or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CHENEY: Criticize me and you don't support the troops
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CHENEY: Criticize me and you don't support the troops - Page 2

post #41 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
It´s called "Naples Logic". Sort of like that gem that you can be biased but still be objective. Or Cheney re: Vietnam.

I´ve been following this discussion and the only thing I can say is....come on Rageous, blinders off for just a second.

Then I would say to you: read the thread again.

Had you looked at what I said, you'd see I have acknowldged the fact that what is being suggested as the underlying context of what Cheney said in the quote that started this all has been openly stated, I am aware that it has been stated, and disagree with that POV.

However, I disagree it was the meaning of THIS quote. I don't have to believe that EVERY time Cheney speaks it's about dems not supporting the troops even if I know he's openly said as much before.

If a guy has no problem stating it in the wide open, why would he hide it as a subplot to this speech? I don't think he has.

I think he's taking an even more aggregious position, as his words openly show: "Criticism is dishonest and harmful." That goes way above "Hey you're mean to me so you must not like them either!!!"

Quote:
A little less Fox would help too.

And fewer baseless assumptions by you wouldn't hurt either. I can't even agree, in a broad sense, with some of you without being a Fox lackey?

Quote:
And to everyone else. Lay off Dick Cheney the war hero.

You're annoying me, winking or not. If you come away think I'm going light on Cheney, you need to look at the irony of your "Sort of like that gem that you can be biased but still be objective." statement.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #42 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I'm making a big deal of it because you seem to not understand one can believe they are supportive, yet their actions can be harmful.

Rageous, you made a mistake. Re-read the paragraph in question:

Quote:
What were hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.



It's clear that Vice President Cheney is not talking about the Democrats' good intentions but the harmful consequences of their criticism against both the now disproved war rationale and the administration that pushed the rationale. Indeed, criticizing Cheney in this instance harms the troop. It's even more sweeping than Northgate initially proposed: from a rather indifferent "don't support" to an active "harming." You should have criticized Northgate for understating his remarks.
post #43 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I'm making a big deal of it because you seem to not understand one can believe they are supportive, yet their actions can be harmful.

I understand that it's possible, I just don't see that distinction being made in Cheney's comments. I didn't see him say "I know Democrats don't want to harm our troops, but..."

In any case, if Fitzgerald follows through, Cheney will be needing a lawyer soon. You seem to have the motivation and aptitude for such an endeavor.
post #44 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Rageous, you made a mistake. Re-read the paragraph in question:

It's clear that Vice President Cheney is not talking about the Democrats' good intentions but the harmful consequences of their criticism against both the now disproved war rationale and the administration that pushed the rationale. Indeed, criticizing Cheney in this instance harms the troop. It's even more sweeping than Northgate initially proposed: from a rather indifferent "don't support" to an active "harming." You should have criticized Northgate for understating his remarks.


???

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I disgaree with your original assertions, and I don't need to read what's not there to think what he said was dumb.

I think what's being said directly is dumb enough. I don't believe that criticizing a plan is harmful to the troops. I think valid concern (though being brought forth in an over the top manner not unlike most things in Washington) being spun as something reprehensibly harmful is ridiculous, because it is settting precedent that questioning is bad and therefor should not be done.

But I just don't read your perceived subtext. He is not saying (again, here) democrats do not support troops. He's saying their actions are harmful to them, which is quite different, although equally dumb, IMO

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Easy. While you look for the hidden meaning, I see him openly saying "questioning our methods is harmful and dishonest."

I find that much more appalling and frightening, but I guess I like to stick with the real dumb things ACTUALLY said, not the dumb things he might be hinting at.

My bad.

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
No, he's saying "criticize us and you're being harmful to the troops." That is plain and simple, because it's exactly what he's saying.

The "subtexts" of this quote are going to be different to each person based on their preconceived notions.

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
...I am saying Cheney is stating one, what I believe to be, falsehood and you're just blowing by it in search of a falsehood you want to see be hinted at and tear down. Why not just call him out on what he said? You waste time going after what you think he said, or the hidden messages only visible to the non-brainwashed. Look at exactly what he said, and discuss how stupid it is...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #45 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Then I would say to you: read the thread again.

No need to waste time on that. I know what I wrote and I know what you wrote.
Quote:
, I disagree it was the meaning of THIS quote. I don't have to believe that EVERY time Cheney speaks it's about dems not supporting the troops even if I know he's openly said as much before.

Cheney, if not most Reps(and the dummies who carry their water)have a pattern of calling everyone´s "patriotism" into question if they don´t agree with their policies. Almost every time. Pretty obvious.
Quote:
y has no problem stating it in the wide open, why would he hide it as a subplot to this speech? I don't think he has.

Why not? His whole introduction was a whining tirade. Maybe he and his writers thought they´d mix the direct insults with "subplots"?
Quote:
fewer baseless assumptions by you wouldn't hurt either. I can't even agree, in a broad sense, with some of you without being a Fox lackey?

Agree or disagree? I´m just trying to help.
Quote:
You're annoying me, winking or not.

Stop crying. That wasn´t directed at you anyways. Sorry if I touched a nerve. Didn´t know you were a Cheney admirer.
post #46 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Stop crying. That wasn´t directed at you anyways. Sorry if I touched a nerve. Didn´t know you were a Cheney admirer.

Hasn't my posting in this thread made that blatantly obvious? Some people NEVER pay attention.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #47 of 191
Former CIA director Stansfield Turner calls Cheney Vice President for Torture (with video clip of story)
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #48 of 191
President Bush: whistle-blower on war critics.

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
???

Right. The action of criticizing doesn't merely "not support" the troops. Rather, it actively harms the troops, according to Cheney. Northgate was right but he didn't go far enough.
post #49 of 191
There is something very wrong with how a lot of the active left-winged here argue. If you disagree just 10% or suggest an alternative reading which is not the most negative Bush reading then you are wrong or a Cheney admirer.

Its just as bad as the shifting WoMD/reason for the Iraq war explanation by the other side...
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #50 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
There is something very wrong with how a lot of the active left-winged here argue. If you disagree just 10% or suggest an alternative reading which is not the most negative Bush reading then you are wrong or a Cheney admirer.

I think your characterization is quite disingenuous, Anders. It seems to me that the reason this turned into a big disagreement wasn't because of some tendency "of a lot of the active left-winged here," I think it was the agressiveness of that rageous came out of the gates with. You only need to look at the first two posts to see what happened.

That said, I agree with rageous' points that he makes on this page, although I don't really see how they are any different than the original point and I honestly don't see the "believing they are doing good but really harming" distinction in the cheney quote. \

That's my $.02 anyway
post #51 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I think your characterization is quite disingenuous, Anders.

I hadn´t expected otherwise

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It seems to me that the reason this turned into a big disagreement wasn't because of some tendency "of a lot of the active left-winged here," I think it was the agressiveness of that rageous came out of the gates with. You only need to look at the first two posts to see what happened.

Would you point out for me what the problem with his two first posts? They are pretty much on the point. The only reason I see how they could be read as "agreesive" is if one have "my team" glasses on.

And even if there was something "agreesive" about them there is a lot of posts from rageous between them and the Cheney admirer post.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #52 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
I hadn´t expected otherwise

Why, because it is?
Quote:
Would you point out for me what the problem with his two first posts?

Didn't I just do that? Let's look at it:
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
That's an interesting message you exprapolated from the quoted text. Certainly I see a man taking a defensive stance. I find your interpretation to be rooted more in you own thoughts and feelings about the situation than based on what I read in your quote.

I don't really care that you have concluded what you have, and I'm not taking a position as to wether or not I agree or disagree with your general view, but I'm having a little trouble seeing such a blantantly dumb message, "Criticize me and you don't support the troops", hidden (or even out in the open) in what you chose to quote.


Apparently, if rageous disagrees just 10% or suggests an alternative reading then Northgate is wrong, irrational and just imagining "such a blantantly dumb message." Strange, too, because the distinction he's making is pretty trivial, amounting to little more than a rephrasing.
Quote:
The only reason I see how they could be read as "agreesive" is if one have "my team" glasses on.

Are you joking?
Quote:
And even if there was something "agreesive" about them there is a lot of posts from rageous between them and the Cheney admirer post.

So? His post set the tone and it's the first thing anyone reads from him. You've been using discussion boards for long enough to know how they work. It's hard to change the tone of a thread once it's been set.

On top of that, there are a number of people who participated in this thread that haven't even addressed rageous. And among the people who responded there isn't even the universal animosity you've characterized. Is BRussell just irrationally attacking him, too? No.
post #53 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Would you point out for me what the problem with his two first posts? They are pretty much on the point.

1) Read BRussell posts. Hell, maybe even my posts might show the faintest suggestion of disagreement.
2) It's not clear what exactly you agree with and what reasons exactly you think support them. You've got an inarticulate ditto of a response that I quoted.
post #54 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Why, because it is?

No. Because it would be consistent with my view on how some go teamers argue. "I disagree with your argument". "Well you are just disingenuous"

Quote:
Originally posted by giant

Didn't I just do that?

No. You just said he argued agressively in his two first post. Thats not the same as showing how he does that

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Let's look at it:

Apparently, if rageous disagrees just 10% or suggests an alternative reading then Northgate is wrong, irrational and just imagining "such a blantantly dumb message." Strange, too, because the distinction he's making is pretty trivial, amounting to little more than a rephrasing.

That you can´t see that the distinction he make is pretty important when trying to dischipher Cheneys message only shows how unclear the arguments gets when some people is trying to argue in politicl debates here. Yes, Cheney is the dark lord. But knowing that isn´t enough when discussing him. You have to show exactly how he is the dark lord.

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
And among the people who responded there isn't even the universal animosity you've characterized. Is BRussell just irrationally attacking him, too? No.

Did I say everybody had a "go team" attitude to political debate here?Luckily for the site some people are able to use good arguments.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #55 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
No. Because it would be consistent with my view on how some go teamers argue. "I disagree with your argument". "Well you are just disingenuous"



1. That wasn't the interaction we just had, so don't make stuff up. Deal with what's in front of you, not what you wish was in front of you.

2. Maybe you should try refraining from grouping people into your own imaginary classification system. That's just plain lazy.
Quote:
No. You just said he argued agressively in his two first post.

I guess you can't be bothered to look 1000 pixels up to see what I actually posted before telling me I said things I didn't say.

And how you could not see rageous' post as agressive is beyond me, but I guess your superior impartialiy and insight is why you have the coveted honor of being a trusted moderator in PO.
Quote:
That you can´t see that the distinction he make is pretty important when trying to dischipher...

Really, anders. The distinction is pretty minor and it's a matter of interpretation. It's not a point of fact that being discussed, it's a difference of opinion on what he's emphasizing. I really don't see why anyone is making a big deal out of it, other than because rageous came out swinging. But if you want to see the grand cayon in a creek bed, don't let me stop you.
Quote:
Did I say everybody had a "go team" attitude to political debate here?

I guess this is your interpretation. Have fun with that.

Not to mention how interesting it is that all of a sudden the person who argued with rageous the most is now exempt from the sweeping generalization you've made about the "go team" arguing with rageous.
post #56 of 191
Well you "win" this one Cheers

"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #57 of 191
Well, if that's how you were approaching it then no wonder. \
post #58 of 191
Actually, I wasn't implying Cheney said the dems supported, but were harming, the troops either. My entire point has been the speech wasn't about support or lack thereof. If it were, he would have just said it. It's not like he hasn't elsewhere.

Here, I believe, he's doing something even more egregious. No need to hint at lesser evils. He's clearly making even more provocative claims, right there for us all to see if we look.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #59 of 191
Somebody please explain how bringing the troops home is not supporting them?
How is being against war not supporting the troops?
In both cases they are much less likely to be killed...!
Is this support of the troops?

Is going to war and watching soldiers die in support of them...what the .. is the matter with this logic.
post #60 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by jamac
Somebody please explain how bringing the troops home is not supporting them?
How is being against war not supporting the troops?
In both cases they are much less likely to be killed...!
Is this support of the troops?

Is going to war and watching soldiers die in support of them...what the .. is the matter with this logic.

Your asking these questions indicates that you do not support the troops. Otherwise, you would be clear on what constitutes troop supportage.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #61 of 191
It's unfortunate that Jamac feels he needs to adopt the principles of Michael Moore and the extreme left wing of the Democratic party.

Perhaps we should launch an ethics probe.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #62 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Your asking these questions indicates that you do not support the troops. Otherwise, you would be clear on what constitutes troop supportage.

Not by my choice I still have my dog tag.
I did not feel supported for a second by my country.
I felt more like I was being thrown to the lions and tortured.
Uniform.
Unidead.
post #63 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by jamac
Not by my choice I still have my dog tag.
I did not feel supported for a second by my country.
I felt more like I was being thrown to the lions and tortured.
Uniform.
Unidead.

Simply being a soldier or having been in combat or even being wounded in battle doesn't mean you actually support the troops. Didn't you watch the Republican National Convention?

Edit: you know I'm not serious, right?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #64 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
So you do not agree that:

a) Our intelligence (however wrong) showed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and...
b) Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that SH broke U.N. resolutions and...
c) Both Democrats and Republicans voted to authorize war based on 'a' and 'b' and...
d) Some politicians who voted for the war are now saying there weren't good reasons to go to war.


That's exactly it. Those who attempt to counter your argument rely on the myth that somehow the White House had some sort of super secret intelligence which they did not show to Congress. Of course, this super secret intelligence showed that Saddam did not have WMD! There is no basis for this assertion in fact, but they'll keep repeating it anyway, attacking all who oppose them as war mongers and blind Bush partisans.

I'd add some facts to your list, such as

a) 1. Ever major intelliegence agency on the planet came to the same conclusion the United States did.

b) There is absolutely no evidence that intelligence was manipulated by the administration or that the intelligence community was pressured by the administration to deliver a certain result.

c) Bush was told by George Tenet that making the case that Saddam had WMD was a "slam dunk".

Under these circumstances, I have to wonder if ANY President would have chosen not to go to war.

As for Bush and Cheney's comments:

I really don't see the problem with the points they made:

1) The very same members of Congress who unequivocally stated the Saddam was a threat (as late as 2003) are now calling Bush a liar.

---Their excuse? They were "misled", as if they were a bunch of poor defenseless sheep.

2) Constant and purely political attacks on the Commander-in-Chief and the Administration have emboldened terrorists in Iraq and around the globe. They now feel they can sway American public opinion and thereby attain victory.

---We've found written evidence that that Al-Queda believes this.

3) Bush accepted criticism of the war's prosecution and defended the right to engage in it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #65 of 191
Whatever happened to leading by example, SDW? Let us be a beacon of peace and freedom by restricting speech because we're at war!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #66 of 191
This Big, official document and stuff includes the phrase "did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #67 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
This Big, official document and stuff includes the phrase "did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments."

edit:

Quote:
Constant and purely political attacks on the Commander-in-Chief and the Administration have emboldened terrorists in Iraq and around the globe. They now feel they can sway American public opinion and thereby attain victory.

I suppose then that the Republicans' unrelenting attacks on Clinton led directly to Tim McVeigh, then. Makes sense.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #68 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
So you do not agree that:

a) Our intelligence (however wrong) showed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and...
b) Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that SH broke U.N. resolutions and...
c) Both Democrats and Republicans voted to authorize war based on 'a' and 'b' and...
d) Some politicians who voted for the war are now saying there weren't good reasons to go to war.

We've already been over this in triplicate in multiple threads. It's clear there wasn't enough evidence to support Bush's conclusions. The senators on both sides went along with him because you want to believe your leader has good evidence and reasons for doing what he does. It's clear now he didn't ( Although myself and many others could have told you that at the time ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #69 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
We've already been over this in triplicate in multiple threads. It's clear there wasn't enough evidence to support Bush's conclusions. The senators on both sides went along with him because you want to believe your leader has good evidence and reasons for doing what he does. It's clear now he didn't ( Although myself and many others could have told you that at the time ).

Jimmac you are correct that people probably did nt want to go against Bush and wanted to believe the best of their leader at that stage. However the part that is just wrong and purely political about this is just what you stated above. That Bush alone looked at the data, arrived at the conclusions and then asked members of both parties to support his conclusion.

The reality is that the information was made available to all who voted to draw their own conclusions. The reason almost everyone came to the same conclusion is that everyone received the same flawed data. The fact that the Clinton administration also came to the same conclusions with this data is just more proof of this. Even if Bush looked at the data, saw it through his own "I hate Saddam and he has to go to redeem Daddy" viewpoint, everyone else was still allowed to view the data, come to their unbiased conclusion, and vote to support what they believe was right.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #70 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The reality is that the information was made available to all who voted to draw their own conclusions.

Thats not the question.



If you did not have the label would you know what you were looking at? Without the label its just a tube of some metal. I would think it is a tube used in the production of beer, since I have seen them at Carlsberg, when my father worked there.

Its the person who have the label that is creating reality for us. So no. As long as the Bush administration hire and fire the people that interpret the findings they don´t have access to the same information.

The aluminum tubes and sattellite pictures can be taken as honest mistakes, even if they were refuted pretty quickly (Aluminum tubes as not suitable for the claimed use, some sattelite pictures as pictures from Kurd controlled areas). But the yellow cake and 911 connection is just too clearly false to be a mistakes. Its not just passive acceptance, the false interpretations in those cases take ingenuity. Its not proven that the administration falsified the info but the indiciums(sp?) are overwhelming.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #71 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The reality is that the information was made available to all who voted to draw their own conclusions.

Substitute "Administration talking point" for "reality" (a common mistake, huh?) and you'll have it exactly right.

Unless you can point out where "all who voted" had access to Presidential Daily Briefings, and raw intelligence instead of just the *conclusions* drawn from the raw intelligence, you're just carrying water yet again.

I'm sure that gets harder all the time, though, as the bucket's getting pretty leaky.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #72 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Thats not the question.



If you did not have the label would you know what you were looking at? Without the label its just a tube of some metal. I would think it is a tube used in the production of beer, since I have seen them at Carlsberg, when my father worked there.

Its the person who have the label that is creating reality for us. So no. As long as the Bush administration hire and fire the people that interpret the findings they don´t have access to the same information.

The aluminum tubes and sattellite pictures can be taken as honest mistakes, even if they were refuted pretty quickly (Aluminum tubes as not suitable for the claimed use, some sattelite pictures as pictures from Kurd controlled areas). But the yellow cake and 911 connection is just too clearly false to be a mistakes. Its not just passive acceptance, the false interpretations in those cases take ingenuity. Its not proven that the administration falsified the info but the indiciums(sp?) are overwhelming.

But the reality is that Bush did not hire and fire a bunch of people in the CIA when he came to power.

Also if what you claim is true, then it should be very easy to show how the prior administration came to a different conclusion. It should be very easy to show how say Clinton used the data to draw one conclusion and how Bush "cooked" it to draw another. Instead they both had the same conclusions and just acted differently on them. Actually it isn't even acting differently. Clinton certainly ordered attacks on Iraq. He just didn't remove Saddam from power.

Clinton explanation for strikes

You show me how the conclusions in that speech are any different from what Bush has stated. Nothing has changed about the conclusions or even the language. The only thing that has changed is who is speaking them.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #73 of 191
You know that the intelligence situation in 1998 was very different than that in March 03, so why do you people keep repeating that flagrant falsehood?
post #74 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
You know that the intelligence situation in 1998 was very different than that in March 03, so why do you people keep repeating that flagrant falsehood?

You are welcome to explain what we all "know."

Shouldn't you do more reasoning than "I think you're a liar" repeated over and over?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #75 of 191
Well, they didn't use the same "data," so, once again, a statement of yours is false. Whether you knowingly lied or just don't know what you are talking about is open to interpretation. The apparent intelligence in some of your posts suggests the former.
post #76 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
But the reality is that Bush did not hire and fire a bunch of people in the CIA when he came to power.

No but alone the ability to do so together with the extreme willingness to find reasons to attack Iraq in the top of the administration (shown by the eagerness to use 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq from the first hour after the attack) is enough to sent the right signal. And it still can´t explain away the fact about the yellow cake situation that was known at the top while Powell was making his speech.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Also if what you claim is true, then it should be very easy to show how the prior administration came to a different conclusion. It should be very easy to show how say Clinton used the data to draw one conclusion and how Bush "cooked" it to draw another. Instead they both had the same conclusions and just acted differently on them. Actually it isn't even acting differently. Clinton certainly ordered attacks on Iraq. He just didn't remove Saddam from power.

Clinton explanation for strikes

You show me how the conclusions in that speech are any different from what Bush has stated. Nothing has changed about the conclusions or even the language. The only thing that has changed is who is speaking them.

Nick

I am not going to defend Clintons Iraq policy in any way. I just want to point out three variables

1) The difference between the seriousness of throwing a couple of missiles at a country and invading it.

2) What triggered Clintons attack was Saddams unwillingness to coorporate witht the UN weapon inspectors. The same team (but different persons) concluded that he did not have WoMDs before the war (but okay, that was that pussy Blix so that doesn´t count).

3) The Bush administration knew they had to present more specific proffs for a war against Iraq than Clinton had. Thats why Powell had to go to the UN and make a case. But all that "extra" quickly showed to be laughable wrong.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #77 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Well, they didn't use the same "data," so, once again, a statement of yours is false. Whether you knowingly lied or just don't know what you are talking about is open to interpretation. The apparent intelligence in some of your posts suggests the former.

And once again instead of actually pointing to something, adding something, or explaining something you have decided to resort to "well you are a STUPID liar."

I always find it interesting why such things are not considered personal attacks. Perhaps people have just gotten used to your "reasoning" and expect nothing better from you.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #78 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
There is something very wrong with how a lot of the active left-winged here argue. If you disagree just 10% or suggest an alternative reading which is not the most negative Bush reading then you are wrong or a Cheney admirer.

There is something "very wrong" with your premise that everyone that is not a supporter of Bush or the Cheney administration is an "active left winger". Did it ever occur to you that maybe we´re simply just not that far to the right? Or that maybe, we´re simply to the left of the wingers? Ever heard of moderates and independents? Been talking to Naples lately or something? jk
Quote:
Its just as bad as the shifting WoMD/reason for the Iraq war explanation by the other side...

Not even close. Are you serious? By the way, try explanationS and reasons.
post #79 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
And once again instead of actually pointing to something, adding something, or explaining something you have decided to resort to "well you are a STUPID liar."

Well, that's not true either, considering I have probably 3000 posts spanning 4 years here on exactly that subject.

But, really, trumpt. Your statement is so obviously false the fact that you stand behind it reinforces what I just said. The biggest question isn't what 'data' was different, but what, if any, was the same. From unmovic, feith's office, the NIE, powell's presentation, the torrent of INC 'revelations,' etc, etc, etc the fact that you'd say the "data" was the same is a complete and utter joke.

I don't know what you get out of making flagrantly false statements and then attacking people who respond, but if that's your hobby, so be it.
post #80 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Substitute "Administration talking point" for "reality" (a common mistake, huh?) and you'll have it exactly right.

Unless you can point out where "all who voted" had access to Presidential Daily Briefings, and raw intelligence instead of just the *conclusions* drawn from the raw intelligence, you're just carrying water yet again.

He can´t point that out because it simply didn´t happen that way. I have to admit the "they all had access to the same intelligence the President had" BS line has been quite effective as this thread proves.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CHENEY: Criticize me and you don't support the troops