Well I think this part of your assertion is debatable at best.
“Which solved a problem for Israel”.
Got rid of Saddam Hussein.
Created lots of new problems for Israel, true. A minor one are discussions like this, where there is open discussion of things that certain Israeli supporters do not want known. cf the Meersheim article.
This presupposes that the Israeli intelligence establishment is a pack of idiots who have no more notion of the true nature of the ME chessboard than the Bush Administration did. I would find that assertion hard to swallow.
Now, was it deliberate that you left off the possiblity she proposed that it was done to enrich defense contractors? Why, after she proposes two possibilities ands says there may be others and that she does not know which is correct, do you use the one of hers that alludes to Israel and then simply reword her “chess game” scenario to make Wolfy and his merry band look good? Expanding the “sphere of influence” is nothing more than the Great Game of the 19th century carried forward for another few years. (And Wolfy’s term paper was written years before GWB took office and was quoted favorably by him during the 2000 election campaign, despite other claims by him that were pretty much isolationist. Enshrining it in lofty language does not change its character. So I do not see where your posts are any different than hers, from that perspective.
In addition, you seem to have implied pretty strongly that she is driven by an “Israeli conspiracy” mindset, yet most of her questions prior to being driven into the “Israel” discussion were focused on big oil, defense contractors, Halliburton, etc. There is no evidence that she shares the idiotic mindset of the links in the OP.
FinnAgain, if you wish to tackle a supporter of “It’s Israel, stupid.” feel free to engage Sevastopol. I think you erroneously lumped you with the face into the same group and I think it has contorted your exchange with her.
As I was only discussing the intellectual dishonesty and absurdity of that single posibility, yes, leaving off the other considerations was deliberate.
I reworded her chess analogy in accord with what she claims to be evidence.
In addition, speculation about helping the American economy and the American arms industry, at the very least, have national security and national intersts as motivating factors and doesn’t require us to suppose that our government was doing anything “for” a foreign power due to a pro-Zionist conspiracy in their midst. It requires fewer leaps of faith.
Well, I’m not debating its character. I think it suffered from numerous fundamental and fatal flaws, I believe that their rational and their means of accomplishing it were screwed up from the word ‘go’. Etc, etc, etc… I’ve gone on record as having said all that and more, quite a few times.
But that’s not the issue. The issue here is whether or not the US went to war “for” Israel. Ywtf’s position is really not all that different from sevastopol’s. Indeed, they use much of the same rhetoric, logic, and evasions.
And on that count, the prime evidence cited are nebulous “Israel connections” while connections to any other government on the planet are totally ignored by the conspiracy mongers, and PNAC papers.
PNAC papers which are first disingenously described as being “pro-Israel” rather than “Pro-US interests via the use of allies in the region.” And, of course, after they pretend that those PNAC papers are evidence, they ignore some of who wrote the papers but not others. The evidence, it seems, is selective. It’s evidence of conspiracy in someone with a Zionist dad and a sister in Israel, but it’s evidence of nothing in others.
So I don’t have to feel that the PNAC’s strategy was wise, or right, or moral, or anything of that sort. All I have to deal with is the “dual-loyalties” canard, the misuse of those documents to ‘prove’ that we went to war “for” Israel, etc…
Wolfy isn’t the “good guy”, but neither is there any evidence that his goals were anything other than the enrichment of our nation and its global standing by using strategic alliances and the use of force.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
I didn’t say that she shares the same mindset. I’d say she’s much closer to sevastopol in that respect. For instance, they both make the same sort of claims of traitorous US politicans acting “for” Israel, and both use the same disingenuous dodges like:
There’s much more similarity between their positions than you allow for tom, the only real differences being those of degree, like the level of dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty sevastopol has routinely used vs what ywtf has used.
Why do you believe Halliburton has anything to do with the war, as you say here? Awarding a no-bid contract to Halliburton doesn’t translate into improving national security, no matter how loosely you define it. Any money that comes to that company comes out of the taxpayer’s pocket, so we only make ourselves poorer by starting wars to benefit it. Did Cheney have to hoodwink Bush into giving him all this free money? Is there some secret pro-Halliburton cabal plotting to take over the White House? The night before Bush stood before Congress and asked permission to invade Iraq, did Cheney and friends slip a pill in Bush’s drink night and run a train on him?
Why must the Israel question be portrayed as such as intractable impossibility, while Halliburton is basically treated like a given?
So freaking what?
You are the only one who has said (and insisted and repeated) that you with the face is interested in a “pro-Zionist conspiracy.” It is all in your head.
At the beginning, she asked why considering that possibility among others had to be off the table or a sign of anti-semitism, but her consistent point throughout several dozen posts (and all the posts up to the point where I first posted) was that we simply do not know what prompted the administration’s actions, but that their lies call into question any claims that they acted in the interest of the U.S. Only you keep turning that around to imply (or worse) that it is specifically about Israel or Zionism or Judaism. The later posts where she has touched on an Israel oriented conspiracy have been in direct response to posts by you and others addressing that specific issue. You have even made it a point, when she was trying to stay true to her initial point that the question is wide open, involving lots of possble scenarios, of twisting her words to claim she is focusing on the Jewish element only when the Jewish neo-cons were involved, which is a total corruption of her stance.
You are imposing your own personal filter on her comments and your claims are not supported by the text of her posts.
I’ve already corrected you once, so that you continue to distort what I actually said is quite strange.
I’ve already dealt with this and shown you are dishonestly making up something. Why you are repeating such an obvious falsehood is beyond me.
What did I actually say both before and after I spoke out possibilities?
I’ll leave it up to readers to wonder why you’d claim something that your own cite shows to be false, for a second time, once I already pointed out your dishonesty. Ah well.
I’m surprised tom, I’ve never before seen you make a statement that’s so obviously false. You know full well that ywtf has not once, but several times, stated that she believes those with “Israel connections” acted out of motivations that did not have to do with American natioal security. That she’s insinuated time and time again, that a ‘pro-Israel’ faction put Israeli concerns before our own country’s.
Or is this just another little quibble tom, as she named the conspiracy “pro-Israel” and not"pro-Zionist?"
It’s not in my head tom, and you know it. It’s in her posts.
tom, why are you voicing this untruth?
First, before you posted, she said
After, of course, a discussion of how the OSP was stacked with “pro-Israel” people. So, clearly, she was saying that rational people would think “well, gee, maybe “pro-Israel” special interests are behind this war, and not national defense.”
Moreoever she was not arguing from a disinterested stance tom.
She did not simply idly speculate about how we couldn’t trust the admnistration. She engaged in a campaign of innuendo, and continually has cited things as evidence of a conspiracy.
Again tom, why such a patently obvious untruth? She has spoken, many times, about “pro-Israel” influence. You’re really going to honestly claim that it has nothing to do with Israel or Zionism? Really?
Will you at least retract your error, tom?
I’m sure that you should remember her posting things like:
Why, tom, would you make such an massively incorrect claim as to pretend that I was somehow inventing claims of a “pro-Israel agenda”, or that a “pro-Israel agenda” could be described as a Zionist agenda? And why ignore that this wasn’t a disinterested statement of uncertainty, but again an accusation of evidence of a “pro-Israel agenda”?
As for saying specificaly “about” Judaism, I haven’t. I have pointed out that massive intellectual dishonesty inherent in looking only at Jewish members of the administration, but that’s neither here nor there.
Again tom, you are making a false claim that is very easily refuted by reading the text. I pointed out that she was, with intelletual dishonesty, ignoring that her “damaging evidence” pointed equally to PNAC members like Rummy and Cheney, but she handwaved them away and said that their motivation was money, and not the “Pro-Israel agenda” that was backed up by “evidence”. Even though the same exact evidence should’ve incriminated them.
???
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7770351&postcount=65
In response to lemur686’s reponse to spoke-'s post, in which lemur686 asks whether Israel “tricked” the U.S. into war, you with the face indicates that she does not consider using influence the same as trickery, then asserts that we do not know why the administration lied us into a war and asks why any particular scenario should be off-limits for consideration.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7770846&postcount=68
She notes that there could be many reasosn why we went to war, then again asks why we are supposed to simply ignore one of the many possibilities. She then indicates that she is offended by people using a knee-jerk repsonse to refuse to look at the possibility while noting that it is only one of many possibilities.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7771870&postcount=84
She supports spoke-'s comment that we cannot afford to have sacred cows and that if the prevalence of oil or defense interests are prevalent in the White House we should look at those and if any other interests are there, they should be available to be examined, as well. I suspect that you will see this as some sort of code to implicate Israel, but that is not what she said.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7772145&postcount=85
You raised the spectre of the old anti-semitism line in connection with spoke-, then transferred it onto her, as well.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7772558&postcount=89
She responded to your attack, noting that regardless of convergent agendas, she felt that if a policy was not directly beneficial to the U.S. it was not appropriate. She made no mention of any Israel conspiracy and her comments could just as easily be applied to oil or defense interests. You are the one making Israel the centerpiece of the discussion, despite her efforts to keep the discussion more broadly based.
She also made a point of noting that queastions are not the same as accusations. And, while leading questions are, indeed, one tactic to insert accusations through innuendo, you, not she, are the one posing the leading questions at this point.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7774578&postcount=95
You replied to her allusion to Wolfy’s term paper (in which she made no reference to the author, nor did she make any accusation that anyone was working for another country) with a fairly disingenuous claim that one cannot use old documents to discern current beliefs. Given Wolfy’s persistent efforts to promote his paper, resulting in the PNAC letter, the old documents are quite relevant to the current mess. And, again, at this point she has made no accusation regarding pro-Israeli influences, and has simply explained that questions should not be pre-emptively shut down in the manner that you appear to be trying to close that discussion.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7775551&postcount=103
you with the face responded to your allegations. First she asserted that regardless the source of the decision, she opposed any action that was taken extra-legally for falsely asserted motives and that did not have a direct benefit to the U.S.
Since you kept inserting Israel into the discussion, (ands inserting comments about “semi=traitorous rogues” that she had not actually made), she wondered whether your reaction would be the same if it was shown that the war was initiated for the purpose of war profiteering or oil. Following on her declaration that she opposed any extra-legal war, she then asks why the opposition toward or questioning of the war should change just because it was done (still illegally) for the purpose of supporting “allies in the region.” At this point she does make an ironic remark regarding the number of “allies” we actually have in the region, but she does not do so in a way that would imply that we were doing it “for Israel.”
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7775815&postcount=104
The discussion is beginning to break down with lots of asumptions regarding what the other poster has or should say.
You accuse her of engaging in strawman logic–rather ironic given the number of assertions you have ascribed to her that she has not made at this point.
You then go on to make an issue regarding the fact that you accuse her of excluding Cheney and Rumsfeld from her accusations–ignoring the point that she has not launched any direct accusations at Wolfowitz or Perle or the others. It appears, at this point, that you may be conflating her posts with those of other posters.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7776788&postcount=107
And here the discussion really starts to shatter.
She notes that you have claimed we had many reasons for the war, but claims she does not recall any such long list unless it was a fairly brief statement of supporting other countries in the Middle East. She then asserts that, in her view, neither the countries named nor the U.S. were under imminent threat and that the war was, therefore, unjustified.
She then responds to a number of your points, sometimes using your language, but I note, here, the the points to which she is compelled to address are all based on inferences and accusations you have laid out that are not actually things she has said.
And I am not wandering through the rest of the thread to continue this analysis, but it is pretty clear that at the point where you and she began actually discussing Israel, she had NOT been making any cryptic references that implied dual loyalties or a pro-Israel agenda, or anything else except in the broader context of not putting any discussion off the table for analysis. You are the one who keeps trying to get her to “admit” that she has some agenda of accusing nefarious pro-Israel people of being "really’ responsible for the situation.
Her later responses regarding Isrtael are mostly there because you held the discussion at that place.
I’m sorry, but you have a very definite filter on how you are reading her posts. perhaps you simply conflated her posts with those of spoke- and Sevastopol, but your claims that she is “like” Sevastopol are an inference that the posts do not support.
!!!
“raised the spectre”? Cool, I’m a necromancer!
But no… I only pointed out that the argument veers awfully close to anti-semitic canards, that without proof that’s all it sounded like, and that spoke- had accused me of being a zionist patsy posting things in GD with a hidden agenda of supporting Israel. :rolleyes:
Then I took issue with ywtf’s logic. I “transfered” nothing, at all, to her. Odd that your chacterization of my post is based not on what I said, but your interpretation of it.
First, tom, you are inventing a different set of events when you claim that I “attacked” her, or “transfered” anything to her. I took issue with faulty epistemology, that’s all.
I focused on one of her claims and examined its support. How vile of me! I was discussing Israel as if it was the centerpiece of a thread all about Israel and the Iraq war.
Bull, tom. Simply fantasy. “Exactly. If the Office for Special Plans was disproportionately stacked with oil tycoons or ex-defense contractors who have a documented record of advocating regime change for the stated purpose of increasing access to oil and/or making money AND this record far precedes the official justification that was given for war, I should hope most rational people would think “well, gee, maybe oil/defense contracting special interests are behind this war and not national defense.”” isn’t a leading question?
In a pig’s eye.
She had just made her coy accusation that one should say “well, gee, maybe [Israel considerations] are behind the war and not national defense.”
Why you deliberately ignore that is a strange question to ponder.
As is why, now, you are content to talk about what she is alluding to, but if I do the same thing, I’m dishonestly saying things that aren’t in her text.
If anything, it was an allusion to her previous statement:
It is disingenuous to state a fact? Come now.
So you can quote, anywhere at all, where she made that argument? No? So old documents alone, without that connection, aren’t proof of current beliefs? Ya don’t say… I should’ve pointed that out, or something.
Pre-emptively? Give me a break. Pointing out that they have to be based on proper methodology, logic, and epistemology is ‘shutting them down’? If an hypothesis is not much more than an intellectually dishonest whispering campaign, then it’s not “pre-emptive” to call bullshit on it.
Nor is it “pre-emptive” to call bullshit on the clear implication that a “rational” person would say "“well, gee, maybe ‘Israel considerations’ are behind the war and not national defense.”
Yet again, bull. She had already stated, quite clearly:
That’s a clear syllogism, tom.
1.If the OSP, a body that had a direct influence on defense policy were stacked with people of a certain ideology, we should assume that their special interst was behind the war, and not national defense.
2. The OSP was stacked with numerous people who had a pro-Israel agenda.
3. Thus, one should assume that the “Israel special interst” was behind the war, and not national defense.
QED.
As I’ve already shown, not only has she done so, you’ve ignored them. Up to and including ignoring her saying “strong supporters of Israel sit in positions of power that have direct bearing on defense policy” and claiming that I was the only one “inserting Israel” into the discussion.
(underlining mine)
(This is getting rather repetitive.)
I’d disagree with that, especially since you’re filtering them so heavily, that you’ve totally ignored her saying certain things. That even after she says “strong supporters of Israel sit in positions of power that have direct bearing on defense policy” you ignore that, and claim that she’s said nothing about pro-Israel influences.
Ah well.
Her statement was directly related to the question of why anyone would look to a connection with Israel. She did not offer that as the reason why the neo-cons acted the way they did.
We have a situation where there are many possible reasons for the adminstiration’s actions. Some posters have claimed that any asserted connection with Israel is nothing more than anti-semitism (which was true in the linked articles of the Op, but was not true of you with the face). She pointed out why, depsite the claims that there was no reason to suspect a connection with Israel, there were, in fact reasons to include them among the possible sources of the decision. You have used that response to a previous challenge to color everything that she has posted.
I’m sorry, but you have failed to persuade me.
She offered that as a valid “connect the dots”, and you’re going to claim that she didn’t offer that as a reason whyt he neo-cons acted as they did?
And, let’s look at those reasons she gave that were directly related to why anybody would look to a connection with Israel:
- Bullshit. The statement that Israel is the only ally that would benefit from a strong American military presence is either ignorant or dishonest.
- Bullshit intellectual dishonesty, and it doesn’t explain why Israel is singled out, but Saudi Arabia which has a massively powerful lobby isn’t mentioned.
- A bullshit leading statement that boils down to an argument by insinuation.
She presented all of those as good reasons for suspecting that things were done for Israel instead of for national security. Not as an unsound and invalid argument, but a valid exercise in “connect the dots”.
You want to cast her statements as some disinterested analysis when it was anything but.
Again, not true. I have used the clear syllogism she set up.
And it is intersting that instead of responding to a challenge by saying “There are no good reasons, but these are the traditional conspiracy reasons” she said “These are good reasons to play connect the dots.”
No tom, she didn’t. She used out some intellectually dishonest cherry picking to incriminate Israel and ignore Saudi Arabia, a patent falsehood that only Israel could possibly benefit from our military invovement in the region, and proof-by-innuendo that since there were “pro-Israel” interests at work, that people might have put Israel’s intersts before our own national security.
Or, may I remind you what a wise ol’ man said about whether or not administration members might’ve been motivated by Israel to put aside US concerns for Israeli ones?
So which is it? Did ywtf assert that Israel had anything more than a tangential relationship, or did she make no assertions? Is she wrong in making those assertions, or was she pointing out valid reasons that someone might make those assertions?
Were her assertions wrong, and thus in error, and thus something to be dismissed?
Or were they right, and thus not in error, and thus a valid topic to be considered?
Erm… okay.
Considering that you started by saying that she was making assertions and was wrong in those assertions, well, you were already convinced.
I’m not sure why you’ve argued as you have, but that quote shows rather plainly what you think about the strength of her assertions. Ah well.
Distort what you said? Ha! Should I blow this up in big bold font like I did the last time you called me a liar?
Sorry, but the little caveat at the end of your post does not negate the rather matter-of-fact speculation you made about Halliburton and oil in the previous paragraph. I’m tired of you trying to run away from things you’ve said in the past in your quest to portray me as some anti-Semitic liar. Talk about your dishonorable arguing. Man the fuck up already.
Why is Halliburton a “possibility” while Israel is a preposterous figment of some fringe fanatic conspiracy theory?
This was the only assertion that you need to be concerned with.
Now why this has put such a bee in your bonnet, I have no idea. Perhaps tom came to realize, after reviewing the last two pages worth of posts, that I’m not making any factual declarations about Israel’s involvement; my thesis is that there is no justification is for shutting down debate about the subject when there is enough evidence out there which suggests that it may be one of several motives for the war.
And it’s funny how every time you repost something I’ve said as if to say “look, she’s being an dishonest Jew hater right here!” it becomes more and more obvious that you are only fighting against your own imagination.
spoke-, I apologize for taking so long to reply. My time for the board is very limited these days. And I realize the thread had moved far ahead (and sometimes sideways) in the meanwhile. But I consider it bad manners to ignore your posts, especially when you seem to argue in good faith.
First, a minor point. USA is the sole super-power. This status, I believe, does not only yield benefits, but also entails some responsibilities. One of these is considering “the World’s best interests” in addition to (not instead of) the American citizenry.
But even disregarding that, I still fail to see why you assume that (1) America’s best interest (including long-term ones, and wide-sense ones) were not the primary concern at play, and (2) it was Israel instead (in addition to a bunch of other “special interests” I will address in a minute).
Didn’t the Clinton administration promote regime change in Iraq?
However, I will quit this part of the debate. I do not have sufficiently knowledge of the Bush administration motives and explanations at the start of the war (at the time I was busy proofing my bomb shelter and making sure every member of my family had a functional gas mask – which may serve as a hint to the real value Israel stood to gain from the war).
I still don’t see why it was obvious… but I guess you see things differently from your perspective.
Naturally, I am more sensitive to Israel being accused. However, like I tend to quote in these cases, being paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.
Doing a full-scale research about what is the prominent reason given to the war will require more than I can spend (after all, I’m not being paid 
)
I did a small search, though.
I searched for the word “iraq” in the threads. It appears many times (more than the maximal 750 results), so I cut the parameters, until reaching that searching only GD for the past 6 months gives “only” 340 results.
I then cut it with Israel, Saudi, “defense industry”, and Halliburton (“oil” is too short to search by).
Now, I realize the results are nothing of a proof. For example, this very thread contain all of the words, while discussing mainly Israel, and I’m sure there are examples to the contrary. But I still think the results are interesting.
So, Iraq + Halliburton gives: 8 results.
Iraq + Saudi: 49 results.
Iraq + Defense industry: 2 results
And the winner: Iraq + Israel, with 75 hits.
I also did a similar exercise outside the board, using Google. Off course, rather than beginning with “Iraq” (which would give Israel a large “advantage”), I started with “second Iraq war” – with 64,000 hits.
Adding Halliburton: 1,490
Adding Saudi: 12,400
Adding “defense industry”: 265
And “defense industries”: 63
With Google, I added also “oil companies” to get 973 hits.
And finally, adding Israel gave 29,000
Coincidence?
Sevastopol, you may safely assume I did not reply due to “real life”. I foresee negligible danger of me agreeing with you.
Continuing you latest post to me:
No, no no! You’ve been her e much longer than I have, you should know the drill by now. You make the claim, it’s up to you to back it up. With facts. Supported by cites. From reliable sources.
So, pointing to a solitary wiki article, and then sending me to do your job for you won’t fly.
And if you have historical evidence, or anything else, let’s hear it!
Which part of Zionist conspiracy don’t you agree to? You said there was a neo-con agenda aimed to use US military to benefit Israel. So is it an open agenda, thus not conspiracy? Or do you distinguish Israel for Zionism? Or maybe neo-cons support Israel without Israel’s knowledge?
I also realize you picked the links. Then re-linked to them. And claimed that they were “similarly informative”. Don’t evade your links.
You seem overly fond of this quote. So, let me just say that, if anything, this quote serves more to tell us something about the one being quoted (Gen. Franks) than about Feith. The same guy also stated at another time that: “I would put Doug Feith in a category as a brilliant man with some military understanding”. If you’ll actually take the time to read your link, you may find that most people tread him as a smart fellow.
OK. Since you seem to like clear and short sentences, here’s where you failed:
You said: " a primary part of the American Neo-Con agenda has always been the use of the US military to benefit the security of Israel."
So, you need to show that there exist an agenda of the neo-cons, that has always suggested that US military should be used to benefit the security of Israel as opposed to the interest of the US. Clear?
So, to back your unsupported allegations, you present me with a quote of another person’s unsupported allegations. Hmmm.
So why do you keep bringing him as you pseudo-proof?
The Pit? Nah. Doesn’t worth my time. I hardly even go there unless someone links to a specific thread.
However, I guess you should get some credit for not adding people to your ignore list. Doing that, while not being “the fucking stupidest thing on earth” is certainly one of the most childish behaviors possible on message boards.
Yes dishonestly, and with full knowledge, as you’ve now been corrected twice.
Sure, if you want to show, yet again, that your argument is entirely intellectually dishonest, that you’re not looking for the truth, and that all you want to do is cherrypick things until you can find a phrase you can gnaw on, even if you have to deliberately distort what was said in order to engage in your little song and dance.
“Sorry”, but you are yet again letting your biased and intellectually dishonest agenda cloud what was actually said. If I saw, twice that I don’t know/believe that I have an answer, and that I’m just spinning hypotheticals, it is dishonest for you to claim that I “believe” something. If you’ve already been corrected, it’s not just dishonest, it’s intellectually dishonest and an obvious lie.
Stop lying.
Much like you dishonestly cherrypick PNAC documents and ignore what they actually say to spin your conspiracy theory, so to do you distort what I’ve actually said. Like I stated before, you have no interst in the truth, at all.
I’m not running away from anything I said in the past. You want to accuse me of advancing a hypothetical I said, specically, twice in the post you’re citing, that I didn’t believe, go hog wild. I advanced a hypothetical that I said, twice, I didn’t believe. You got me! I better man up and let you engage in your typical cherrypicked dishonesty now.
Further, while you have often lied, I’ve never portrayed you as anti-semitic. That means you’re lying in the same breath as complaining about being called a lair. Not exactly the best course of action.
Gee… could it perhaps be for all the reasons already elaborated upon in this thread? That your position is based on dishoensty, cherrypicking, premises which are out and out false, and accusations which do not fall on gentiles because, by fiat, you declare that even though they have the same evidence to “incriminate them”, that they must love money more than PNAC ideals. An argument based on ignorancy and ennui that can’t even be bothered to pretend that it’s serious about using the PNAC as evidence, etc, etc, etc…
You want some cheese with that whine?
And no, you’ve never shown any evidence, at all. This is why your argument is intellectually dishonest, cherypicked, and deliberately distorted to serve an agenda. You are unperterbed that in order to make your case for this conspiracy theory, that you have to out and out lie about events and why the conspiracy theory shapes up the way it does.
When your argument as to its ‘reaonablity’ starts out with a willful lie, you know your position is sunk.
“1)they are our only ally that could stand to benefit from a strong American military presence in that area”
When the very “evidence” you used shows you to be lying, distorting what was actually said, and deliberately crafting an intellectually dishonest version of a larger piece, your position is sunk.
When you explain away the intellectual dishonesty of your position by, via fiat, declaring that Rummy and Cheney love money above all, so they can’t be accused, but Wolfy has a sister who lives in Israel and a Zionist dad, so he’s a prime suspect… your position is sunk.
What’s really pathethic is that you keep whining that you are simply being dismissed, when, in fact, each and every single reason, conspiratory innuendo, and cherrypicked dishonest bit of rhetoric of yours is not only entered into the debate, but responded to, rebutted, and done away with.
As you’ve already shown, you don’t want the truth. You don’t care about proper epistemology. You don’t care about basing your position on facts, or accurate representations of documents. You just want to massage facts to create a “plausible” conspiracy theory.
In other words, you’d fit in real great at the next OSP.
Eh, fuck it. I’ve said what I have to say about the quality and proof behind someone wants to discuss a more realistic and plausible (rather than merely possible) theory, that’d be real neat.
For instance, tom, since you’ve already stopped by the tea party, could you elaborate on your claim that it would be an error to assert that Israel had had more than a tangential relationship to our invasion of Iraq?
That does seem to be something that we can agree upon. Pr’aps you would like to offer up a position as to what those tangential relationships are?
That seems like a more more reasonable position to debate than using innuendo to sneak supposition in through the door and pretend that it’s plausibility; that people in the administration either pulled a fast one, or simply happed to be all agreed, that we should commit to war and occupation for Israel and not for our own selfish motives in which Israel plays a part.
Game?
It is a mistake to think I am attempting to persuade persons with an overt and entrenched position. As I stated if you want to identify yourself as such, then you are outside the scope of my intended readership. While this forum is addressed to ‘debate’ I’ve moved to the position that in complex issues it is best to provide enough of a starting point for people to find things out for themselves. * “Oh look what I found out”* is so much more satisfying than “Well once again that nice Mr Sevastopol showed me the answers, wasn’t that so sweet of him”, don’t you think? I do.
You’ve overlooked a recent post of mine. Regard the next one.
They aren’t my words. If I believed there was a zionist conspiracy, I’d have said so. As it is I can’t imagine all the consequences of that phrase, but not having used it I’m not responsible for such.
See next post.
“Unsupported”, yet you attack the support I provide. That’s a bit odd now. In substance the quote is not an “allegation.” It is a person’s first hand recollection of their dealings with Feith in the relevant time and place. It may not persuade you whatsoever, however that reflects more on yourself than the quality of the evidence.
Keep bringing him up, as in, once? Anyway, you may have noted several other posters have developed alternative lines of evidence. Why confuse things with a duplication of their evidence.