:dubious: Case in point, your ignoring of the following:
I see that the Conservative whine-fest has meandered over to GD, but I still fail to see exactly what it is they are whining about.
Does it not strike anyone as more than a bit ironic that the OP, an avowed Bush-backer, opens a new thread to complain about the lack of participation of Bush-backers in an already open thread about Bush? Pray tell, what stopped him from posting in the refenced thread to begin with? Surely by doing so he would have advanced the very principle of “fair and balanced” that he is here complaining about. Much of the same logic applies to any number fo the Usual Suspects that have now gone underground and only surface in threads such as these.
Got something to say? Bring it on. Unless you can prove otherwise – and I submit that you won’t be able to as this is, AFAIK, the fourth thread where you’ve now failed to make said point – in no way does this MB compare to the sterile evironment your Dear Leader likes to inmerse himself in.
Get off the cross; summer’s short and we’ll be putting to wood to better use in no time.
A libertarian. Commonly confused with conservatives on this board.
The “you guys” was poor wording, but I just meant “you guys, in this thread, who insist on the BUSHLIED argument over Iraq being an imminent threat”.
One round is fine with me. Yes, that was the point of his rhetoric.
We were discussing the “imminent threat” case. Now you’re moving the goalpost, although I do understand what you’re trying to say and I don’t disagree with you.
First, I’ve always opposed the war, not just “now”. Secondly, I’m not blaming “you guys” for the war, simply pointing out that a BUSHLIED debate is a fruitless endeavor. If you can find a post where I have blamed “you guys”, I’ll be happy to take it back. Maybe the confusion is in the verb “let” which I used-- same word in present or past tense. I meant it in the present tense, not that you “let him pass” during the buildup to war. Present tense, as in the debates that we have on this board to this day. If there was cofunsion over that, I apologize.
[sorry for the hi-jack, but this is illustrative]
Even out of context (?), the statements seem to stand for themselves:
Sounds clearly like Kerry is talking about the war on terror in general, not about one particular aspect. The statement Kerry made makes no sense if he’s only referring to a color-coding scheme.
Anyway, I will grant that Sam Stone’s interpretation of what Kerry meant is likely to be less nuanced than what Kerry might have really meant (not certain, because we can’t read Kerry’s mind). But at the same time, Sam’s interpretation looks reasonable to me.
And yet, Sam’s interpretation looks unreasonable to you. Is that because one of us is stupid, unscrupulous, or intellectually dishonest? Not at all, I say. It’s because of the differing filters we use to integrate “facts” and “truth” into our worldviews.
Why don’t you calm down and explain where I am wrong? Show me how it is you would like to see debates go around here. For example, right here and now, you are putting words in my mouth and then calling it “horseshit,” and then making not-so-subtle comments about my cognitive abilities, or at least my ability to discern hoo-hah from shinola. Again, if this is what you and other conservatives are hoping for, may you never get it.
But, regarding the case in point, please explain to me how it is fair to claim that Kerry’s position is one thing by citing an extemporaneous remark and ignoring more explicitly prepared statements regarding his position?
Imagine you make a remark about something (X), and I say “Do you believe X?”, and you respond, “Well, in point of fact, I believe X*Y.” Is it fair for me to then go around saying “Hey, Shodan believes X! Isn’t that a pile of horseshit?!”
I don’t agree. In my view, the Bush administration is guilty of incompetence, yes. But, in my view, in those cases in which you can argue that there was no literal dishonesty, that is, a knowing falsehood, there was a reckless disregard for the truth.
And what I meant by saying that the argument for incompetence was stronger, I was agreeing with a comment saying that all other things being equal, it is objectively worse for an administration to be only incompetent rather than only dishonest. Here there is plenty of evidence to establish both.
Okay, although I was not exactly moving the goalpost, but responding to another item in your reply.
No, I was confunsed. I took it to mean “allowed him to get away with stuff in the past because we were somehow fixated upon whether he was telling the truth.”
So you acknowledge that the extemporaneous remark does not reflect the entirety of Kerry’s position (which was explicitly stated in many other readily accessible resources), but it is still fair for Sam Stone to pretend that it did reflect the entirety of Kerry’s position? How is this legitimate?
It seems more like to me the selection of one bit of data and the rejection of better bits of data to serve a pre-determined goal.
Again with the semantic cop-out. “Bush didn’t use those exact words so liberals are a bunch of liars!”
Definitions:
Imminent threat - Man pointing loaded gun at your head.
Grave and gathering danger - Man loading gun while muttering threats.
Saddam Hussein - Man whom we had loads of evidence didn’t own a gun muttering threats.
Distinct, but ever so subtle in their differences. The first two call for the same threat of deadly force if the man doesn’t stop while if a cop used deadly force on the third he is likely to lose his badge.
In these situations a cop sometimes needs to make split-second decisions. In diplomacy you usually have more time. Saddam had been a homeless guy on the corner talking to himself for twelve years. He had been no particular threat to his neighbors in that time and anyway, he kept that Iranian family we don’t like much better parked in their house. Every so often Officer Blix patted him down and found nothing besides a rusty pocket knife he used to cut himself. Saddam was no big threat, just a bum with a loud mouth and a long rap sheet, and everybody knew it. Sure, lots of folks thought he might have a .38 stashed in his shopping cart but he wasn’t waving it around and, hell, there are several other bums who were waving their .38s.
Saddam was supposed to be the easy one. We could take him down with no real risk because we knew he didn’t have what we said he did. In quick; out a few months later, draped in glory and all the sleazy things we said before going in forgotten. Since things didn’t turn out that way Bush has been splashing around the quagmire, trying to find a handhold to pull himself out, and all the while saying, “I told you it was going to be exactly like this.” Uh, no, he didn’t. Nothing has turned out the way he and his people said it would. Few flowers in the streets, no six months–maximum–and we’re out, and no WMDs. None, or before somebody cites those rusty and expired gas shells found buried, none that were useable. And no evidence that there was a serious program to make more. There was no threat, “imminent” or merely “grave and growing,” and Bush was told that long before the war started. If he had listened to the professionals instead of bums like Chalabi who just wanted Saddam’s street corner one thousand nine hundred twenty eight coalition soldiers and God only knows how many thousand Iraqis would still be alive. Bush has their blood on his hands and your response is to quibble about the difference between “imminent” and “grave and growing.”
To me, Sam Stone’s use of the word “primarily” gets him off the hook here. Use of “primarily” suggests to me that Sam understands that there Kerry never categorically ruled out military action to combat terrorism. I see Sam and Kerry disagreeing about the focuses of approach, but not necessarily on the identities of the specific tools available to implement a given approach.
IOW, I don’t see that Sam Stone has painted Kerry into quite so small a corner.
Well … again … what is “better”? I don’t think there’s an absolute definition of “better information” that everyone can agree to. Filters again. 
That has already been done. Sam Stone made a claim about what Kerry said. He produced a cite showing that Kerry had said exactly that. You, realizing the strength of Sam’s position, immediately resorted to an ad homimen and characterized him as “dishonest”, much as you did in the Swift Boat discussion.
You want nuance? OK, how’s about this for nuance.
You and others like you would like to characterize the war in Iraq as being solely and only about WMD. You then claim that the fact that no significant amounts of WMD have been found completely discredits the whole case for the invasion.
Fine - I now produce a cite detailing Bush’s position in far greater detail, and describing the other reasons also given for the invasion.
I now look forward to your unequivocal condemnation as “dishonest” anyone who suggests that the invasion of Iraq was about WMD.
Right?
Regards,
Shodan
Please highlight anything in that pile of prime Bushit you’ve linked to, that legally justifies invading a sovereign nation other than an imminent threat as specifically provided by WMDs.
Thanx in advance.
Not the question addressed.
All Shodan needed to do is demonstrate that Bush has, in the past, expressed multi-pronged reasoning for invading Iraq (look at the immediate back-and-forth between Hentor and Shodan). Whether any part of that reasoning is legitimate is another matter.
(emphasis added in awe and admiration…)
It’s a beaut, Shodan! You’re really getting the knack of this Bushpeak thingy! Nuance city! What a lovely bit of misleading! “No significant amounts”! A regular humdinger! At the same instance, you admit what everyone already knows and yet manage to imply some qualification, that no “significant” amounts were found, but maybe some were found, but they weren’t “significant”.
So what we told was not complete and utter horseshit, but somewhat mistaken? A bit off the mark?
Again … not what is being argued.
Sorry, not willing to get into a semantic nitpick free for all – which is obviously the only thing Bush-apologist have left. Witness the “not significant amount of WMDs” Bushit I let pass. If is not legitimate, it’s dishonest.
Period.
Excellent point, Shodan. But don’t expect a reasoned response, unfortunately. The “WMD is the only reason we went to war” meme has grown quite strong here.
That’s all well and good … but that’s not what Hentor and Shodan are going on about. Not at all a semantic nitpick. :shrug:
Sure. Nuances in Kerry’s position vis-a-vis TWAT. Hardly anything nuanced about invading a country that had fuck-all to do with same. A meaningless concept such as it is – The War Against Terror that is.
:::shrug:::
No, it isn’t; not quite.
The “WMD is the primary reason the public was given for going to war” idea is quite common, however. Justifiably, IMO.