraq Intelligence Timeline. This will add further support to the points I already made from memory in my previous post. Let me know if your opinion of the president remains so pure and pristine even after careful consideration of the above.
Iraq Aluminium Tubes: Separating Fact From Fiction. Hopefully we won’t hear yet more equivocation on the Tubes. Suffice it to say that it was obvious at the time the Tubes were Crappy Evidence, yet it was insisted upon by the White House time and time again. Sheer and utter incompetence, or an attempt to stick to one’s story and achieve one’s goals? As David Simmons put it:
“If you, or your agent on your behalf, say that there is “no doubt” that something is the case when you and the agent know that what you are saying was surrounded by many qualifications as to its reliability, that’s an intent to deceive. GW and his coteries either knew that the intelligence wasn’t what they claimed it was or they incompetently didn’t know.”
If you actually do some reading into this matter (in particular the timelines), incompetence, while indubitably abundant in this administration, isn’t really a good fit to the situation, or (I should say) isn’t exclusively the problem we are facing here.
The basic message here is, as I have said before: do not assume that persons with obviously better researched views than yours are “jumping to conclusions” simply because you do not like those conclusions. And be careful how you pursue your little agenda of distortion: people here tend to see right through it, in spite of the flourish in your language and the metaphorical fake smile you are careful to include in your prose.
Man, what a week! Every time I turn around, there’s another fire to put out! I think that’s it for now, but I can’t be sure… too much smoke!
Speaking of which, I can see by the incrementally degenerating tone of our discussion here that I may be approaching the tolerance levels of some in this thread. In the interest of avoiding that ever-looming trip-wire, let me try tacking to port. Coming about!
OK. So, I can see that I’m getting my butt beat raggedy here. You guys are brutal, and you know it and you love it – a very dangerous mix. Never having been one to be easily intimidated by a polite but stern tongue-lashing, though, let me plow ahead, in the same boat, nonetheless, but on a decidedly different course.
It’s obvious to me that my appeals to nationalism, self-preservation and common sense have fallen on deaf ears. Although I may not understand entirely, I can accept that. I can also accept that my basic belief that the words “lie” and “covert” mean something shall forevermore be dismissed as a “hyper-legalism”, whereas your definition of “reliable evidence” is not. OK… although Evil One might want to Google “Bob Woodward Capitalist Pig” for an update on the rapidly revised Leftist definition of “covert”. But, all that aside, I’m willing to trim my sails here. I can see that you are deeply vested in formal rhetoric and debate techniques (and I admit I’m a pushover for fallacies), but then the forum is Great Debates. Fine. Your game, your rules, I withdraw.
BUT… for the sake of argument, let’s just say that I accept the “Bush lied” mantra; I accept that he knowingly misled us into war in Iraq. Let’s also say for the sake of that same argument that, when cast against the backdrop of all known reasons for telling a lie, I find Bush’s lies no more reprehensible than Clinton supporters found his, which I might add were committed under oath.
What makes their arguments any less idiotic than mine?
By the way, not to beat the sailing analogy to death or anything, but Steve Hayes does a pretty good job here of scuttling that “No Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection” canard, or should that be “cagal”. Neat word, but other than a loose inference from the context in which it was used, I’m afraid I don’t know what it means!
